When a Supreme Court justice annuls a Senate investigation into a company owned by a fellow justice — using a procedural path that legal experts call unprecedented — the question of who watches the watchmen becomes unavoidable. That is exactly what happened in Brasília last week.
The Toffoli-Master Connection
Justice Dias Toffoli has acknowledged he is a partner in Maridt Participações, which owned stakes in the Tayayá luxury resort in Paraná. In 2021, Maridt sold part of its stake to a fund controlled by Fabiano Zettel, brother-in-law of Daniel Vorcaro, owner of the now-liquidated Banco Master. Police found messages on Vorcaro’s phone mentioning Toffoli and documented at least ten meetings between them.
Toffoli was assigned as judge over the Master fraud case in November 2025, imposed secrecy, and conducted hearings while staying at the resort. He stepped down on February 12 after police findings reached the STF president.
The Senate Acts, the Court Responds
On February 25, the Senate’s Organized Crime Committee voted to access Maridt’s banking, tax, phone, and digital records from 2022 to 2026. It also summoned Toffoli’s brothers and invited Toffoli himself. The same session approved identical requests for Banco Master and Reag.
Two days later, Justice Gilmar Mendes annulled the order. He ruled the committee had exceeded its mandate — investigating gangs and militias — by probing a financial transaction with no proven connection to criminal organizations. He ordered all data already collected to be destroyed.
A Controversial Procedural Path
The ruling’s substance drew debate, but its procedural route drew sharper criticism. Rather than filing a new case subject to random assignment, Maridt’s lawyers filed inside a 2021 lawsuit archived since 2023. Gilmar Mendes unarchived it, ruled, then archived it again.
Federal prosecutor Hélio Telho called this the legal equivalent of choosing your own judge. Senator Alessandro Vieira, the committee’s rapporteur, labeled it “procedural fraud” on national television. Had the case been filed normally, it would likely have gone to Justice André Mendonça, who handles Master-related matters.
Both Sides of the Argument
Gilmar Mendes’ supporters argue the ruling upholds constitutional limits. The committee was created to probe gangs and militias; financial dealings between a justice’s family and a private bank fall outside that mandate regardless of how suspicious they appear.
Critics counter that the committee’s work plan explicitly covers how criminal organizations use financial institutions, and that Banco Master — liquidated amid allegations of billions in fraud — fits that scope. The committee approved identical records requests for Master and Reag, which the court did not block.
The deeper concern is structural: when the court becomes the subject of investigation, it retains power to define that investigation’s boundaries. Senator Mourão said the decision shows justices “consider themselves above the law.” The committee appealed on March 3, asking Gilmar Mendes himself to reverse his ruling — the only option available.
For international observers, the episode signals a judiciary that has expanded its powers clashing with a legislature seeking to reassert oversight. The outcome will test whether any branch can meaningfully investigate Brazil’s highest court.