The Hypocrisy of Justice: Alexandre de Moraes and the Banco Master Scandal

In a nation that prides itself on the rule of law, the appearance of selective justice erodes public trust like nothing else. Recent revelations surrounding Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes and his alleged involvement in pressing the Central Bank on behalf of Banco Master raise profound questions about accountability at the highest levels of Brazil’s judiciary.

For years, Justice Moraes has been a central figure in high-profile cases involving political opponents, often upholding prolonged preventive detentions based on mere “doubts” about evidence or potential risks. One notable example was the case of Filipe Martins, a former aide to ex-President Jair Bolsonaro, whose detention was maintained for months in 2024 despite recommendations from the Attorney General’s Office to relax it. Martins remained imprisoned until August 2024, with Moraes citing unresolved uncertainties as justification—a standard that critics have long decried as overly rigorous and politically motivated.

Now, serious allegations have emerged that Moraes himself contacted Central Bank President Gabriel Galípolo multiple times—reportedly at least four occasions, including phone calls and in-person meetings—to advocate for the approval of Banco Master’s proposed acquisition by the Banco de Brasília (BRB). These contacts allegedly occurred amid suspicions of fraud in the deal, involving billions in questionable credits.

Compounding the concern is the fact that Moraes’ wife, Viviane Barci de Moraes, heads a law firm that held a lucrative contract with Banco Master worth up to R$129 million over three years, with monthly payments of R$3.6 million. While the firm claims it provided general legal services, the timing and scale of the agreement invite scrutiny, especially given reports that Moraes personally expressed affinity for the bank’s owner and argued the institution was being unfairly targeted by larger competitors.

Moraes has vigorously denied any impropriety, issuing multiple statements asserting that his confirmed meetings with Galípolo—two in his office, on specific dates in August and September—focused solely on the impacts of U.S. Magnitsky Act sanctions imposed on him and his wife. He insists no phone calls occurred regarding the bank and that his wife’s firm never acted on the BRB acquisition before regulatory bodies. The Central Bank has corroborated that discussions centered on the sanctions.

Yet, even if these denials hold, the optics are damning. A justice who has wielded extraordinary power to detain individuals on precautionary grounds now faces accusations of intervening in a financial matter tied to his family’s interests. If “doubt” suffices to justify depriving citizens of liberty for months, surely the same principle demands thorough investigation here—where doubts abound about conflicts of interest and potential administrative advocacy.

Conservatives in Congress have rightly responded by filing new impeachment requests and criminal complaints against Moraes, alongside calls for a parliamentary inquiry. Opposition leaders argue that no one, not even a Supreme Court justice, should be above the law. Previous attempts to hold Moraes accountable have been dismissed, but this scandal—stemming from a bank later liquidated for grave irregularities—strikes at the heart of institutional integrity.

Brazil deserves a judiciary that applies standards evenly, without favoritism or double standards. When those entrusted with upholding justice appear to bend rules for personal or familial benefit, it undermines the very foundations of democracy. The Senate must act decisively: investigate fully, and if evidence warrants, hold Justice Moraes to the rigorous accountability he has so often imposed on others.

True justice is blind—and impartial. Anything less is tyranny in robes.