Daniel Vorcaro’s defense requested the opening of an investigation at the Federal Supreme Court (STF) to investigate the leak of messages that would have been exchanged between the banker and minister Alexandre de Moraes.
The third phase of Operation Compliance Zero recovered WhatsApp messages sent by Vorcaro with and on . Among them, according to the investigation, would be a conversation on November 17, the date on which the banker was arrested for the first time, which would involve minister Alexandre de Moraes.
The investigation indicates that the conversations would have taken place between 7:19 am and 8:48 pm, shortly before the arrest, which took place at 10 pm. To maintain secrecy, both Vorcaro and Moraes would have written texts on their notepads, taken screenshots and sent the images with the single view feature. For this reason, the minister’s supposed responses are not available, but Vorcaro’s notes remained accessible in the device’s history.
In the messages, Vorcaro claimed to be accountable to the minister about the negotiations for the sale of Banco Master and reported that he had brought forward the closing of the deal with the Fictor group to try to save the institution. He also mentions that a possible leak of information would be “terrible”, but could serve as a hook to formally join the process. In excerpts attributed to the banker, he asks the judge twice whether there was anything new and even asks directly: “Were you able to block it?”
In a statement, Daniel Vorcaro’s lawyers state that “several messages supposedly extracted from these devices have been published by media outlets in recent days, even without the defense itself having access to the content of the material. Intimate, personal conversations that expose third parties not involved with the facts, in addition to alleged dialogues with authorities and even Minister Alexandre de Moraes, perhaps edited and taken out of context, have been released to the most diverse media bodies.”
“Given the seriousness of the situation, the defense requested that an investigation be opened to identify the origin of the leaks and that the police authority present a list of all the people who had access to the contents of the seized devices”, says another excerpt.
Continues after advertising
The defense also emphasizes that it does not intend to investigate journalists or third parties who have received the material, but rather to determine who, “having a legal duty to guard the confidential material”, may have violated this duty.
The press is protected by the right to source confidentiality. Even if the journalist receives confidential material, he cannot be held responsible for the disclosure, as long as the publication meets criteria such as public interest.
