Brazil’s supreme court defends judicial police operations, cites threats, as minister’s security expenses draw attention

Brazil’s Supreme Court (STF) recently issued an official statement asserting the legality of its judicial police operations, emphasizing their crucial role in ensuring the autonomy and impartiality of its justices. This clarification came on Friday, following widespread media reports detailing significant expenses for security and transportation services provided to Justice Dias Toffoli in Ribeirão Claro, Paraná. The controversy centers on over R$450,000 in per diems paid to public servants for security support, especially given the justice’s presence at a resort with prior familial and financial ties. The STF maintains these actions are vital for protecting justices from frequent threats and guaranteeing their public duties without interference.

Unpacking the controversy over security expenditures

The recent STF statement was directly prompted by revelations that the judiciary allocated approximately R$450,000 (around $90,000 USD) in per diems. These funds were designated for judicial staff providing security and transportation assistance to Justice Dias Toffoli during his stays in Ribeirão Claro, Paraná. The timing of this disclosure, just a day prior to the Supreme Court’s defense, placed significant public focus on the nature and necessity of such expenditures.

Information regarding these security services, provided to the justice while he was at the Tayayá Resort, became publicly accessible through the transparency panel of the TRT-2. This panel detailed the deployment of 25 judicial servants, whose roles included direct support in ensuring the security and logistical needs of the justice. The disclosure highlighted the extent of resources dedicated to the personal protection of high-ranking judicial officials.

A detailed analysis covering multiple months in 2025 revealed that support was rendered on 16 separate occasions, accumulating nearly 600 per diems in total. The month of July 2025 alone accounted for the most significant activity, with 28 days of official travel and accommodation related to these security provisions. This sustained deployment has fueled public debate over the costs and perceived appropriateness of such arrangements.

The Tayayá Resort, located in Ribeirão Claro, Paraná, adds another layer of complexity to the narrative. It has historical ties to Justice Toffoli’s family, having previously been owned by his brothers and a cousin. Furthermore, the resort’s financial history involves a transaction with the brother-in-law of the owner of Banco Master, a bank that has recently been at the center of separate investigations and public scrutiny.

Supreme Court affirms legality and purpose of judicial police

In its official release, the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that the actions of its judicial police adhere strictly to legal frameworks and established protocols. The primary objective articulated by the STF is to safeguard the autonomy and impartiality of its justices, enabling them to execute their constitutional duties free from undue pressure or external influence. This assertion seeks to validate the operational mandates of the security force.

The statement further clarified that the judicial police force operates continuously to ensure the safety of magistrates and maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings. This constant vigilance is deemed necessary to prevent any actions that could compromise the ability of justices to perform their public service impartially. The court’s stance underscores its commitment to robust internal security measures.

Protecting magistrates from recurrent threats

Ministers of the STF are frequent targets of various threats, as highlighted by the Supreme Court’s official statement. These threats materialize through numerous channels, including malicious emails, hostile social media publications, and direct attempts to invade the court’s premises. The seriousness of this environment is underscored by historical events such as the extensive attacks on government buildings on January 8, 2023, and a bomb attack that occurred on November 13, 2025. Additionally, ongoing federal police investigations have uncovered concrete plans against judicial authorities, further emphasizing the persistent and credible dangers faced by the justices. Against this backdrop, the STF asserts that its Judicial Police Secretariat operates within applicable legal precepts to ensure conditions that enable the full and independent exercise of constitutional functions by its members.

Details of Justice Toffoli’s security deployment

Public records from the TRT-2 transparency panel confirmed the extent of the security services provided to Justice Toffoli while he was situated at the Tayayá Resort. These records explicitly detail the names of 25 judicial employees who were engaged in offering security and transportation assistance throughout the period in question. The publicly available data sheds light on the scale of personnel involved in these protective duties.

Analysis conducted by a national news organization meticulously documented the provision of support on 16 distinct occasions, leading to the accumulation of nearly 600 per diems over the specified timeframe. The month of July 2025 recorded the highest level of activity, encompassing 28 days of continuous deployment. This consistent allocation of resources underscores the significant operational commitment to the justice’s security.

Tayayá Resort’s ties and investment complexities

The Tayayá Resort’s ownership history reveals a direct connection to Justice Toffoli’s family, as public data from the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service indicates. The Maridt Participações S.A., a company previously among the resort’s partners, is owned by Igor Luiz Pires Toffoli and José Eugênio Dias Toffoli, both brothers of the Supreme Court justice. These familial links have become a focal point of the broader discussion surrounding the security expenses.

Further complicating the resort’s profile is a substantial investment of R$4.3 million (approximately $860,000 USD) from an investment fund. This capital injection was directed towards acquiring shares in the Tayayá Resort, introducing external financial entities into its ownership structure. The investment highlights the resort’s entanglement within a network of financial transactions and diverse stakeholders.

Moreover, the resort has been implicated in a transaction involving the brother-in-law of the owner of Banco Master, further drawing scrutiny to its operations. This connection surfaces as Banco Master itself faces investigations, adding a layer of financial and legal complexity to the context of Justice Toffoli’s security arrangements at the venue.

Fund’s role and broader financial links

The R$4.3 million investment into the Tayayá Resort was channeled through the Arleen Fundo de Investimento em Participações Multiestratégia, according to records from the CVM (Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission) dating to October 2025. This fund acts as a critical intermediary in the financial restructuring of the resort.

The Arleen fund is managed by Reag, a company that has been mentioned in “Operation Carbono Oculto” due to suspicions of involvement in a money laundering scheme for a powerful organized crime group. Reag reportedly invested R$16.3 million in DGEP Empreendimentos, a firm that once listed Mario Umberto Degani, a cousin of Justice Toffoli, among its partners. These connections underscore a complex web of financial relationships extending beyond the immediate resort ownership.

Lack of immediate comment and ongoing scrutiny

Despite the escalating public interest and detailed media inquiries, several key entities involved in the controversy have refrained from offering immediate comments. Reag, the asset management firm central to the investment funds, explicitly stated it would not address the ongoing case, maintaining a position of silence.

Similar efforts to solicit responses from Justice Dias Toffoli’s office, the Tayayá Resort, DGEP Empreendimentos, and other mentioned parties yielded no feedback by the time of the initial reports. This lack of public clarification has intensified scrutiny, leaving many questions unanswered regarding the financial arrangements and security provisions.