Toffoli considers splitting the Banco Master case and keeping suspicions about politicians with special jurisdiction in the Supreme Court.

247 - Supreme Court Justice Dias Toffoli has signaled to interlocutors that the most likely course of action for the investigation into the so-called Banco Master case is its division: part of the investigations would return to the first instance court, but the sections involving authorities with special jurisdiction would remain under analysis in the higher courts.

The information was revealed by Valor Econômicowhich also confirms that documents and materials seized by the Federal Police (PF) in Operation Compliance Zero make mention of party leaders and other authorities, broadening the political scope of the case and reinforcing the tendency for the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to maintain at least one core of the investigation.

What is at stake in the splitting of the case?

In practice, the separation of cases usually involves different types of conduct and those under investigation according to legal jurisdiction. Cases that do not involve authorities with special jurisdiction tend to go down to the first instance court. Cases involving parliamentarians and other authorities with special jurisdiction may remain in the Supreme Federal Court (STF), or, in the case of governors, go to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), which is responsible for processing and judging heads of state executive branches.

In this context, one of the points mentioned in the seized material involves Congressman João Carlos Bacelar (PL-BA), mentioned in a document found by the Federal Police — a circumstance that contributed to the case being sent to the Supreme Court, even though he is not formally under investigation, according to published information.

There is also a reference to the governor of the Federal District, Ibaneis Rocha (MDB), cited by Daniel Vorcaro in his testimony to the Federal Police, according to reports. Because he is the head of a state executive branch, this part of the case may remain in the Supreme Federal Court (STF) or be sent to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), depending on the legal framework and the actual scope of the separation of cases.

Operation Compliance Zero and the financial aspect of the investigation.

Operation Compliance Zero investigates suspected financial fraud and crimes such as fraudulent management, market manipulation, criminal organization, and money laundering, in a context involving Banco Master and the attempted sale of the institution to Banco Regional de Brasília (BRB). CNN Brasil reported that, in a recent phase of the operation, the Supreme Federal Court (STF) authorized measures to seize and block assets and funds exceeding R$ 5,7 billion, in addition to search and seizure warrants in different states. 

The most sensitive aspect for potential referral to the first instance court, according to the published investigation, is the one dealing with the issuance of credit portfolios and unsecured securities — a core area with strong technical and financial content, but which could be separated from suspicions involving authorities with special jurisdiction, should these be addressed in a separate block.

Toffoli extended the investigation for 60 days on January 16, in an effort to ensure that the Federal Police conclude the investigation within the deadline, especially regarding the alleged attempted sale to BRB, as reported in the news report.

Secrecy, custody of evidence, and institutional unease.

Toffoli's handling of the case became the target of criticism and pressure, with arguments that decisions considered "atypical" would raise the level of tension between institutions. One of the episodes that accentuated the unease was the discussion about the custody and treatment of the seized material.

On January 14, Toffoli ordered that the goods and materials collected in the operation be sealed and stored at the STF headquarters itself, a measure described as unusual. SBT News recorded the excerpt from the decision: “I order that all goods and materials seized (…) must be sealed and stored directly at the headquarters of the Supreme Federal Court, until further notice.” 

The following day, the controversy took a new turn: Correio Braziliense reported that Toffoli authorized the Attorney General's Office (PGR) to extract and analyze the seized material, following requests and statements from Attorney General Paulo Gonet and the Director-General of the Federal Police, Andrei Rodrigues, in a dispute over the risk of delays and who should conduct the forensic examination. 

The same report recorded the minister's justification for accepting the referral to the Attorney General's Office, indicating that the measure would allow the prosecuting body a "systemic view" of the crimes under investigation, according to the news article. 

Fachin enters the scene and defends Toffoli and the Supreme Court.

Faced with an environment of public pressure and attacks, the president of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), Minister Luiz Edson Fachin, released an official statement on January 22nd to defend the court's actions and specifically mention Toffoli as the rapporteur for the inquiry. According to Agência Brasil, Fachin maintained that the Court acts within its "regular judicial supervision" and affirmed that the STF does not bow to threats or intimidation, also highlighting the role of the Central Bank, the Federal Police, and the Public Prosecutor's Office in crises impacting the financial system. 

Fachin's intervention makes it clear that the Banco Master case has gone beyond the strictly criminal field and has begun to produce an open institutional conflict — a scenario that makes the debate about jurisdiction (STF, STJ and first instance) even more politicized.

Toffoli's statement and the escalation of questioning.

In a statement released this week, Toffoli affirmed that his actions in the case are "regular" and declared: "In all areas, the investigations continue to be carried out normally and regularly, without prejudice to the ascertainment of the facts, maintaining the necessary confidentiality due to the ongoing investigations."

Despite this, the case remaining in the Supreme Court and the possibility of a selective splitting of cases are interpreted, both inside and outside the justice system, as part of an attempt to reduce the exposure of the Supreme Court and the rapporteur. At the same time, maintaining the core group with jurisdiction in the court effectively preserves control of a portion of the investigation at the top of the judiciary—precisely the most sensitive segment, as it involves the political system.

What might happen next

In the next steps, the outcome depends on how Toffoli will frame the jurisdiction at the end of the investigations and how the Supreme Court, the Attorney General's Office, and the Federal Police will accommodate the flow of evidence and testimonies. If the case is divided, three paths are likely to emerge:

•  First instanceStrictly financial investigations, such as the issuance of unsecured credits, are prohibited unless there is a direct connection to authorities with jurisdiction.
•  STF: groups involving parliamentarians and other federal authorities with prerogative.
•  STJ: sections that affect governors, depending on the final analysis.

The central point, however, is political and institutional: the way the case is assigned could reinforce—or reduce—the Brazilian pattern of selectivity and disputes over procedural control in sensitive investigations. In a country marked by distortions and instrumental uses of the justice system, society has the right to demand transparency, due process, and objective criteria—to prevent special jurisdiction from becoming a shield of impunity or a shortcut for power struggles.