The minister of the (Federal Supreme Court) released for judgment an action that deals with limits for the signing of award-winning collaborations. The agenda request was made on Monday (6).
Any decision on the matter could impact the plea bargain of , owner of , an agreement in which Moraes could be one of those cited.
The rapporteur asked the president of the court, Luiz Edson Fachin, to schedule the trial in an in-person plenary session.
The action was filed in 2021, the year of the minister’s only order in the case. At the time, he requested information from authorities on the subject, and the movements in the process have been solely between the parties since then.
The party asks the Supreme Court to set constitutional parameters for the interpretation of the 2013 law dealing with agreements, to prevent violations, such as forced denunciation and the lack of limits on benefits.
Lawyers cite specific cases of controversial allegations, such as that of former minister Antonio Palocci, former governor Sérgio Cabral and money changer Alberto Youssef.
The action is an ADPF (allegation of non-compliance with a fundamental precept). In this type of action, the court defines guidelines for the issues judged broadly, without focusing on specific cases. Decisions become valid as a general rule.
In relation to Moraes, what his wife’s office, lawyer Viviane Barci, signed with Master to represent the interests of the financial institution in court weighs heavily. The minister also met Vorcaro on the day the businessman was arrested, which he denies.
Documents obtained by Sheet They also point to those made by Moraes and Viviane on executive jets from Vorcaro companies between May and October 2025. The minister’s office stated that he “never traveled on any Vorcaro plane or in his company”.
As shown by Sheetthe STF and the (Attorney General’s Office) expect to face a dilemma if the businessman’s case prospers and affects the ministers and , who had .
Authorities assess that this possibility will represent a challenge for the performance of both the investigation rapporteur, and the Attorney General of the Republic, —both of whom have cordial relations with the aforementioned ministers, Moraes and Dias Toffoli.
Mendonça and Gonet’s interlocutors state, with reservations, that the situation must require both of them to strike a balance between acting prudently, on the one hand, and taking the investigation forward if there is evidence against ministers, on the other.
In the initial stages of negotiations, Vorcaro’s lawyers suggested that Supreme Court ministers not be mentioned in the agreement. The idea was rejected because the whistleblower cannot be given the prerogative to select who to hand over and who to spare.
for the plea bargain to be approved by Mendonça, Vorcaro will have to present new evidence and indicate the possibility of recovering the amounts obtained fraudulently. The terms of the agreement jointly by PGR and .
Mendonça was one of Toffoli’s defenders at the secret meeting held in February between members of the court to debate the report presented by investigators with mention of his colleague. He considered that the facts presented so far were not sufficient to consider the magistrate suspicious.
The episode caused the court to disagree with the PF leadership, as the ministers, including Mendonça, understood that the body not only identified quotes from Toffoli, but went too far and carried out an investigation without supervision from the Supreme Court, which would be irregular.
The mentions of Dias Toffoli and Moraes on Vorcaro’s cell phone, seized by the PF as part of Operation Compliance Zero, are at the center of what the court is currently experiencing. The president of the STF, , continues on how to deal with the intensification of wear and tear.
The messages involving Toffoli point to payments made to the company Maridt, which has the minister among its partners. Maridt, in Paraná, to an investment fund used in Master’s fraud gear. The magistrate says that the transaction was duly declared and .
The court also ruled out any suspicion of the magistrate in handling the case at the meeting held internally and which defined the exchange of reports on the investigation at the Supreme Court.
