In Compliance Zero—the operation where the Banco Master’s owner made his debut behind bars—Mansur was also subjected to search and seizure. Investigators suspect that Master attributes its assets to shares in Reag-managed funds that, under what critics describe as weak oversight by Brazil’s securities regulator (CVM), conceal assets and values.

This Master-Reag, Vorcaro-Mansur connection—now unified under a single legal strategy—is far from a minor development in the ongoing investigation. Pierpaolo Bottini, Vorcaro’s former lawyer, has entered plea agreements but is best known for representing individuals targeted by major anti-corruption probes since the Car Wash investigation era.

The arrival of José Luis de Oliveira Lima—known as Juca—indicates that Vorcaro and Mansur will act together. If there are plea deals, they probably won’t target each other specifically, but rather the broader system—politicians, judges, regulators, and financial players.

It remains unclear where businessman Nelson Tanure will position himself. He is represented by another lawyer, Pablo Testoni, and was also the target of a search and seizure in Compliance Zero. Federal police suspect he is the hidden controlling shareholder of Master, and federal prosecutors have charged him with financing R$700 million in capital injections into the bank.

Even if Tanure’s role remains unclear, it is becoming more likely that the operators at the center of the scheme will collaborate against a fragmented institutional landscape. At the Supreme Court, where there are signs that at least two justices acted defensively in Vorcaro’s favor, the latest step has been to bring in the team captain.

Justice Gilmar Mendes’s delay in ruling on Vorcaro’s arrest, at a moment when the outcome already seems decided, is widely seen as a deliberate signal. A clearer message, however, came when he moved to suspend a virtual session and bring to the full bench a case involving a preliminary injunction by Justice Flávio Dino. The injunction had stopped a congressional inquiry’s attempt to access the tax and banking records of Fábio Luís Lula da Silva, the president’s son.

By bringing the case to the physical plenary, Mendes seems to be testing whether his colleagues are willing to involve President Lula in a broader institutional confrontation. A view gaining support within the court suggests that if Lula did not obstruct the Master investigation because he has no connection to its alleged wrongdoing, then the principle of “each to his own” should apply universally—including to his son.

Known as “Lulinha,” or little Lula, he came under scrutiny in the investigation due to his connections with Brasília lobbyist Roberta Luchsinger. Deals she pursued with Antonio Camilo Antunes—the so-called “bald man of the INSS”—did not come to fruition. Still, questions remain about how the president’s son earns a living in Spain and whether his ties to Luchsinger go beyond unsuccessful business ventures. Lula has said he “would not vouch” for his son, though he is closely monitoring the case.

The president has voiced frustration over his approval ratings declining due to a scandal involving the financial system, Congress, and the courts. Last week, he tried to change the story by revoking the visa of a lower-level official from the Donald Trump administration, who had made up an agenda to justify a visit to former President Jair Bolsonaro. The move targeted about one-third of “independent” voters who, according to Genial/Quaest, mostly oppose Trump.

Beyond the rhetoric of sovereignty, Lula is also trying to revive a narrative focused on defending democracy. Attacks against Senator Flávio Bolsonaro are likely to follow this theme. An interview in which the former president’s son suggested that a solution to tensions with the Supreme Court might have to come from outside constitutional limits has already been shared by influencers close to both the presidential palace and the court.

If Mendes is turning the court’s plenary into a stage for signaling to the executive branch, the unity of the justices themselves remains uncertain. They cannot present a united front toward the executive if they remain deeply divided internally.

Casual political gatherings over the weekend in Brasília indicated that speculation about the possible retirements of justices Dias Toffoli and Alexandre de Moraes remains just that—speculation. For now, they seem confident that a Senate led by Davi Alcolumbre would not push forward with impeachment proceedings.

On Monday, Dino sent a separate message to the National Council of Justice (CNJ), chaired by Justice Edson Fachin. As the rapporteur in the appeal of a judge removed from office by the Rio de Janeiro court and the CNJ, Dino ruled that compulsory retirement can no longer be regarded as a disciplinary penalty.