Story
Oct 2, 2026

Recordings Put Vorcaro’s Alleged Offshore Fortune—and His Network—Under Scrutiny

The recordings are presented from two angles: one stresses an alleged personal connection to a Supreme Court justice, while the other treats the claimed offshore funds as part of a wider web of financial operations, political ties and the Banco Master crisis.

Recordings attributed to Fabiano Zettel, Daniel Vorcaro’s brother-in-law, have generated a shared question across coverage: whether the former banker held major assets abroad as Banco Master came under pressure. The central claim—that Vorcaro had R$20 billion outside Brazil—remains an assertion in the recordings, not an amount publicly confirmed by authorities.

Coverage from the Brazilian right foregrounds Zettel’s alleged reference to Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes as Vorcaro’s “best friend.” In the reported exchange, Zettel says: “Xandão is Daniel’s best friend. I’m counting on him. Best friend, they have dinner together, go out together.” The report says the conversations do not explain what Zettel meant by “counting on him,” and notes that neither the justice’s office nor the cited parties commented.

That emphasis is echoed by commentator Rodrigo Constantino, who questioned the scale and origin of the funds: “Where did so much money come from?!? Master, formerly Máxima, was a small bank…”

Left-leaning coverage places the recordings in a broader account of the bank’s collapse and the alleged operational role played by Zettel. It reports that he described moving some of his own money abroad amid fears of asset freezes, while messages cited by Piauí purportedly show him arranging payments and contracts at Vorcaro’s direction. The account also notes allegations involving political contacts and entities linked to the wider investigation, while cautioning that the reporting does not present political-intermediary claims as a judicial conclusion.

Both accounts cite Zettel saying Vorcaro “kept 20 billion abroad” but could not access it without risking another arrest. The difference is in what they consider most consequential: possible high-level access on one hand, or the financial and political machinery surrounding the bank on the other. In either framing, the purported R$20 billion has not been independently verified in the material described.