Minister Dias Toffoli, of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), rejected the appeal presented by the Central Bank (BC) which requested more explanations on the confrontation in the investigation into Banco Master, scheduled for next Tuesday 30. In the decision issued this Saturday 27, Toffoli declared that the BC and the Director of Inspection, Ailton de Aquino Santos are not among those investigated in the process and defined them as “interested third parties”.
The minister refuted the Central Bank’s questions about the need for a direct meeting. For Toffoli, given that the investigation focuses on negotiations between banks that were under the supervision of the BC, the participation of the regulator is essential to clarify what happened. The judge justified the urgency of carrying out the procedure, even during the judicial recess, due to the great impact that the case has on the Brazilian financial system and the evidence already collected during the process.
The investigation focuses on alleged irregularities in a 12.2 billion reais transaction in an attempted sale of Banco Master to Banco de Brasília (BRB). The deal was ultimately not finalized after the Central Bank itself noted signs of problems in the transaction when analyzing technical data.
Toffoli ordered the confrontation to be organized by a deputy judge in his office and conducted by the Federal Police. The minister also said he had decided to keep the matter confidential so as not to interfere with police work. After the appeal was rejected, the BC director and others involved were formally informed that they were required to attend the hearing on the scheduled date.
British Columbia asked the following questions in the appeal:
– What are the controversial points that will be discussed between the director of BC, Ailton de Aquino Santos, and the respondents Daniel Vorcaro and Paulo Henrique Costa?
– In what capacity is the Director summoned: as an accused or as a witness? Are you called as a BC representative or in a personal capacity?
– Why is it necessary to provide clarifications during a confrontation, instead of a written response to the questions formulated by the judge?
– Why is the confrontation considered so urgent that it must take place during judicial recess, from the start of the investigation and even before testimony is given?
About The Author
