Story
Sep 25, 2026
Alcolumbre says friendly messages with Vorcaro show no wrongdoing
Coverage from both right- and left-leaning outlets portrays the messages as evidence of a close relationship between Davi Alcolumbre and Daniel Vorcaro, while Alcolumbre argues that private exchanges do not establish illegality and says he will seek legal remedies.
Messages attributed to Senate President Davi Alcolumbre have renewed scrutiny of his relationship with Daniel Vorcaro, the former owner of Banco Master. Reports from outlets across Brazil’s political spectrum agree on the central point: the exchanges show unusually warm personal contact, though they differ little on the underlying record.
Left-leaning coverage highlighted messages sent after Alcolumbre’s February 2025 election to lead the Senate. Vorcaro congratulated him, and Alcolumbre replied, “Thank you for everything, especially for your affection and fraternal friendship,” later adding, “I am your brother — for life.”1 The report frames the language as evidence of closeness between a powerful legislator and a banker whose business has drawn public attention.
Right-leaning reports similarly described messages about friendship, social events and political matters. One account said Vorcaro sought information from Alcolumbre after the Central Bank blocked Banco Master’s proposed sale to BRB; it reported that the senator responded, “I’m on it!!! Pressure!!!”2 The same coverage noted that a proposed plea agreement mentioning alleged payments to Alcolumbre was not accepted, and that he denied the accusation.
Alcolumbre’s response is sharply different from the interpretation advanced by the reports. In a statement carried by right-leaning media, he said the purported messages were personal and “do not indicate any illegality whatsoever,” calling the coverage a “cheap sensationalism” driven by illegitimate interests.3 He said he would pursue legal measures to establish what he called the truth and identify those behind the allegations.
The reports also describe disputes over a proposed congressional inquiry into the Banco Master case. Yet the available accounts do not establish that the affectionate messages themselves involved an unlawful act. The immediate contrast is therefore between coverage presenting proximity as politically consequential and Alcolumbre’s insistence that personal familiarity is being wrongly recast as misconduct.