Judge Ends Crypto Inquiry Into Argentine President Javier Milei

Federal judge Marcelo Martinez de Giorgi has officially closed the criminal investigation into Argentine President Javier Milei and his sister, Karina Milei. The decision comes after prosecutors recommended the case be dropped, bringing an end to a legal dispute that had centered on a volatile cryptocurrency launch. This move resolves a significant political and financial controversy that had lingered for nearly two years since the initial incident in early 2025.

The core of the legal battle revolved around a digital asset known as $Libra. The token was introduced to the market in February 2025 and saw its value skyrocket shortly after the president posted about it on the social media platform X. In that post, Milei described the coin as a mechanism to support small businesses and start-ups. He also included a direct link allowing users to purchase the token, which led to a sharp and immediate increase in its price.

The situation reversed rapidly within hours of the post. Milei removed the message from his profile, and the value of $Libra fell steeply. Most investors who had bought in during the brief surge lost a large portion of their capital. This sudden drop in value triggered intense scrutiny from the public and political opponents, who questioned whether the promotion was a strategic move to inflate the price before a withdrawal.

Opposition members of Congress moved to initiate impeachment proceedings following the collapse. Critics on social media used the term "rug pull" to describe the event. This term refers to a common scheme in the crypto world where promoters attract buyers with a new token and then stop trading to keep the funds raised. The accusations placed significant pressure on the administration to clarify its involvement in the project's development and distribution.

The judge’s ruling provided a definitive legal stance on these accusations. In his decision, he stated that the reported events did not fit into a specific legal category for fraud. He concluded that no "criminally relevant deception" had been proven in the court's view. This finding effectively cleared the president and his sister of criminal liability regarding the specific timeline and actions surrounding the $Libra launch and subsequent removal.

President Milei has consistently pushed back against the fraud allegations throughout the investigation. In an interview with the news outlet Todo Noticias, he clarified his role by stating, "I didn't promote it, I merely shared it." He argued that he acted in good faith while the token's value was increasing. His defense focused on the distinction between actively marketing a product and simply sharing information with his followers.

The president also addressed the decision to delete the original post. He explained that he did not have a full understanding of the project's details at the time of posting. After learning more about the underlying mechanics of $Libra, he decided to stop promoting it. In a television appearance, he further argued that the investors who purchased the token did so voluntarily and with a clear understanding of the inherent risks involved in cryptocurrency markets.

The presidential office maintained that Milei had no part in the technical development of $Libra. To show transparency at the time of the incident, the administration announced that the Anti-Corruption Office would examine whether the president had acted improperly. This internal review was part of the broader effort to address concerns before the formal judicial process was completed by the federal court.

As of the most recent reports, the president had not issued a public response to the news of the case's dismissal. The conclusion of this investigation marks a significant shift in the political landscape, removing a major legal obstacle from the president's agenda. While the legal question has been settled, the episode remains a point of discussion regarding the intersection of presidential influence and the volatile crypto asset market.

The closure of the case highlights the challenges regulators and courts face in applying traditional fraud laws to digital assets. The ruling suggests that for a case to proceed, there must be a clearer demonstration of deceptive intent beyond a simple price fluctuation following a public endorsement. This precedent may influence how similar future disputes involving public figures and cryptocurrencies are handled in Argentina and potentially in other jurisdictions.