Mentioned in This Article
1. Argentine Judge Closes the Milei LIBRA Memecoin Case
An Argentine federal judge has dismissed the criminal investigation into the LIBRA memecoin, clearing President Javier Milei and ten other people. On October 23, Judge Marcelo Martínez de Giorgi ruled that the facts examined in the Milei LIBRA case do not amount to any crime. The 11 people under investigation include presidential Secretary-General Karina Milei and Hayden Davis of Kelsier Ventures, but the order is not yet final.
The decision ends, at least for now, a probe that began after the token's collapse in February 2025 and became one of the most politically sensitive crypto scandals in Latin America. Because the ruling can still be challenged, the file will be archived only once the decision becomes final.
2. What Did the Judge Decide?
The judge granted a request from prosecutor Eduardo Taiano, who had argued that the alleged events were not criminal. Martínez de Giorgi found that the prosecutor's opinion was grounded in the evidence in the file. With no separate accusation pending from any other party, he ruled as the prosecutor had asked.
The decision, about 60 pages long, relies on article 336, section 3 of Argentina's national criminal procedure code, which allows a case to be dismissed when the facts investigated do not constitute a crime. The ruling also states that the proceedings leave the reputations of those investigated intact. None of the 11 had been formally questioned as a suspect.
The text circulated in Argentine media, but it had not appeared on the judiciary's official website by Friday evening.
3. Why Did the Court Find No Fraud?
On the fraud question, the judge accepted that the backing of a sitting president can give a project unusual reach and may have influenced how much some buyers trusted it. He held, however, that this does not necessarily mean anyone was given a false picture of the project. Trust created by a prominent endorsement is not, in itself, deception.
He also cautioned against inferring fraud solely from the way gains and losses were ultimately distributed among participants. A token whose price collapses leaves some holders with losses and others with profits, but that outcome alone does not establish a criminal scheme. Agreeing with Taiano, the judge concluded that the record showed no criminally relevant deception.
4. What About Abuse of Office and Karina Milei?
The judge found no official act connected to the project and no use of public resources. On that basis he rejected the allegations that Javier Milei abused his authority or engaged in negotiations incompatible with public office.
Regarding Karina Milei, the evidence did not show a concrete illicit exchange, nor that she acted as a paid intermediary for access to her brother. That accusation had come from two opposition lawmakers in the original complaint. Without proof of such an exchange, the judge saw no basis to continue. Hayden Davis of Kelsier Ventures, who is among the 11 cleared, also faced a separate investor lawsuit in the United States, which a federal judge in New York dismissed with prejudice on September 29; the Argentine decision and that ruling rest on different grounds and should be read separately.
5. Is the LIBRA Ruling Final?
No. The order can still be contested, and the legal path has already featured disputes over who may take part in the case. On July 3, the judge removed five investors as private plaintiffs. On September 4, a federal appeals panel upheld that removal.
On September 16, the investors asked the federal criminal cassation court, a higher tribunal for criminal matters, to reinstate them. The outcome of that request could not be confirmed, nor whether anyone will appeal the dismissal. The question matters because a reinstated plaintiff could challenge the decision and keep the case open.
6. How Did the LIBRA Token Collapse in 2025?
On February 14, 2025, Milei promoted LIBRA in a post on X, describing it as a private project intended to fund small Argentine businesses. That night the token's market capitalization peaked at $4.56 billion. Within 11 hours of its debut, it had fallen by more than 94%, according to data from the tracker Dexscreener.
Milei deleted the post, and hours later said he had no connection to the venture and did not know its details. The speed of the rise and fall, together with the involvement of a head of state, turned the episode into a political controversy as well as a market event.
The scandal also produced legal action elsewhere. In May 2025, the stablecoin issuer Circle froze $57 million in USDC linked to the affair. On September 29, a federal judge in New York dismissed, with prejudice, an investor lawsuit against Kelsier Labs, Davis and others. A dismissal with prejudice means the claim cannot be filed again in the same court.
7. How Does a Dismissal Work in Argentina's Federal Courts?
In Argentina's federal criminal procedure, a prosecutor and a judge play different roles during an investigation. The prosecutor gathers evidence and decides whether to push for charges, while the judge supervises the process and decides on requests. When the prosecutor concludes that the facts under investigation are not a crime and no other party presses an accusation, the judge may close the case on that basis.
That is the route taken here. Taiano asked for the dismissal, no independent accusation remained, and Martínez de Giorgi agreed. A ruling of this kind is a finding about the legal character of the facts, not a trial verdict after testimony, which is why none of the 11 people had been formally questioned as a suspect.
It also explains why the investors' standing is so important. Private plaintiffs can sometimes pursue a case alongside the prosecutor. Once five investors were removed from that role in July, and the removal was upheld in September, the main voice left pressing for continuation was the one now asking a higher court to restore its place.
8. What Is the LIBRA Token and Why Did It Attract Scrutiny?
LIBRA was a memecoin, a type of crypto token that circulates largely on speculation and social media attention. Such tokens can be created quickly and listed for trading within hours, and their prices often swing sharply in either direction. What set LIBRA apart was that the president of a country shared it with his followers, describing it as a private effort to fund small Argentine businesses.
The scale of the movement gave the episode weight. A market capitalization that reached $4.56 billion in a single night and then lost more than 94% of its value within 11 hours of debut is an extreme price path even by the standards of the memecoin market. For investors who bought near the peak, the drop was severe, which is why complaints were filed and a criminal inquiry opened.
The inquiry examined several theories: whether buyers were defrauded, whether public power was misused, and whether Karina Milei served as a gatekeeper to her brother. The ruling addressed each of these in turn and found that the evidence did not support them, which is the basis for closing the file as a whole.
9. Why Does the Milei Memecoin Ruling Matter?
Memecoins are tokens that derive their value mainly from attention and community enthusiasm rather than from a business or cash flows. When a public official promotes one, questions arise about whether followers were induced to buy, whether insiders profited, and whether the office was used for private gain. The Argentine ruling addresses those questions narrowly, finding on this record that the conduct did not meet the threshold for a crime.
The decision does not say that investors did not lose money. It says that, in the judge's assessment, the events do not constitute fraud or abuse of office under Argentine law. That distinction is central for traders who suffered losses, since a civil or criminal remedy depends on proving specific wrongdoing rather than simply a bad outcome.
For the broader crypto industry, the outcome shows how legal systems tend to separate market harm from criminal conduct. A collapse in price can be financially devastating without meeting the definition of fraud, and prosecutors generally need evidence of false statements, intent to deceive or misuse of public resources. The judge found none of these elements in the record before him.
Policymakers who watch the sector may also take note of the questions the case raised without resolving them, such as how officials should communicate about private tokens and whether disclosure rules for public figures who promote digital assets are adequate. The ruling does not answer those policy questions, since it concerns only the specific facts investigated in this file.
The case is also a test of how courts treat promotions by political leaders. The judge acknowledged the persuasive power of a president's endorsement but declined to treat it as deception. This reasoning could influence how similar disputes are argued in the future, although each depends on its own facts.
10. What Happens Next in the LIBRA Case?
The next step is the cassation court's handling of the investors' request to return as plaintiffs, together with any appeal against the dismissal. Until the order becomes final, the file stays open. If it does, it will be archived.
Observers will also watch whether the ruling appears on the judiciary's official website, since it had not been posted as of Friday evening. For the 11 people named, the order provides relief, while for the investors who lost money, the legal avenues in Argentina now depend on the higher court.