ABcripto president goes to court to try to expel counselors who are calling for new leadership

Source: PortaldoBitcoin Original Title: President of ABcripto goes to court to try to expel counselors who demand new leadership Original Link: A deadlock over the leadership of the Brazilian Association of Cryptoeconomics (ABCripto), which had been intensifying behind the scenes, now reaches the judicial sphere.

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

But the process goes further: it asks that the judge compel the associated companies to replace the four advisors that represent them and, should they fail to do so, that they be excluded from the board.

The call 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 serve for another year.

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

Bernardo Srur argues in the process that he was “abruptly interrupted” by the advisor André Portilho in 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, advisor Portilho requested the calling and scheduling of an AGE, in his name and that of the other present advisors, with the explicit aim of deliberating on the dismissal 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 nearly 200 pages, defending the counselors against what he describes as “unfounded allegations, lacking evidence and completely disconnected from the factual and documentary reality”.

The clash over the leadership of ABcripto

Gomes' contestation argues that, since July 14, the Administrative Council of ABcripto proposed a peaceful transition and tried to negotiate the vacancy of the position, “which was repeatedly rejected by the Chairman [Bernardo Srur].”

According to the defense, at the meeting on October 23, 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 reportedly sent an email statement claiming to be the victim of a “defamatory campaign” by the advisors.

“In the said communication, the CEO used an intimidating and accusatory tone, alleging 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,” asserts the defense.

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

What they did, as a higher body than the CEO, was to request the assembly so that, with the presence of all members, there would be the election and replacement of the CEO 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 up to the Chairman to comply with and operationalize the convocatory act, and not to condition or postpone the deliberation of the sovereign body,” says the defense. “The refusal constitutes a disregard for statutory subordination and functional usurpation.”

Moreover, the objection criticizes the president of ABcripto's use of the association to initiate the process and the fact that four councilors have been included as individuals in the action, without concrete justification.

“The President-Director wants to use the four Advisors who are part of the passive pole of this action as 'examples' to the other Advisors, that is, to constrain the Defendants and discourage other associates from questioning the proximity of the end of the President-Director's term and the absence of reports, information, and documents. Therefore, outside the statutory flow, the President-Director instrumentalized the Judiciary for personal purposes, in blatant abuse of the right of 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, and association documents, and that the president “creates obstacles” to not deliver 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 members “do not even know the reason.”

“Why does the CEO […] refuse to provide information, documents, and to schedule the General Assembly for the Associates to deliberate on the new term of the Executive Board? Simply because the CEO knows that there will be an automatic renewal of his term 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 there was something 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 Council's attention, as they could signal institutional concern with governance practices.

“What would lead 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, after the hacker attack involving PIX and C&M, ABcripto entered into 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 for creating a WhatsApp group to respond to requests from 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 are no grounds for the Association not to have a tax compliance certificate. In fact, it was strange for the Association to have, for a period, a 'positive certificate with negative effects', as this would indicate the existence of tax debts (although suspended or guaranteed), which, as 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, along with clarifications regarding the closure of the account at Banco Cora, “in light of conflicting information received suggesting that the closure had occurred at the initiative of the bank itself.”

• Payment of R$ 250 thousand for CVM sandbox: The Executive Board of ABcripto stated that it would make a payment of R$ 250 thousand for the CVM sandbox project, even without the approval of the Board and without adequate technical information. The Board 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 called “CriptoJud”, currently under development for the National Justice Council (CNJ). It also asked for justifications as to why the hiring of the supplier was not submitted for approval and for the absence of invitations to associated companies to participate in the system tests.

According to the defense, when the president of ABcripto provided documents requested by the Council, he did so in a tool whose access was conditioned upon the acceptance of a confidentiality agreement, which was seen as incompatible with the LGPD.

“It is worth remembering: under the terms of Article 30 of the Statute, the Executive Board, which includes the Director-President, is subordinate to the Board. Now, if the Director-President is subordinate to the Board of Directors, for what reason does the said Director-President have access to the information and documents, but the Board, the body that is superior to it, does not have access to the said database?”, raises the contestation.

What each part asks for now

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

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

He demands that the 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 requires that the presidency of ABcripto provide an account, presenting a series of documents and clarifications related to management in recent years.

It also requests that the judge order the president of ABcripto, Bernardo Srur, to publish, in his own name and as an individual, a public retraction in favor of the defendants on social networks LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, as well as on any other social network he may have.

The main request, however, is the immediate convening of the General Assembly to decide the future leadership of the association. This Wednesday (19), the request was granted by Judge César Augusto Vieira Macedo, who determines that Bernardo Srur convene, within three business 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, capped at 30 days.

Counterpoint

The Brazilian Association of Cryptoeconomics (ABcripto) informs that it has taken note of the statements presented in the ongoing judicial process and reaffirms that all actions of its Executive Board strictly follow the procedures set forth in the Association's Bylaws, rigorously observing institutional regularity and legal security. The issue under discussion refers to different interpretations regarding statutory rites and the conduct of internal processes, including the calling of deliberative bodies and access to administrative information. ABcripto has been responding to formal requests from 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 ongoing commitment to dialogue, governance, and strengthening the crypto-economics ecosystem in Brazil.

A member of the Administrative Council of ABcripto, who asked not to have their name disclosed, stated that, as a councilor, their “only concern is to fulfill the function of the collegiate in accordance with legal norms and as stipulated in the statute.”

“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 lawsuit lacks substance, as evidenced by the rejection of the injunction requested by the CEO, reinforcing the appropriate actions of the board as a whole and not of specifically considered advisors. The Board seeks solely the convening of the general assembly and the provision of accounts, as provided for in the statute. I am confident that the process will proceed well and that the space for dialogue and construction that has always permeated the Board's actions, which has achieved various successes for the sector thus far, can be recovered, as the value of the Association lies in its members.”