STF President Edson Fachin has returned the investigation into alleged fraud in INSS pension and benefit deductions to Justice André Mendonça, while keeping proceedings tied to Banco Master under his own supervision for up to 90 days. The court’s stated rationale is that the INSS case no longer required presidential control after the Prosecutor-General’s Office found no evidence of wrongdoing by Mendonça, whereas institutional questions remain unresolved in the Master inquiry.¹

The distinction has drawn criticism from constitutional lawyers quoted in reports on the case. André Marsiglia argued that there is “no legal sense” in returning the INSS case while withholding the Master matter from its original rapporteur.¹ Alessandro Chiarottino similarly questioned why all Master-related proceedings should remain with Fachin rather than be separated according to their facts and potential targets.¹

Their concern rests on the contrasting reach of the inquiries. The INSS investigation concerns alleged improper deductions from retirees’ and pensioners’ payments, and its progress depends heavily on federal police work. The Banco Master inquiry, by contrast, includes reports of messages and references involving former bank controller Daniel Vorcaro and members of the Supreme Court, including Justice Alexandre de Moraes. No investigation of any justice is currently under way; such an inquiry would require a decision by the full court.¹

Supporters of Fachin’s approach frame it as crisis management after a dispute between Mendonça and Moraes. The PGR’s finding that it saw no basis for allegations against Mendonça cleared the way for the INSS case to return, while the Master file remains subject to pending procedural and institutional deliberations.²

Critics, however, say that retaining the more sensitive case risks reinforcing the perception that the court is protecting itself. The eventual assignment of the Master investigation remains for the STF to decide.