Power struggle at ABcripto: president sues advisors who are calling for his replacement

Source: PortaldoBitcoin Original Title: President of ABcripto goes to court to try to expel councilors demanding new leadership Original Link: A deadlock over the leadership of the Brazilian Association of Crypto-economy (ABCripto), which had been intensifying behind the scenes, has now reached the judicial sphere.

The president of ABcripto, Bernardo Srur, is suing four members of the Administrative Council of the entity, including André Portilho (Mynt), Maria Isabel Sica (Ripple), Renata Mancini (Ripio), and Daniel de Paiva Gomes, for attempting to convene a meeting with the intention of deliberating on a new president for the association.

But the process goes further: it requests the judge to compel the associated companies to replace the four counselors that represent them and, if they do not comply, to be excluded from the council.

The articulation for the assembly by the Administrative Council is due to the fact that Bernardo Srur's term as President-Director of ABcripto ends on December 16, 2025, and if there is no new election, he is automatically re-elected to hold the position for another year.

The process, opened by Srur on behalf of ABcripto on November 4, seeks to invalidate a meeting of the councilors held on October 23, 2025, in which the convening of an Extraordinary General Assembly (AGE) was requested.

Bernardo Srur argues in the process that he was “abruptly interrupted” by advisor André Portilho during the meeting, who would have informed about the holding of a parallel meeting, without the participation of the Executive Board.

“After returning to the meeting, counselor Portilho requested the calling and scheduling of an AGE, in his name and that of the other counselors present, with the explicit objective of deliberating on the removal of the Executive Board,” says the process.

In the institution's argument, the meeting was invalid due to “serious statutory and legal violations,” citing factors such as the absence of a valid quorum and the existence of expired proxies.

Four days later, one of the targets of the process, lawyer Daniel de Paiva Gomes, filed a response of almost 200 pages, defending the advisors from what he describes as “unfounded allegations, devoid of evidence and completely disconnected from the factual and documentary reality.”

The clash over the leadership of ABcripto

Gomes' counterargument states that, since July 14, the Administrative Council of ABcripto proposed a peaceful transition and attempted to negotiate the vacancy of the position, “which was repeatedly rejected by the Director-President [Bernardo Srur].”

According to the defense, at the meeting on October 23rd, the president of ABcripto stated once again that it would not be possible to resolve the issues in a consensual and peaceful manner.

On October 30, Srur allegedly sent an email statement claiming to be the victim of a “defamatory campaign” by the advisors.

“In the aforementioned communication, the CEO used an intimidating and accusatory tone, claiming that the Board of Directors was 'disrespecting rules' and 'attacking the integrity of the Institution and its leaders without factual basis', when, in fact, it is exactly the opposite that is happening,” states the defense.

The advisor also argues that the president of ABcripto distorted, in the process, what really happened at the meeting on the 23rd, stating that the Council did not deliberate on the dismissal of the CEO, knowing that only the General Assembly can do that.

What they did, as a body superior to the Chairman, was to request the assembly so that, with the presence of all associates, there would be the election and replacement of the Chairman with the arrival of the end of the term.

“If the Council has decided to request the convening of a General Assembly for the matter to be decided in the competent forum, it is the responsibility of the CEO to comply with and operationalize the convocation act, and not to condition or postpone the deliberation of the sovereign body,” says the defense. “The refusal characterizes a disregard for statutory subordination and functional usurpation.”

Furthermore, the defense criticizes the president of ABcripto's use of the association to initiate the process and the fact that four councilors were included as individuals in the action, without concrete justification.

“The CEO wants to use the four Counselors who are part of the passive pole of this action as 'examples' to the other Counselors, that is, to pressure the Defendants and discourage other associates from questioning the proximity of the end of the CEO's term and the absence of accountability, information, and documents. Therefore, outside the statutory flow, the CEO instrumentalized the Judiciary for personal purposes, in blatant abuse of the right to action.”

How the ABcripto crisis started

The challenge against ABcripto states that, since July 14, 2025, the Council has been requesting access — but without response — to financial, banking information, and documents from the association, and that the president “creates obstacles” to not provide the requested documents.

To clarify the seriousness of the case, the defense cites that the association has been irregular with the Federal Revenue of Brazil since May 2025 and that the associates “do not even know the reason”.

“Why does the President-Director […] refuse to provide information, documents, and to schedule the General Assembly so that the Associates can deliberate on the new mandate of the Executive Board? Simply because the President-Director knows that there will be an automatic renewal of his mandate for an additional period of 1 year, if the deadline of 16/12/2025 is exceeded without deliberation.”

According to the process, the beginning of the suspicions that something was wrong in the leadership of ABcripto occurred on July 11 of this year, when the vice president and the legal board of the entity announced their immediate resignation.

Excerpts from the letter announcing the departures caught the attention of the Council, as they could signal institutional concern about governance practices.

“What would lead the people in such positions to, without any prior communication with the Council, simply announce their resignation?” questions the defense, adding that the remaining leadership of ABcripto, from that point concentrated in the figure of Bernardo Srur, was repeatedly pressured to explain what happened, but never clarified the reason for the departure of the legal board to the associates.

The suspicious practices of ABcripto, according to the advisors

In the response to the process, the defense lists a series of other clarifications that the Administrative Council of ABcripto requested and did not receive a response to, among them:

• Lack of clarity regarding the agreement with the Public Prosecutor's Office: The Council states that ABcripto made an agreement with the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of São Paulo, without validation from the Board of Directors. They requested explanations about “what were the reasons that led to the creation of a WhatsApp group for addressing the requests of members of the Public Prosecutor's Office without a court order”.

• Issues with the Federal Revenue Service: The Council found that ABcripto has been irregular with the Federal Revenue Service since May 2025. “Now, being an immune/exempt entity, there is no basis for the Association not to have a certificate of tax compliance. In fact, it was strange for the Association to have, for a period, a 'positive certificate with effects of negative', as this would indicate the existence of tax debts (although suspended or guaranteed), which, in the capacity of an immune/exempt entity, does not make sense.”

• Closed bank accounts: The Council requested that all bank statements from the association's accounts be sent, as well as clarifications regarding the closure of the local bank account, “considering conflicting information received suggesting that the closure had occurred at the initiative of the bank itself.”

• Payment of R$ 250 thousand for regulatory sandbox: The Executive Board of ABcripto stated that it would make a payment of R$ 250 thousand for a regulatory sandbox project, even without the approval of the Council and without adequate technical information. The Council had determined that the cost should not be incurred without this information and without the confirmed participation of the participants, but the Executive Director said that he would do it on the grounds that “he would have given his word.”

• Clarifications on CriptoJud: The Council requested clarifications regarding the tool named “CriptoJud”, which is under development. It also asked for justifications for the fact that the hiring of the supplier was not submitted for approval and for the absence of an invitation to the associated companies to participate in the system tests.

According to the defense, when the president of ABcripto provided the documents requested by the Council, he did so using a tool whose access was conditioned on the acceptance of a confidentiality agreement, seen as incompatible with applicable regulations.

“It is worth remembering: under the terms of the Statute, the Executive Board, which includes the Chairman, is subordinate to the Council. Now, if the Chairman is subordinate to the Board of Directors, why does the aforementioned Chairman have access to information and documents, but the Council, which is superior to him, does not have access to the said database?”, challenges the contestation.

What each part is asking for now

ABcripto, through President Bernardo Srur, requests the annulment of the Ordinary Meeting of the Board held on October 23, 2025, and the decisions made therein, as well as the annulment of the call for the Extraordinary General Assembly.

The process also calls for the exclusion of the associated members involved “who promoted the diversion of the ABcripto Board meeting for violation of statutory obligations”, citing André Portilho, Maria Isabel Sica, Renata Mancini, and lawyer Daniel de Paiva Gomes.

He requires that associated companies appoint new representatives and, in the absence of appointment, that they be excluded from the Council.

The defense of counselor Daniel de Paiva Gomes demands that the presidency of ABcripto provides an accountability report, presenting a series of documents and clarifications related to the management in recent years.

It also requests that the judge determines that the president of ABcripto, Bernardo Srur, publish, in his own name and as a private individual, a public retraction in favor of the defendants on social media.

The main request, however, is the immediate convening of the General Assembly to decide the future leadership of the association. Judge César Augusto Vieira Macedo determined that Bernardo Srur should convene, within three working days, an Extraordinary General Assembly (AGE) to deliberate on the election of a new term or the replacement of the CEO.

If the assembly is not convened within the deadline, Srur will be subject to a daily fine of R$ 2,000, limited to 30 days.

Counterpoint

The Brazilian Association of Crypto-economics informed that it has taken note of the statements presented in the ongoing legal proceedings and reaffirms that all actions of its Executive Board strictly follow the procedures provided in the Association's Statute, rigorously observing institutional regularity and legal security. The note highlights that the topic under discussion refers to different interpretations regarding statutory rites and the conduct of internal processes, including the calling of deliberative instances and access to administrative information.

“ABcripto has been responding to the formal requests of the Council within structured and appropriate means, maintaining the integrity of the procedures. The Association maintains full confidence in the competent bodies and reinforces its permanent commitment to dialogue, governance, and strengthening the cryptocurrency ecosystem in Brazil.”

A member of the Administrative Council of ABcripto, who requested to remain anonymous, said that, as a counselor, his “only concern is to fulfill the function of the collegiate in accordance with the law and as stipulated in the statutes.”

“I regret the extrapolation of an administrative matter to judicial avenues, but I am fully convinced that the information will be provided in the records. From a legal perspective, the action taken lacks substance. The Council seeks solely the calling of the general assembly and the provision of accounts, as stipulated in the bylaws. I am confident that the process will go well and that the space for dialogue and construction that has always permeated the Council's activities can be recovered, as the value of the Association lies in its members,” he concludes.