Developments linked to investigations involving Banco Master have placed Brazil’s top court at the centre of scrutiny over the conduct of its members, according to justices consulted privately by the newspaper Valor.

The episode has drawn criticism toward Alexandre de Moraes and could shift influence within the Supreme Federal Court as the inquiry moves forward.

The court’s Second Panel is scheduled to examine on Friday (13) the decision by justice André Mendonça ordering the arrest of banker Daniel Vorcaro. Members of the court have not indicated how they will vote.

Mendonça’s role in the investigation has expanded since he replaced Dias Toffoli as rapporteur. The change followed criticism of Toffoli for limiting access by the Federal Police of Brazil to evidence gathered during Operation Compliance Zero.

Mendonça restored the material to investigators, stating he intended to resume the “ordinary flow” of the proceedings.

The justice is also due to serve as vice president of the Superior Electoral Court during this year’s elections, a position that increases his visibility in the case.

Tensions within the court intensified after a report by journalist Malu Gaspar stated that one of Vorcaro’s final messages before his first arrest in November had been sent to Moraes.

The court later issued a statement in which the justice denied receiving messages from the banker on the day of the arrest.

The country’s prosecutor general Paulo Gonet also entered the dispute after Mendonça criticised the prosecution service for requesting more time to present its opinion on the arrests. Gonet responded that legal safeguards cannot be ignored and said the prosecutor’s opinion is not an “empty formality”.

“The impact of certain criminal precautionary measures on fundamental values can be exemplified by the tragic event that occurred during the operation,” Gonet said, referring to the suicide attempt of Luiz Phillipi Machado de Moraes Mourão, known as Sicário.

For Rubens Glezer, a professor at FGV Direito SP, the episode marks a turning point for the court. “The problem is that, because the Supreme Court’s reputation has eroded—particularly over the past decade—you have a very significant portion of the population that will already assume that the justices mentioned behaved improperly. That is the reputational damage,” he said.