Flávio Bolsonaro Faces Money Laundering Probe Tied to Betting
Brazil's Federal Police are investigating Senator Flávio Bolsonaro over an alleged money laundering scheme routed through online gambling businesses. Between 2025 and 2026, records show R$6.3bn (around €1bn) in wagering transactions. That figure comes from records tied to lawyer Willer Tomaz, described in the inquiry as a friend of the senator, with the bulk of the betting placed on Blaze. No charges have been filed against either man. The allegations surfaced in the final week of a presidential run-off, which goes to a vote on Sunday 25 October.
Tomaz rejects the R$6.3bn figure. He calls it an inflated tally of accumulated turnover rather than money moved, and says deposits across the period totalled R$326m (about €57m) while withdrawals came to R$234m (roughly €41m). The funds, he insists, came from legitimate sources. Investigators are looking at whether Tomaz acted as a money mule for millions of reais channelled through several betting platforms connected to his businesses. They also want to know the nature of his financial dealings with Bolsonaro.
The inquiry wants to question the senator about an undisclosed indirect stake in Best Bet, a bookmaker operated by Rede Loto under a licence from the Rio de Janeiro State Lottery (LOTERJ). Rede Loto is majority owned by Cathedral Holdings, a Madeira-based company in which Tomaz is a partner. Attention centres on links between Cathedral and Alcazar Holdings, another Madeira firm controlled by Tomaz. Documents reportedly name Bolsonaro as a "master user" of an Alcazar bank account, a designation that could carry access to financial records and the power to approve transactions. Both men deny Bolsonaro held a stake in Best Bet or shared access to the account.
His parliamentary status matters on the legal side. Flávio Bolsonaro holds special jurisdiction rights that send certain criminal cases connected to his Senate duties to the Supreme Federal Court (STF). Whether the investigation treats his conduct as an abuse of his Senate position will decide if the STF takes the case. There's another wrinkle. If he wins on Sunday and takes office as president in 2027, Article 86 of the Federal Constitution shields a sitting president from criminal liability during the term for acts unrelated to the exercise of the office.
President Lula has seized on the allegations. He challenged Flávio Bolsonaro to release bank statements, tax records and telephone data, and offered to disclose the same for himself and his family. The Workers' Party (PT) campaign has also demanded access to records for Alcazar Holdings. Both campaigns have filed a disclosure agreement with the electoral court, though its scope is disputed. Lula's team says Alcazar is covered. Bolsonaro's representatives argue that releasing the company's financial information needs Tomaz's authorisation. Publication of any records still requires judicial approval, which hasn't been sought yet.
The scandal lands against a betting regime already in limbo. Lula issued a provisional measure on 25 September terminating the Bets framework, and it was sanctioned on 6 October. Congress must now decide what happens to the total ban, but Sunday's result will shape the practical outcome more than any committee vote. Observers see no immediate guarantee of a return even if the Bolsonaro camp prevails. The family has promised to find a solution for football clubs and betting businesses, yet has stopped short of committing to restore full authorisation. They've been public about disliking the online gambling market, which they regard as carrying heavy social costs.
Reversal would be messy whoever wins. Lula's measure lets existing authorisations lapse without refunds, and Flamengo and other Série A clubs have already gone to the Supreme Court seeking direct compensation. Licences, fees and disrupted commercial contracts all sit unresolved. Any revival would likely arrive as a patchwork shaped by electoral bargaining, congressional amendments and court appeals.
A market that moved from grey operations into regulation in just a few years now has a legal foundation undermined by campaign politics. For operators weighing whether to take part in a revived regime, there's a concrete question to answer: what is a licence worth when its terms can be rewritten by a provisional measure, a court ruling or a change of government?