Story
September 20, 2026
London Photo Puts Gonet’s Account of Vorcaro Contact Under Fresh Scrutiny
Critics see the photograph and subsequent messages as difficult to reconcile with Paulo Gonet’s description of limited contact with Daniel Vorcaro. Gonet and the Prosecutor General’s Office maintain that a shared public event and third-party messages do not establish a close relationship or influence over official decisions.
A photograph showing Gonet seated near Vorcaro with a cigar, beside glasses of whisky, has become the focal point of a dispute over how to characterize their contact. The image was taken at a London gathering in April 2024 connected to a legal forum sponsored by Banco Master; the Prosecutor General’s Office confirmed it was authentic.1
Sources aligned with Brazil’s left emphasize the wider sequence of messages extracted from Vorcaro’s phone. They include exchanges relayed by lawyer Ciro Soares about a proposed 2025 London trip, cigars and Macallan whisky, as well as inquiries about whether Gonet’s son could travel with the group. Those reports say the planned second event was ultimately cancelled, and stress that messages attributed through an intermediary are at the center of the disagreement.1
Sources on the right present the same material as evidence that challenges Gonet’s account of a casual encounter, arguing that the photo and travel discussions point to greater personal proximity.2 A widely shared post mocked Gonet’s reputation while highlighting the image of him smoking a cigar with Vorcaro.
3
Gonet rejects that interpretation. At the Supreme Federal Court, he said: “I did not have a close relationship with Mr. Vorcaro. The only meeting I had with Mr. Vorcaro took place with several authorities in April 2024.”2 He has also described a later lawyer-mediated call as brief and mundane.
The counterpoint offered by Gonet’s office is substantive as well as personal: the Prosecutor General’s Office took positions against Vorcaro’s interests in the Banco Master matter, including opposing home detention and rejecting a cooperation proposal. Its position is that the photograph alone does not show misconduct, and that neither the event nor references made by third parties demonstrate improper influence.1