An Argentine federal judge dismissed the criminal case over President Javier Milei’s promotion of the LIBRA cryptocurrency on October 23, clearing the president and ten other people investigated following the token’s dramatic rise and collapse in February 2025. For investors hoping to challenge the decision, the obstacle is no longer just what the evidence shows. It is whether they have legal standing to appeal.
Judge Marcelo Martínez de Giorgi accepted federal prosecutor Eduardo Taiano’s request to end proceedings against Milei, his sister and presidential secretary-general Karina Milei, US businessman Hayden Davis, crypto intermediary Mauricio Novelli and seven other people. The 60-page ruling found that the investigated events did not satisfy the criminal offenses being examined. None of those investigated had been formally questioned as suspects before the dismissal.
The result is important without resolving every question surrounding LIBRA. It does not recover traders’ losses, prove the token was a sound investment or settle the legal position of every potential civil claimant. Its immediate consequence is to halt the criminal prosecution at this stage, while excluded investors seek to regain the procedural rights necessary to challenge it.
Why did the court reject the LIBRA criminal allegations?
The judge agreed with the prosecutor that the record did not establish the elements required to prove the alleged fraud or offenses involving public office. In particular, publicity generated by a presidential social-media post was not, by itself, proof of a specific deception inducing purchases.
According to Infobae’s detailed account of the decision, the court found no demonstrated false statement causing buyers to purchase LIBRA and no adequate basis for linking the subsequent collapse to criminally relevant deception by the investigated defendants. It also examined allegations concerning abuse of authority, influence-peddling and incompatible dealings involving officials.
For Milei, the distinction between a personal X post and an official state act was central. Investigators did not establish a corresponding government resolution, official contract or government resources used in the promotion. The court therefore found no proved exercise of official authority in the alleged transaction. A failed prosecution on those grounds is different from a conclusion that high-profile public endorsements pose no market or reputational risk.
The Argentine presidency celebrated the outcome in an October 23 official statement, characterizing the allegations as a politically motivated campaign. That is the executive’s position, not an additional independent finding by the court. Opposition politicians criticized the investigation and argued the ruling came before all relevant questions had been answered.
What happened when Milei promoted LIBRA?
On February 14, 2025, Milei publicized LIBRA as part of a private initiative purportedly intended to support Argentine businesses. The token’s value surged amid the attention, then collapsed within hours. He deleted the post and later said he had acted in good faith, had not known important details and discontinued his promotion when he learned more.
Early reporting put LIBRA’s peak market capitalization above $4.5 billion and described a fall of roughly 95%. These are measures of an extraordinary price event, but peak capitalization should not be confused with an amount invested, an amount stolen or net losses realized by actual buyers. Multiplying a fleeting quoted token price by circulating supply is not the same as documenting cash that could have been withdrawn at that price.
On-chain analysts also tracked withdrawals from liquidity pools and wallets linked by researchers to the launch team. Reuters reported on October 23 that analysts estimated approximately $99 million was removed through eight such wallets. Other accounts have cited about $107 million. The differences may reflect datasets, transaction selections or measurement windows, and neither estimate should be presented as a court-established amount of fraud or combined into a larger loss.
A crucial distinction is between a wallet receiving assets, a liquidity provider withdrawing funds, an insider selling tokens and an investor being legally entitled to restitution. Each requires separate evidence. The court’s decision concerns the criminal allegations against named people; it does not retroactively reverse the economic consequences of the collapse.
DaveFinances reported a separate Trump-branded token episode involving concentrated ownership and a 99% price fall. The parties and circumstances were different, but the comparison shows why a political or celebrity association can move demand faster than ordinary traders can investigate token distribution and liquidity risks.
What became of the $5 million note and evidence about meetings?
The investigation examined a note recovered from intermediary Mauricio Novelli’s phone. According to accounts of the ruling, it referred to a proposed arrangement involving payments totaling $5 million. Forensic work established that a note existed, but did not prove it had been sent, received or accepted by the people supposedly involved. No signed agreement substantiated the alleged payments.
The court also examined records of communications among people connected to the project. A call record can establish contact or timing, but not the contents of a conversation or the existence of an unlawful agreement. In the absence of corroboration, the judge did not treat those records as sufficient proof of the alleged conduct.
Karina Milei had authorized access to Argentina’s presidential offices for Davis and another visitor in July 2024. The judge found that permission to enter the building, considered separately, did not show that she had received improper payments to arrange meetings. That conclusion addresses the evidentiary threshold for a criminal charge; it does not deny that meetings or contacts occurred.
Opposition figures and some complainants maintain that additional investigative steps were needed, noting that certain evidence-gathering measures remained incomplete and none of the investigated people had been summoned for formal suspect questioning. The defendants, meanwhile, received a dismissal on the available record. Both aspects are relevant to explaining why the ruling has not ended public disagreement.
Why might investors struggle to appeal the ruling?
The five investors who had joined the case as private complainants were removed in July at the request of Novelli’s defense team. An appellate panel upheld their removal on September 4, indicating that buyers voluntarily accepted the risks associated with purchasing such a volatile asset. The investors disagree and have pursued a complaint before Argentina’s Federal Criminal Cassation Court to recover their status.
That sequence has practical consequences. Taiano, the federal prosecutor, asked for dismissal. Martínez de Giorgi granted it. Without an authorized complainant in the case, there is presently no straightforward opposing party positioned to bring the dismissal before an appellate court. Reinstatement therefore matters at least as much as arguments over the initial decision’s merits.
According to La Nación’s October 24 account of the procedural dispute, judicial sources considered a decision restoring the investors’ status before the following Thursday, October 29, unlikely. The report also described a possible attempt to file an appeal before the deadline while waiting for the Cassation Court to decide whether the investors can participate at all.
As of October 25, neither reinstatement nor a successful appeal had been confirmed. The relevant deadline and potential route are based on reported court procedure, and it would be misleading either to declare the dismissal irrevocably final or to suggest the investors already enjoy an unrestricted right to appeal. A decision on standing could determine whether the evidence ever receives substantive appellate review.
| Legal track | Current outcome | Remaining question |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina criminal case | Eleven people dismissed October 23 | Whether any valid appeal changes finality |
| Investor participation | Private complainants excluded; ruling upheld September 4 | Cassation Court’s decision on their standing |
| US federal civil case | Amended class-action complaint dismissed September 29 | Potential appeal and scope of other private remedies |
Did parliamentary investigators reach a different conclusion?
A separate Argentine congressional inquiry scrutinized the promotion and reported contact between officials and people associated with LIBRA. Opposition lawmakers contended that Milei’s endorsement played an essential role in the project’s launch and questioned whether meetings and communications had received adequate examination.
But that conclusion must be described precisely. The Chamber of Deputies’ official report on the November 18, 2025 committee meeting says the opposition presented its findings but failed to secure the votes needed to send the report to the full chamber. An opposition committee assessment is not equivalent to a finding of criminal guilt or a binding court determination.
The two processes answer different questions. A congressional inquiry can examine conduct, public trust and governance even when evidence is insufficient to prove a criminal charge against particular individuals. A judge must evaluate whether evidence satisfies the elements of offenses under applicable criminal law. Reporting either conclusion as automatically nullifying the other would obscure their distinct legal and political functions.
A parallel development in the United States adds another layer. On September 29, federal Judge Jennifer Rochon dismissed an amended lawsuit arising from LIBRA and the separate M3M3 token, rejecting investors’ pleaded claims including allegations under the RICO statute. An analysis of the US civil ruling notes that no class had been certified and that the dismissal did not adjudicate every purchaser’s individual loss. The American result also did not decide the Argentine criminal charges against Milei.
What should LIBRA investors watch next?
The nearest legal milestone is the Cassation Court’s treatment of the investors’ complaint, together with any attempted appeal filed before the reported deadline. Only documented action by the courts can settle whether the Argentine dismissal remains in force without further review. Political statements for and against Milei do not, by themselves, change that procedural position.
There is a second, financial question. Estimates of tokens withdrawn, liquidity extracted and paper market value do not automatically establish damages that a court can award or collect. Investors pursuing recovery would need transaction-level records, a recognized cause of action, reliable identification of counterparties and a legally supportable calculation of individual losses.
Risks of rapid token issuance and concentrated insider access remain relevant beyond LIBRA. DaveFinances has analyzed suspected repeated liquidity extraction across 53 token launches, emphasizing the importance of transaction evidence before concluding who benefited or what conduct was unlawful. Buyers can also review practical checks for crypto-project authenticity and wallet permissions, although those precautions cannot eliminate the market risk of buying a new memecoin.
The October 23 ruling is a clear victory for Milei and the other investigated defendants in the Argentine criminal proceeding. It does not make LIBRA’s collapse disappear or create compensation for holders. For investors, the next decisive information is a procedural ruling on who can challenge the dismissal and whether any legally recognized claim can connect specific conduct with specific financial losses.
Investor takeaways: Argentina dismissed the criminal charges against eleven investigated people; the excluded investors’ appeal route remains unresolved; claimed on-chain withdrawals are not proven criminal proceeds; and the separate US civil decision has different legal implications. The next court filing matters more than an unverified claim about the token’s launch.
Johan Shamshad is a financial markets writer at Dave Finances covering cryptocurrencies, trading platforms, brokers, fintech, financial regulation, and developments across global markets. He previously worked at Gulf News, adding newsroom experience to his coverage of fast-moving financial and digital-asset markets.
His work focuses on identifying market-moving events, company developments, regulatory changes, product launches, and shifts in trading and financial infrastructure.
Johan contributes news and analysis designed to help readers understand not only what happened, but why a development matters and how it may affect the wider financial landscape. You can reach out to him via his social media accounts:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johan-shamshad-742851262/
X: https://x.com/Yasmine_FX
Investing: https://www.investing.com/members/contributors/279781574