By Indianara Goz
Brazilian banker Daniel Vorcaro, owner of Banco Master, has opened a new chapter in the crisis at Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF), the country's highest court. His defense asked the court's president, Edson Fachin, to hand the case's precautionary decisions to the court's dean, Justice Gilmar Mendes. That would include deciding whether to revoke Vorcaro's pretrial detention. He has been in jail for eight months, identified as the leader of a criminal organization tied to a R$ 12.2 billion (Brazilian reais) fraud scheme.
The defense's argument: the "natural judge" principle
Vorcaro's lawyers argue that keeping someone in prison for so long without a trial violates fundamental rights. They also accuse Fachin of disrespecting the principle of the "natural judge", the idea that a case should be decided by the judge assigned to it under pre-set rules. In their view, Fachin broke that principle by taking over the case after Justice André Mendonça was removed as its rapporteur in September.
The court's internal rules have no specific provision for this situation, so the defense proposes a solution by analogy. It would apply the rule that replaces the rapporteur with the most senior justice of the court's panel (Turma) when urgent matters are being reviewed. That path leads to Gilmar Mendes.
According to the defense, the strategy does not stop in Brazil. It also includes a complaint to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Background: a Federal Police report and a tense session
The request comes at a delicate moment for the court. Mendonça's removal followed the release of a report by the Federal Police (PF) pointing to closeness between Vorcaro and Justice Alexandre de Moraes. According to the investigations, the banker allegedly asked Moraes for help in organizing his defense and in intervening with the Prosecutor General. This is what investigators say, not a proven fact.
Moraes reacted by accusing Mendonça of running the investigation with political motives, in order to benefit allies of former President Jair Bolsonaro. The dispute escalated at the plenary session of September 15, when justices traded accusations in front of the country and deepened the court's internal strain.
Why it matters
On one side is a high-profile detainee who, in practice, wants to choose who will assess his freedom. On the other is a divided court, with justices named in a PF report and a public exchange of accusations that remains unresolved.
The decision now rests with Fachin. He must say whether he keeps the case under his own control or accepts the defense's argument and opens the way for Gilmar Mendes. Either answer is likely to prompt new reactions inside and outside the Supreme Court.
VDD Analysis
Whatever the merits of the request, the episode shows the price of a court that has become a character in its own crisis. When rapporteurs change amid crossed suspicions among justices, citizens begin to doubt the impartiality of the decisions. Those who defend freedom and legal certainty should demand clear rules on who judges what, full transparency about the contacts cited in the PF report, and public answers without corporatism.
