Key Takeaways:

• PGR Paulo Gonet ordered the archive of the request to investigate Justice Alexandre de Moraes and his wife over alleged intervention with the Central Bank concerning Banco Master.
• The prosecutor-general found no concrete evidence beyond press reports and said the accusations remained speculative.
• Moraes said his meetings with the Central Bank president related solely to discussions on the Magnitsky Act.
• The PGR also determined that an attorney-client contract involving Moraes’s wife did not on its own amount to wrongdoing.

PGR Closes Probe into Alexandre de Moraes over Banco Master

The Office of the Prosecutor-General (PGR) has archived a petition to open an investigation into Supreme Court minister Alexandre de Moraes and his wife, lawyer Viviane Barci de Moraes, in connection with alleged intervention with Brazil’s Central Bank on behalf of Banco Master. Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet issued the decision on Saturday, bringing to a close a representation that rested on media reports rather than independent evidence.

Alexandre de Moraes investigation finds no supporting evidence

Gonet was unequivocal in his reasoning: the material presented did not meet the minimum threshold required to justify the initiation of an inquiry. The petition, lodged by lawyer Enio Martins Murad, relied primarily on press articles which suggested that Moraes had intervened with Central Bank president Gabriel Galípolo to favour the financial institution. The articles also noted that Viviane Barci de Moraes’s law firm had a services contract with Banco Master.

In his ruling, the prosecutor emphasised that press reporting, particularly when shielded by source confidentiality, could not substitute for autonomous proof. He said journalists had not produced concrete elements or material indications to support allegations of improper conduct, and that the narrative remained in the realm of supposition.

The decision underlines a broader legal principle: allegations cannot be advanced on the basis of speculation without corroborating evidence. According to the PGR, proceeding on such a basis would breach the requirement of minimal consistency in public prosecutions and put the state’s power to investigate on uncertain ground.

Moraes himself has already commented on the matter. On 23 April, the minister stated his meetings with Gabriel Galípolo were confined to discussions about the Magnitsky Act, a US sanctions framework that has been the subject of debate in Brazilian legal and political circles. He denied any intervention on behalf of Banco Master.

The controversy erupted after reports alleged that Moraes had supported the approval of Banco Master’s purchase of Banco Regional de Brasília (BRB). Shortly after the meetings in question, Banco Master’s governance and financial situation deteriorated and the Central Bank moved to liquidate the institution amid fraud suspicions. One of the bank’s owners, Daniel Vorcaro, was briefly detained and later released on habeas corpus; he now faces proceedings while responding in freedom.

On the specific matter of Viviane Barci de Moraes, the PGR concluded that retaining a lawyer’s services or entering into a contractual relationship with a client does not, in itself, constitute illegality or a conflict warranting federal intervention. The office stressed that ethical and professional duties are not inherently evidence of criminal conduct.

By ordering the archive, the PGR has closed this chapter unless new, independent evidence emerges. The ruling reaffirms the threshold required for criminal inquiries in Brazil and highlights the limits of using media reports as the sole basis for prosecutorial action.