Justice Flávio Dino has asked for documents and information that could clarify possible links involving Justice André Mendonça, banker Daniel Vorcaro, Banco Master and São Paulo funeral-service concessionaires. His request grows out of a case over privately run cemeteries in the city, where Dino had imposed price and transparency measures.

Dino’s account centers on chronology rather than an allegation of proven wrongdoing. Mendonça met Vorcaro in March 2025, a day before seeking more time to review the cemetery case; when the case resumed, Mendonça voted against confirming Dino’s measures. Dino also cited the Instituto Iter, founded by Mendonça and the venue of the meeting, as well as Mendonça’s brother Alexandre, who held roles at the municipal regulator SP Regula. Dino said these points of contact, “in theory,” form a sufficiently significant body of indications to warrant review, while explicitly saying they do not establish that any judicial decision was influenced by outside interests.¹

The inquiry also focuses on Cortel, a cemetery concessionaire where Fabiano Zettel — Vorcaro’s brother-in-law — served as a director. Dino noted reports that corporate records were signed using Banco Master or Banco Máxima email addresses. Cortel has denied any financial or ownership connection to Banco Master, and the municipal government said the regulator had already sought explanations.

Dino ordered the city and SP Regula to provide concession, ownership, oversight and investigative records within 10 days. He also sought information from São Paulo prosecutors and requested that the securities regulator examine investment-fund relationships with the concessionaires, prioritizing Cortel.

The contrasting account emphasizes the wider court context. It notes that Mendonça confirmed the Vorcaro meeting but said it was institutional and concerned other financial matters. It also casts Dino’s initiative, filed as the court faced other high-profile internal disputes, as a step that could reinforce perceptions of competing camps within the STF rather than a purely procedural inquiry.²

For now, both accounts converge on the central point: Dino has requested fact-finding, not reached a conclusion. The dispute is over whether that scrutiny is best understood as a routine safeguard for a sensitive case or as an intervention likely to intensify tensions at the court.