Banco de Brasília (BRB), a bank controlled by the Federal District government, has asked that its compensation lawsuit against Banco Master remain in the Federal District and Territories Court of Justice (TJDFT), arguing that the case is a civil dispute over damages rather than part of the criminal investigations now unfolding elsewhere. The report is based on single-source reporting from Metrópoles.
According to Metrópoles, BRB's legal team opposed a request by Brazil's Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) that pointed to Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) as the proper venue for cases involving the two banks. The prosecution service also argued that, because BRB belongs to the indirect administration of the Federal District, the matter should not stay in an ordinary civil court.
Civil Claim vs. Criminal Probe
BRB's lawyers, from the Machado Meyer firm, said the bank is pursuing a standalone civil claim over losses allegedly caused by the transfer of "bad" or even nonexistent credit portfolios by Banco Master. In that reading, the case does not automatically migrate to the STF simply because related criminal inquiries may be underway there.
The defense argued that jurisdiction in a criminal or investigative proceeding does not automatically extend to a civil damages case, especially when no party in the suit holds an office that carries special forum privileges. Under Brazilian law, some senior officials can be tried only in higher courts, but Metrópoles reported that BRB's filing says no such person appears as plaintiff or defendant in this action.
The newspaper said BRB asked that the case remain before the 13th Civil Court in Brasília. That court has already frozen shares valued at about R$ 400 million, roughly USD 70 million at recent rates, that were reportedly held by people linked to Banco Master and investment group Reag.
Broader Liability Request
Metrópoles also reported that BRB wants any eventual court ruling against Banco Master to reach beyond the bank itself and extend to the assets of owner Daniel Vorcaro and other defendants tied to the alleged scheme. The goal, according to the filing cited by the outlet, is to ensure effective recovery of the losses BRB says it suffered.
That matters because a successful damages claim is only useful if there are assets available to satisfy it. By seeking to bind the personal or related assets of other defendants, BRB appears to be trying to protect its chances of collecting compensation if the court later finds that the credit portfolio transfers were fraudulent.
The jurisdiction fight is therefore more than procedural. It will help determine how quickly the case moves, which judge controls the asset-freeze decisions, and whether BRB can keep its civil strategy separate from the criminal strands of the affair.
For now, the public picture remains incomplete. Metrópoles described the disputed portfolios as "bad" or nonexistent and referred to ongoing investigations, including Operation Compliance Zero, but the article did not include responses from Banco Master, Vorcaro or the other cited parties. Until other reporting or court documents emerge, key allegations remain claims made in BRB's lawsuit rather than established facts in a final judgment.
accessed on 21 April 2026