Breaking stories and in‑depth analysis: up‑to‑the‑minute global news on politics, business, technology, culture, and more—24/7, all in one place.
:strip_icc()/i.s3.glbimg.com/v1/AUTH_63b422c2caee4269b8b34177e8876b93/internal_photos/bs/2026/x/J/8IfbzIQg6PTWCvP7T9iQ/captura-de-tela-2026-02-19-193411.png)
Brasília – Kleber Cabral, president of the National Association of Federal Revenue Auditors (Unafisco), has been summoned to testify before the Federal Police (PF) as part of an investigation into alleged unauthorized access to data belonging to justices of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and their families. The summons, issued at the order of Justice Alexandre de Moraes, comes after Cabral publicly criticized recent decisions made by the court, escalating tensions between the association and the judiciary.
The investigation centers around potential breaches of data privacy and the possibility of misuse of sensitive information. The PF’s actions follow a report from the Federal Revenue Service to the STF detailing multiple illicit accesses to the agency’s system, followed by the alleged leaking of confidential information. The initial report indicated a “block of accesses” for which responsible parties have not yet provided a functional justification, according to the Supreme Court.
Cabral’s criticism of the STF began on Tuesday, February 17th, coinciding with a PF operation targeting four individuals suspected of involvement in the alleged data leaks. At that time, he cautioned against turning auditors into “scapegoats amid institutional crises or disputes that do not concern them,” expressing concern over the precautionary measures taken against those under investigation, which he deemed premature given the preliminary nature of the inquiry.
In subsequent interviews, Cabral leveled further criticism at the Supreme Court. He told G1 that it was “less risky to investigate the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC)” – a major Brazilian criminal organization – than “high authorities of the Republic.” To CNN Brasil, he asserted there was no evidence linking any of the auditors targeted by the PF operation to the alleged data leaks. He further told Valor Econômico that the investigation contained “several holes,” suggesting some targets should not have had access to confidential tax information, and expressed skepticism about the reliability of the information circulating.
Investigation and Initial Actions
According to Valor Econômico, Cabral was not informed of the specific reason for the summons, and the case is proceeding under seal. However, Unafisco reportedly believes the summons is directly related to his recent public statements. The PF operation was authorized by Moraes following a request from the Attorney General’s Office (PGR). An internal audit within the Federal Revenue Service is also underway to determine the extent of any unauthorized access to information.
Four individuals were initially targeted in the PF operation: Ruth Machado dos Santos, a Revenue Service employee in Guarujá. Luiz Antônio Martins Nunes, a technician from the Federal Data Processing Service (Serpro) seconded to the Revenue Service; Ricardo Mansano de Moraes, a Revenue Service auditor since 2007; and Luciano Pery dos Santos, a technician with the Social Security system working at a Revenue Service delegation in Salvador.
Conflicting Accounts and Legal Proceedings
Ruth Machado dos Santos, in testimony to the Federal Police, denied leaking information related to STF justices’ families and stated she did not improperly access data belonging to Viviane Barci, the wife of Justice Alexandre de Moraes. She claimed to have been assisting another individual at the time the alleged unauthorized access occurred and presented evidence to support her account.
Ricardo Mansano de Moraes, however, reportedly told colleagues he accessed the data of a stepdaughter of Justice Gilmar Mendes, the daughter of his ex-wife, Guiomar Feitosa, by mistake. According to these accounts, he was attempting to retrieve information from 2008 regarding an acquaintance with the same name, but received a warning indicating the individual was a “politically exposed person.”
On Thursday, February 18th, the Revenue Service removed Mansano from his position as Substitute Head of the Credit Management and Credit Rights Team at the Revenue Service delegation in Presidente Prudente, São Paulo. The official reason for the removal was not specified in the official notice published in the Diário Oficial da União.
By order of Justice Moraes, all four individuals are subject to electronic monitoring, with restrictions on nighttime and weekend travel, and are prohibited from leaving their respective jurisdictions. They have also been barred from entering Revenue Service and Serpro facilities and accessing their systems. Their bank, tax, and telecommunications records have been subpoenaed.
Divergence Within the STF
The Supreme Court’s decision to authorize the broad data access review has reportedly sparked disagreement among justices. Some have argued the order lacks legal basis, with one justice reportedly stating it was akin to “breaking the seal in one’s own case and searching the lives of countless people.” Another justice questioned the legal rationale, suggesting the order was overly broad, encompassing all ten current justices. A third justice indicated Moraes’s intent appeared to be solely to determine if there were illicit data breaches targeting justices, rather than accessing the fiscal data of colleagues, while acknowledging the timing was unfavorable given the court’s recent internal challenges.
Justice Moraes has not publicly commented on the case.
What’s Next
The investigation remains ongoing, with the Federal Police and the Revenue Service continuing to probe the motivations behind the alleged unauthorized data access, including the possibility of political motivations or the sale of information. The outcome of Cabral’s testimony on Friday, February 20th, will likely provide further insight into the situation and could shape the direction of the investigation. The case highlights the delicate balance between judicial oversight, data privacy, and the independence of government agencies.
What are your thoughts on the balance between judicial oversight and data privacy? Share your opinions in the comments below.
