Decano stated that arrests and precautionary measures can pressure those being investigated to report; rapporteur said he does not arrest to obtain collaboration
Ministers Gilmar Mendes and André Mendonça clashed this Tuesday (June 16, 2026), during the trial of the 2nd Panel of the (Supreme Federal Court) that maintained the arrest of Henrique Vorcaro, father of banker Daniel Vorcaro, by 3 votes to 1.
The discussion occurred after Gilmar criticized the arrest of Henrique Vorcaro and others investigated in Operation Compliance Zero. The minister compared the case’s procedures to Lava Jato practices, in the sense that arrests could be used to force denunciations.
Mendonça, rapporteur of the case at the STF, countered and said that the trial dealt with the specific case, not the Curitiba operation. He stated that the ministers were not judging Lava Jato, but “the biggest financial fraud in history” from Brazil.
The judge also said that the case “It’s not simply a white collar crime” and cited signs of money laundering, corruption, damage to the financial system and squandering of resources protected by the FGC (Credit Guarantee Fund).
Gilmar’s argument is that Compliance Zero has taken advantage of what he called “files that bear a disturbing resemblance” with Lava Jato. The Dean of the Supreme Court cited as an example leaks of information and exposure of personal data of those being investigated. He also mentioned precautionary measures against family members of potential collaborators as an instrument of “pressure”.
According to the minister, this action – both by the fellow rapporteur and the Federal Police – could compromise the voluntariness of any award-winning collaborations.
“It is not enough for the whistleblower to present useful information. It is essential that the choice to collaborate is the result of genuine self-determination, preserved from undue constraints and circumstances capable of compromising the freedom of one’s will.” he stated.
Mendonça stated that he has no interest in taking the case to a plea bargain, but that he would not admit what he classified as attempts to “discredit” his role as rapporteur and that of the investigators.
“I don’t arrest to get a plea. I wouldn’t allow myself that, I wouldn’t sleep peacefully if I did that”, he declared.
As the discussion progressed, Mendonça reaffirmed that he does not make decisions based on the possibility of obtaining a plea from those being investigated. The minister even reported that a defense lawyer offered him a “selective whistleblowing”, but said he rejected the proposal.
“I don’t care about denouncing. Now, selective betrayal with me is not”, he stated.
Gilmar replied that “everything is very upside down”because as rapporteur, the minister would not have the authority to enter into a plea agreement. Mendonça said that he does not enter into agreements, he only approves them.
