Where Is Sicário? The Convenient Silence Surrounding the Vorcaro Case

In Brazil, scandals receive attention in proportion to their political convenience. When they target political opponents, the press and politicians make a great deal of noise; when they reach less convenient circles, caution and silence suddenly emerge.

There is something particularly curious about the way certain scandals unfold in Brazil. When information emerges that can be used against a political opponent, the press and politicians quickly turn the matter into a kind of national crusade. There are hours of television coverage, editorials, experts, outrage on social media, calls for investigations, and lawmakers making impassioned speeches. When the issue begins to reach less convenient circles, however, there seems to be a sudden need for caution, restraint, and silence. The case involving Daniel Vorcaro and the so-called “Sicário” is a good example of this curious selectivity. For a while, the name was at the center of public discussion. Then it virtually disappeared. And the most interesting part is that the questions that initially justified all the attention still remain.

The so-called “Sicário,” identified as Luiz Phillipi Machado de Moraes Mourão, emerged in investigations related to the Banco Master case as a figure associated with a group that allegedly monitored people considered to be opponents of Vorcaro. Messages attributed to Mourão were also made public in which he reported to Vorcaro on actions related to removing negative content about the bank from the internet. One of the messages that drew the most attention was precisely: “link derruba, mestre” — roughly, “the link is down, boss.”

What is curious is that, after an initial explosion of interest, the subject apparently lost its place in the spotlight. And that is precisely where the most interesting part of the story begins. Because Brazil has an extremely combative press when it comes to investigating the political opponents of its preferred groups. A simple WhatsApp message can become a headline for several days when it helps build a particular narrative. A photograph can be treated as evidence of shady relationships. A private conversation can be given interpretations worthy of a political thriller. Depending on who appears on the other side of the message, the entire country is called upon to demand answers. Yet when suspicions emerge involving powerful people and circles that do not fit neatly into the prevailing political narrative, a magic word suddenly appears: caution. We are told that we must “wait for the investigations to proceed.” That we must “not prejudge.” All of that is, of course, perfectly reasonable. The problem is that this common sense should also apply when the person under investigation is someone the press or a particular political group finds inconvenient.

The same applies to politicians. It is difficult to take certain speeches about fighting corruption seriously when we see how easily some lawmakers turn any investigation involving their political opponents into a public spectacle while simultaneously developing an impressive ability to disappear when questions begin to reach people close to them. Outrage seems to operate according to ideological proximity.

Sicario on a stretcher

There is also a particularly troubling aspect: Sicário’s death. According to authorities, he died after attempting to take his own life while in the custody of the Federal Police. When someone identified as relevant to an investigation dies before providing all the explanations they might have provided, it is natural for questions to arise about the circumstances of the case and about what investigators were able to establish before his death. Those questions should not disappear simply because they are uncomfortable. On the contrary, the more sensitive the case, the greater the concern should be with clarifying the facts and separating what has been proven from what remains merely suspected.

The problem is that modern journalism seems to have developed a preference for instant scandal over persistent investigation.

The initial explosion generates ratings, clicks, and engagement; following a case for months, checking documents, comparing accounts, and demanding answers is far less entertaining. The result is a kind of news cycle in which the country spends a few days outraged by a particular issue and then simply moves on to the next one. When a story stops generating attention, it disappears.

Perhaps that is what is happening with the “Sicário” case. Perhaps there is absolutely nothing extraordinary about the subject disappearing from the headlines. A press genuinely interested in uncovering the facts should continue following the case and showing the public what has been confirmed, what has been ruled out, and what remains under investigation.

And that is precisely why the question remains valid: why does almost no one talk about “Sicário” anymore? Not because we should prematurely condemn Vorcaro or anyone else under investigation, but because the case raised questions serious enough to warrant continued scrutiny. Who were the people being monitored? Did an organized structure actually exist? How did the alleged content-removal operations work? Who had access to the information? What was the role of each member of the group? What was the Federal Police able to prove? What is still being investigated? And what happened to all the information that apparently made the case so important for those few days?

We have an investigation, messages, and allegations that still need to be clarified, as well as a central figure who died before providing all the explanations he might have been able to give. This does not justify conspiracy theories, but it does demand that the investigations continue, particularly given the obvious selectivity with which the press and politicians treat scandals according to political convenience. If monitoring opponents, attempting to remove journalistic content, or abusing power is wrong, then it should be wrong regardless of who is involved. “Sicário” should not be turned into either a hero or a villain, but neither should his story simply disappear: if the allegations are false, they should be clarified; if they are true, those responsible should be held accountable. What we cannot accept is the selective silence of those who present themselves as defenders of transparency precisely when transparency becomes inconvenient.

Perhaps “Sicário” simply disappeared from the headlines because the news cycle moved on. Perhaps. But until there are convincing answers to the questions raised by the case, it will remain legitimate to ask why the subject cooled off so quickly. After all, if the press and politicians truly believe that no one is above the law, they should be the first to want to find out exactly what happened.

And if they no longer want to talk about it, perhaps the most uncomfortable question of all is precisely this: why?

References

• SBT News — “Sicário informs Vorcaro that he took down news about Master from the internet.” This is the source for the message “Link derruba, mestre” (“the link is down, boss”), attributed to Mourão in a conversation with Vorcaro, as well as for the information regarding the removal of negative content.

• Agência Brasil — “Federal Police concludes investigation into death of Sicário, ally of Vorcaro.” An important source regarding the arrest, the suicide attempt, and the Federal Police’s conclusions concerning Mourão’s death.

• Folha de S.Paulo — “Federal Police: Vorcaro paid news websites for coverage and praise on social media.” Provides subsequent investigative information about Vorcaro’s relationships with media outlets and messages involving “Sicário.”

• Folha de S.Paulo — “Federal Police says Sicário, from Master, died by suicide in prison.” Reports the Federal Police’s conclusion that Mourão died by suicide without third-party involvement.

• A Pública — “Who is who in Daniel Vorcaro’s network: sicário, bookie, hackers and even Federal Police agents.” Useful for providing context about the structure under investigation and the people connected to Vorcaro’s circle.

• A Pública — “Sicário: what the nickname of Vorcaro’s associate means.” Provides context on the origin and use of the nickname “Sicário” for Luiz Phillipi Machado de Moraes Mourão.