A CPI (Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry) of Organized Crime approved this Wednesday (18) a request to summon the ex-fiancée of Daniel Vorcaroowner of Banco Master, the businesswoman and influencer, Martha Graeff.
The request, made by the rapporteur (MDB-SE), defended the summoning of the influencer as a witness “because she was identified, according to the information collected in , as a frequent interlocutor and recipient of reports made by Daniel Vorcaro throughout the relevant period of the investigations”.
For Vieira, Martha mentioning a meeting with “Alexandre Moraes” raises “questions”. The dialogues do not make it clear whether it was STF minister Alexandre de Moraes. At the time, the CNN He sought out the minister’s office to comment on the case, but has not received a response so far.
“The informal nature of the meeting — described during a holiday, in the neighborhood of the banker’s residence — raises questions that can only be clarified through testimony: was it a visit of a social nature? Was there an institutional agenda involved? Martha Graeff received this report in real time and can contribute decisively to the reconstruction of the context in which it was made”, he pointed out in the request.
A CNN contacted Martha this Wednesday (18). The space is open.
The note was released by his lawyer, Lucio de Constantino, who responded to the information that the PF was investigating whether he had transferred his assets to her with the aim of shielding him.
“Ms. Martha does not own properties, automobiles or deposits of values arising from her relationship with Mr. Daniel Vorcaro. She is also not aware of the existence of any Trust involving her, whether in the United States or in any other country”, he states.
The lawyer also said in the note that Graeff has “an internationally recognized career, Ms. Martha works in the United States, where she has lived for almost 20 years” and that “she fully declares her assets in her tax return (equivalent to Income Tax in Brazil), a record that clearly demonstrates that there was no increase in assets as a result of this relationship”.
Updating.
