The decision came after a meeting of all 11 justices, called by Chief Justice Edson Fachin, who had opened a proceeding questioning Toffoli’s impartiality following the discovery of references to him in the phone of Daniel Vorcaro, the bank’s owner, by the Federal Police.

The matter had already been submitted to the Office of the Attorney General (PGR).

Toffoli’s departure was announced in a statement released after the meeting. The investigations into Banco Master and Vorcaro will now be handled by Justice André Mendonça, chosen through a random draw.

During the meeting, Fachin shared the findings of a report by Federal Police Director Andrei Rodrigues, which included references to Toffoli found in Vorcaro’s phone.

The meeting also addressed Toffoli’s defense. Earlier in the day, he acknowledged being a partner in Maridt, a company that sold part of its stake in the Tayayá resort to a fund connected to Fabiano Zettel, Vorcaro’s brother-in-law.

Under pressure

Valor learned that during the meeting Toffoli argued he should remain in charge of the investigation but decided to step aside after pressure from colleagues. The overall atmosphere was tense. The justice also defended himself over the issues raised in the Federal Police report. Afterward, fellow justices began presenting arguments against his continued oversight.

Once the justices supported replacing the rapporteur as a way to contain criticism of the Court, Toffoli agreed to relinquish control of the investigation. After hearing his colleagues, he no longer “dug in” to remain in charge of the proceedings.

“At the request of Justice Dias Toffoli, taking into account his prerogative to submit matters to the court’s president to ensure the proper handling of proceedings, and in view of the high institutional interests at stake, the Supreme Court presidency, after hearing all justices, accepts his communication to transfer the cases under his rapporteurship so they may be freely reassigned,” said the statement signed by all ten other justices, including Toffoli himself.

The justices unanimously agreed there were no grounds to proceed with the motion questioning Toffoli’s impartiality. The statement also said the court recognized “the full validity of the actions” taken by Toffoli in the case and expressed their “personal support” for him.

Before stepping away from the case, Toffoli took a measure investigators described as “doubling down”: on Thursday, he ordered the Federal Police to submit to the Supreme Court the full contents extracted from the phones and computers of those under investigation in the Banco Master probe, including Daniel Vorcaro.

The order called for the delivery of forensic reports on “the material in question, including telematic, digital, and telephone data.” It also included other “evidentiary elements” that had already been documented but not yet sent to the inquiry overseen by Toffoli.

The meeting was announced at the start of Thursday’s plenary session. The session ended early, and the meeting began around 4:30 p.m., paused at 7 p.m., and resumed at 8 p.m. The statement was released shortly after.

On Monday (9), Federal Police Director Andrei Rodrigues personally delivered to Fachin the report citing Toffoli. The material was based on data extracted from phones belonging to individuals under investigation in the Master case, including Vorcaro. According to a report by journalist Malu Gaspar in O Globo, the document includes phone calls between the two, an invitation to Toffoli’s birthday party, and conversations with others about payments related to the Tayayá resort.

The police did not formally request the justice’s recusal. As they are not a party to the case, they cannot do so. However, the information raised doubts about Toffoli’s continued role as rapporteur, given potential conflicts of interest and questions about impartiality.

Toffoli’s defense

Since the revelations surfaced, Toffoli issued two statements in his defense. The first, sent to reporters on Wednesday night (11), claimed the police report was based on “speculation.” In the second, issued Thursday morning, he admitted being a shareholder in Maridt, the family company that sold part of its stake in the Tayayá resort to a fund linked to Vorcaro’s brother-in-law, Fabiano Zettel. The justice denied receiving any money directly from Vorcaro or Zettel.

“Justice Dias Toffoli is part of Maridt’s shareholder structure. The company is managed by the justice’s relatives. Under the Organic Law of the Judiciary, Article 36 of Complementary Law 35/1979, a judge may be a shareholder in a company and receive dividends, but is prohibited from performing managerial duties,” said the second statement released by Toffoli’s office.

He also acknowledged that Maridt’s stake in Tayayá was sold to Zettel’s Arllen Fund on September 27, 2021. The remaining shares were sold to PHD Holding on February 21, 2025. Toffoli said in the statement he was not familiar with Arllen’s fund manager.

“The justice does not know the manager of the Arllen Fund and has never had any friendship, let alone a close friendship, with the defendant Daniel Vorcaro. Finally, the justice clarifies that he has never received any money from Daniel Vorcaro or his brother-in-law Fabiano Zettel,” the statement read.

Toffoli also said the entire transaction was “properly declared to the Federal Revenue Service” and that “all sales were made at market value.” As for the Master case, he said he only took over as rapporteur in November 2025. “By then, Maridt had long ceased to be part of the Tayayá Ribeirão Claro group,” he added.

Internal crisis

Justices said the recent revelations involving Toffoli had created a new kind of crisis within the Supreme Court.

Court members and close observers noted that the tribunal is accustomed to external pressure—such as criticism of rulings and accusations of interference in other branches—but Toffoli’s connection to the Tayayá resort and the mentions found on Vorcaro’s phone triggered an internal crisis, casting doubt on one justice’s impartiality.

Had Toffoli not stepped aside, one alternative under consideration was sending the case to a lower court. That’s because a formal ruling of bias could lead to the annulment of the justice’s decisions, delaying the conclusion of the investigation into the fraudulent credit scheme at Banco Master. The Supreme Court’s internal rules state that if bias is alleged or declared, all acts performed by the justice in question are rendered null.

In a private conversation with Valor, one justice said that while Toffoli enjoys the goodwill of his peers, “there are limits.” “He has the sympathy of the majority, but not for just anything,” the source said.

One source described the moment as “a unique situation,” saying they could not recall a similar episode involving the head of the Federal Police personally delivering evidence of a possible conflict of interest between a justice and a person under investigation.

The rise of pro-impeachment rhetoric has unsettled members of the Court. But one of them said it was too early to tell whether the situation had reached that level of severity.