Argentine Judge Clears Milei in LIBRA Token Case
A Buenos Aires federal judge has dismissed the criminal case against President Javier Milei and 10 others connected to the LIBRA token, ruling on 24 October 2026 that the evidence did not establish what he called "criminally relevant deception." The decision closes the primary criminal track, but a parallel investor appeal at a higher court means the legal file is not entirely shut. For accounting firms, auditors, and CFOs with exposure to Argentine digital asset markets, the ruling carries practical implications worth understanding before the next reporting cycle.
What the Judge Actually Decided
Judge Marcelo Martínez de Giorgi issued a 60-page dismissal covering all 11 people under investigation. The list includes President Milei, his sister and presidency secretary-general Karina Milei, Hayden Davis (who had described himself as LIBRA's launch adviser), crypto lobbyist Mauricio Novelli, and Julian Peh of KIP Protocol, among others.
The core legal finding
The judge agreed with the position taken by prosecutor Eduardo Taiano: the conduct under examination "does not fit any legal offense." Milei had posted about LIBRA on the social platform X on the evening of 14 February 2025. The token briefly reached a market capitalisation above $4.5 billion before falling roughly 95% within hours. Milei deleted the post after the crash and later said he had acted in good faith.
On the central fraud question, the judge found that the prominence of whoever promotes a crypto asset, and the visibility that promotion generates, "do not, in themselves, amount to a fraudulent scheme." The presidential office "could have conferred particular repercussion and visibility" on the token, but visibility alone does not satisfy the legal threshold for criminal deception under Argentine law.
Key evidentiary points addressed
The ruling addressed several specific pieces of evidence that had attracted public attention during the investigation.
A note recovered from Novelli's phone appeared to describe three payments totalling $5 million. Forensic analysis confirmed the note existed in Apple Notes, but investigators could not establish it had been sent to Davis or any other person. The judge treated it as inconclusive.
Investigators also found deleted chat records referencing a contact saved under a name associated with Karina Milei, as well as records of calls between Milei and Novelli. The content of neither the chats nor the calls could be recovered or verified.
On Karina Milei specifically, the only documented link between her and Davis was an official record showing she had authorised his entry to the Casa Rosada on 16 July 2024. The judge wrote that this authorisation, "considered in isolation, does not demonstrate the existence of an illicit agreement."
The ruling also noted that a staff member of DATIP, the prosecutors' forensic unit, had improperly accessed sealed case files, some of which subsequently leaked to the press. This procedural irregularity is referenced in the ruling, though the judge did not rely on it as a basis for dismissal.
The Political and Procedural Context
The dismissal did not land in a vacuum. Prosecutor Taiano had already requested that the case be dropped, and none of the 11 defendants had been required to give a formal suspect statement at any point in the investigation. That unusually light procedural footprint drew criticism from opposition figures even before Friday's ruling.
Opposition response
Maximiliano Ferraro, the opposition deputy who led Congress's LIBRA investigative commission, called the ruling "a planned judicial operation of cover-up and impunity." His commission's report, released in November 2025, had found that Milei was aware of connections between the token's promoters and the presidency. Judge Martínez de Giorgi's ruling does not reference that report.
Opposition deputy Sabrina Selva also raised questions about the appointment, signed by Milei and Justice Minister Juan Bautista Mahiques on 15 July 2026, of the judge's wife to a federal court. That decree came 12 days after the judge had removed investor plaintiffs from the case. The Senate had approved the nominee before the decree was signed, and the appointment was procedurally regular, but the timing drew scrutiny.
The investor reinstatement track
In July 2026, Judge Martínez de Giorgi removed the investor plaintiffs who had joined the case, following a request from Novelli's lawyers. An appeals panel upheld that removal in September 2026, writing that LIBRA buyers had "voluntarily assumed the risks inherent in that type of purchase." Those investors have since petitioned the Federal Criminal Cassation Court to be reinstated as plaintiffs. If the Cassation Court grants reinstatement, they would gain standing to appeal Friday's dismissal. That track remains open and active.
Accounting and Audit Implications for Argentine Exposure
Accounting firms and CFOs supporting entities with Argentine digital asset positions need to work through several questions the ruling leaves unresolved.
Loss recognition and impairment
The LIBRA token lost approximately 95% of its value within hours of launch. For any client or entity that held LIBRA as a digital asset on its balance sheet, the impairment event crystallised in February 2025, not in October 2026. The dismissal of criminal charges does not reopen that valuation question or restore carrying value. Under IFRS, digital assets held as intangibles would have required impairment testing at the date the price collapsed, regardless of subsequent legal proceedings.
Firms using digital asset accounting software to manage client portfolios should confirm that any LIBRA positions were written down to recoverable amount at the correct period-end and that the impairment was disclosed as required. The criminal ruling is legally irrelevant to that exercise.
Contingent liability disclosures
Because the investor reinstatement petition is still pending at the Cassation Court, any entity that was a defendant, a promoter, or had a commercial relationship with the LIBRA project may still face a contingent liability. Under IAS 37, a contingent liability must be disclosed unless the possibility of an outflow is remote. "Dismissed at first instance but subject to a live reinstatement appeal" does not obviously meet the remote threshold. Legal counsel in Argentina should be consulted, but auditors reviewing year-end 2026 accounts should be asking the question.
AML and KYC file completeness
Onchain analysts had identified eight wallets tied to the token's team as having extracted value before and during the crash. Even though no criminal finding was made, the transaction patterns that attracted forensic attention are exactly the kind of activity that a robust crypto bookkeeping software setup should be flagging in real time: concentrated pre-launch wallet activity, rapid post-launch outflows, and price movements disconnected from organic trading volume. Firms advising clients in the Argentine crypto space should review whether their transaction monitoring configurations would have surfaced LIBRA-style patterns.
For further context on how enforcement actions affect what practitioners need from digital asset accounting software, see our analysis of how enforcement actions reshape digital asset accounting software requirements. For a broader look at the accounting challenges in crypto fraud cases generally, see our piece on tracking crypto fraud cases through your books.
What Happens Next
Near-term legal milestones
Prosecutor Taiano is not expected to appeal the ruling. With no remaining private plaintiffs currently in the case, the dismissal would ordinarily become final once appeal windows close. However, the Cassation Court petition from the removed investors is the critical variable. A decision granting reinstatement would reopen the procedural clock. Firms advising Argentine clients should monitor that court's docket through the first quarter of 2027 at minimum.
Regulatory posture in Argentina
The LIBRA episode unfolded against a backdrop of relatively light-touch crypto regulation in Argentina, where dollar-denominated stablecoin use has been widespread as a hedge against peso depreciation. The case prompted Congressional scrutiny but did not, as of the ruling date, produce new legislative restrictions on token promotion by public officials. Whether the ruling accelerates or delays any such legislation remains to be seen.
Record retention and documentation
Regardless of the legal outcome, accounting firms and in-house finance teams should ensure that all records related to LIBRA positions, transactions, and any associated advisory work are retained in line with Argentine statutory retention periods and, where applicable, IFRS audit trail requirements. A ruling that finds no crime was committed does not extinguish the obligation to maintain complete records, particularly where investor civil claims or regulatory enquiries could still arise independently of the criminal track.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the dismissal mean LIBRA investors have no further legal recourse?
Not necessarily. The criminal case has been dismissed, but the group of investors removed as plaintiffs in July 2026 has petitioned the Federal Criminal Cassation Court for reinstatement. If successful, they could appeal the dismissal. Civil claims, which follow a separate procedural track from criminal proceedings in Argentina, are not addressed by this ruling.
How should auditors treat LIBRA-related impairments in 2026 year-end accounts?
The impairment event occurred when the token's value collapsed in February 2025. The 2026 criminal ruling does not change the accounting treatment for that period. Auditors should confirm that any LIBRA positions were written down to recoverable amount at the correct balance sheet date and that disclosures in the 2025 accounts were adequate. For 2026 accounts, the focus shifts to any residual carrying value and to contingent liability disclosure while the Cassation Court appeal is live.
Is the contingent liability from the investor appeal disclosable under IAS 37?
Entities with a direct connection to the LIBRA project, whether as defendants, promoters, or counterparties, should assess this carefully. A live reinstatement petition at a higher court means the possibility of future proceedings is not clearly remote. IAS 37 requires disclosure of contingent liabilities unless the probability of an outflow is remote. Firms should seek Argentine legal counsel and document the assessment in their working papers.
What transaction monitoring lessons does the LIBRA case offer for crypto compliance teams?
Onchain analysts identified concentrated wallet activity and rapid post-launch outflows as indicators of coordinated extraction. Compliance teams and the digital asset accounting software configurations they rely on should be calibrated to surface these patterns: unusually high concentration among a small number of wallets at launch, large outflows within hours of a price spike, and price-to-volume divergence. The LIBRA case is a practical stress-test scenario for any monitoring ruleset.
Does the ruling set a precedent for other jurisdictions on celebrity or political token promotion?
Argentine court decisions do not bind other jurisdictions, and the ruling turned on specific evidentiary facts rather than a broad legal principle about promotion liability. That said, the judge's reasoning, that visibility and notoriety of a promoter do not alone constitute fraud, will be cited in comparative legal analysis elsewhere. Regulators in other jurisdictions have taken different approaches: some have issued guidance treating high-profile promotional posts as potentially misleading regardless of intent. Practitioners advising clients on token promotion should check the specific rules in each relevant jurisdiction rather than relying on the Argentine outcome.
Source: The Block