World

Daniel Vorcaro testifies before the Supreme Court without Federal Police present

Daniel Vorcaro's testimony at the Supreme Court was at the defense's request and occurred without Federal Police involvement, revealing intimidation faced by the banker.

3 September 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: Daniel Vorcaro testifies before the Supreme Court without Federal Police present — Archive photoPhoto: O Tribunal da Democracia · Flickr · PDM

The office of Minister André Mendonça of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) confirmed that Daniel Vorcaro testified urgently last week. This testimony took place before an auxiliary judge overseeing the case, at the request of Vorcaro's lawyers. According to information from the office, the witness reported experiencing severe intimidation and requested that his testimony be heard urgently.

The absence of the Federal Police (PF) during the hearing was emphasized. Mendonça's office indicated that Vorcaro's safety was among the reasons for this decision.

Additionally, Vorcaro reportedly mentioned during his testimony the intention to implicate members of Lula's government, which could have implications for the ongoing investigation. This aspect was reported by sources who stated that the banker was trying to gain support from Mendonça in his attempt at a plea deal.

The testimony took place amid growing tension surrounding the Master case, with STF President Edson Fachin stressing that the facts revealed require 'firmness and serenity.' Fachin, who did not participate in the testimony, made his statements following procedural actions related to the case.

According to some reports, the hearing included the presence of the Public Prosecutor's Office (MP), although the participation of the Federal Police was not confirmed.

Overall, Vorcaro's situation in the case and his allegations raise questions about the interactions between the judiciary and political figures, without a definitive clarification on the direction the case will take.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.