A web of financial transactions and an unusual sequence of events have brought Justice Dias Toffoli of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) under intense scrutiny, particularly regarding his involvement in the high-profile “Master Case.” The situation escalated significantly in November 2025 when the justice reportedly used a private jet for a trip to the Libertadores da América final, an aircraft later identified as belonging to an attorney for Banco Master. This very institution subsequently became the subject of a legal dispute that, by sheer coincidence through an STF drawing, landed directly on Toffoli’s desk as the rapporteur.
Upon assuming the Master Case, Justice Toffoli promptly imposed absolute secrecy on the proceedings, a move that immediately drew attention from legal observers. His subsequent actions further raised eyebrows, including a decision to convene a rare face-to-face hearing (acareação) involving the key figures: Daniel Vorcaro, owner of Banco Master, and Paulo Henrique Costa, the former president of BRB, a bank that had previously attempted to acquire Master. In a notable departure from standard procedure, Toffoli also included a director from the Central Bank in these depositions, treating the representative of the regulatory authority as an investigated party.
The depositions unfolded on December 30, 2025, during a period when Justice Toffoli was reportedly staying at the Tayayá resort. This resort has since become central to the controversy, following revelations of a multi-million-dollar financial operation involving Maridt S.A., a company confirmed by Toffoli himself to be owned by his family and him.
Financial ties emerge from complex transactions
Investigations into the Tayayá resort deal unearthed a complex financial trail. Payments to the justice for the resort’s sale originated from the Arleen Fund, whose sole quota holder was identified as the Leal Fund. Further layers of this financial structure revealed that the Leal Fund, in turn, listed Fabiano Zettel, who is Daniel Vorcaro’s brother-in-law and the owner of Banco Master, as its exclusive quota holder. Both the Arleen and Leal Funds were managed by REAG, a company that has since been liquidated by the Central Bank and is currently implicated in two significant operations, “Carbono Oculto” and “Compliance Zero,” adding another layer of complexity to the unfolding scandal.
These intricate financial connections suggest a deep and potentially problematic relationship between the justice and key players in the case he was assigned to oversee. The discovery of these links has intensified calls for transparency and accountability within the judicial system, particularly concerning high-ranking officials.
Unconventional judicial measures raise questions
During his tenure as rapporteur for the Master Case, Justice Toffoli implemented several measures that were widely characterized as unconventional and outside typical judicial protocol. Notably, he requested personal custody of the case’s evidence, a move that prompted considerable debate within legal circles. He also sought to personally determine which Federal Police (PF) experts would be granted access to the sensitive materials of the investigation, challenging established procedures designed to ensure impartiality.
Initially, the justice pushed for the transfer of all collected evidence to the STF, a proposal that met strong resistance from the Federal Police. The PF argued that such a transfer would be unfeasible, citing logistical and investigative complexities. Although Toffoli eventually rescinded this specific demand, he maintained his insistence on personally appointing the experts who would ultimately be privy to the critical evidence, raising further questions about his intent and the integrity of the investigation.
Messages reveal direct communication, deepen scrutiny
A recent report from the Federal Police has unveiled compelling new evidence, detailing the contents of messages discovered on Daniel Vorcaro’s mobile phone. These communications explicitly reveal a direct connection between Justice Toffoli and the Banco Master owner, lending significant weight to the allegations of conflict of interest. The discovery has escalated public and legal scrutiny surrounding the justice’s involvement in the case, suggesting a proximity that goes beyond professional interaction.
Compounding the controversy, in February 2026, during a plenary session of the STF, Toffoli made a seemingly out-of-context intervention where he vocally defended the right of magistrates to receive dividends from companies in which they hold partnership stakes. This comment, which at the time appeared generic, has now acquired new and pointed significance in light of the recently revealed messages, drawing a direct line between his public defense and his private financial entanglements.
Toffoli presses on despite conflict claims
Despite the mounting evidence and growing public concern over potential conflicts of interest, Justice Toffoli has signaled his unwavering intention to maintain his position as rapporteur for the Master Case. In a move described by some as “doubling down,” he has formally requested additional evidence related to the case. This steadfast refusal to recuse himself, even in the face of direct communication links and intricate financial connections, underscores a determination to see the proceedings through under his leadership.
The justice’s continued involvement and his proactive demands for more investigative materials highlight a contentious period for the STF, bringing into sharp focus the ethical boundaries and transparency expected from the highest echelons of the judiciary. The unfolding developments promise to keep the Master Case at the forefront of public and legal discourse, with implications for judicial integrity and public trust.
The intricate web of relationships, from private jet travel and resort ownership to direct communications and family financial ties, paints a complex picture. These elements converge around a powerful judicial figure, creating a narrative that demands continued vigilance and impartial oversight. As the case progresses, the public awaits further clarity on the interplay between personal interests and judicial duty.
