An Argentine federal judge dismissed the criminal case over the February 2025 collapse of the LIBRA token. The judge accepted a prosecutor’s request, finding the evidence insufficient to establish the offenses under investigation. The case is closed for now, but questions remain about the investigation and investors’ role in the proceedings.
- The dismissal covered President Javier Milei, his sister Karina Milei, Hayden Davis and eight others.
- Investigators could not establish what Milei and Mauricio Novelli discussed around LIBRA’s launch.
- Investors’ challenge to their exclusion from the Argentine proceedings remained pending.
- A separate U.S. class action was dismissed; investors did not receive the $57.6 million in released USDC.
Why Argentina’s judge dismissed the case
LIBRA launched on Solana in February 2025. Milei promoted it as a private project meant to support Argentine businesses. The token later collapsed, prompting a criminal investigation into alleged offenses, including fraud.
On Oct. 23, federal judge Marcelo Martínez de Giorgi issued a 60-page decision dismissing the criminal case after prosecutor Eduardo Taiano requested it. The account reporting the ruling does not specify the year of the Oct. 23 decision.
Infobae reported that the judge found the evidence insufficient to establish the crimes under investigation. One issue in its account was that investigators had not identified a specific false statement that led buyers to purchase LIBRA. That detail helps explain the ruling, but it is not a complete account of the judge’s legal reasoning.
La Nación reported that none of the defendants had been called for formal questioning. That is a procedural fact. By itself, it does not show whether the allegations were true or whether the investigation was properly conducted.
The defendants were Milei, his sister Karina Milei, U.S. businessman Hayden Davis, Mauricio Novelli, Manuel Terrones Godoy, Sergio Morales, Julian Peh, María Alicia Rafaele, María Pía Novelli, Camilo Rodríguez Blanco and Orlando Mellino.
What investigators did not establish
Investigators examined unsigned documents and notes found on Novelli’s phone, including material about proposed agreements and commissions. Chequeado reported that investigators could not determine in several cases whether the documents had been sent, accepted or acted upon.
Chequeado also reported that Milei and Novelli communicated around LIBRA’s launch, but investigators could not determine what they discussed on their calls. The judge reportedly found insufficient evidence that Karina Milei had been paid to arrange access to the president. That finding reflects the evidence presented, but it does not answer every question about the documents or communications.
Investigators sought financial records, asked for the identities of holders of 25 cryptocurrency wallets and requested freezes on assets linked to the investigation. Requests for customer information and transaction records involved Binance, Bybit, OKX and Bitfinex. The reporting does not establish that every exchange carried out the requested freezes.
Chequeado described several obstacles to tracing funds: limited access to licensed technical tools, partial responses from some platforms and U.S. authorities ending assistance requests after deciding the supporting information was insufficient. These limits help explain why parts of the investigation remained incomplete. The reporting does not establish whether those efforts continued after the dismissal or where all the funds went.
Investors’ challenges to their removal as private complainants, parties seeking to participate in a criminal proceeding, remained before Argentina’s Federal Criminal Cassation Court. The challenge concerned their status in the proceedings. Based on the available information, it was not an appeal of the dismissal itself. The reporting does not establish whether the dismissal was appealed separately.
The U.S. class action was a separate proceeding
A New York class action brought by investors Omar Hurlock and Anuj Mehta involved Kelsier, Davis, former Meteora chief executive Benjamin Chow and Meteora. It was a civil lawsuit, separate from Argentina’s criminal case. A decision in one jurisdiction does not decide the other proceeding.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued an opinion dated Sept. 29, granting motions to dismiss and denying the investors permission to file a second amended complaint. The court dismissed fraud and conspiracy-to-defraud claims against the Kelsier defendants for failure to state a claim. It dismissed the remaining claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. Claims against Chow and Meteora were dismissed for failure to state a claim.
In plain language, “failure to state a claim” means the complaint did not adequately allege a legally actionable case. “Lack of personal jurisdiction” means the court found it had no authority over a defendant under the circumstances. The order said the amended complaint was “dismissed with prejudice” and directed the clerk to “CLOSE the case.” The reporting does not establish whether an appeal followed.
Released USDC was not investor compensation
In May 2025, Judge Rochon ordered USDC in two wallets frozen. USDC is a dollar-pegged stablecoin. August 2025 coverage reported that $57.6 million was later released after the judge found the defendants had complied with restrictions while the funds were frozen.
The release did not pay token buyers. At that stage, Hurlock and Mehta were seeking more than $100 million in damages, according to the reporting. Releasing funds from court restrictions is not the same as investors recovering their losses.
Political reactions are not court findings
Presidential adviser Santiago Caputo welcomed the Argentine dismissal and accused critics of using the case to harm Milei. Maximiliano Ferraro, who chaired a lower-house commission investigating LIBRA, criticized how the investigation was handled and alleged judicial obstruction. These statements reflect political reactions, not findings established by the judge’s decision.
Key questions about the LIBRA cases
-
Why was the Argentine criminal case dismissed?
According to Infobae’s account of the ruling, the judge found insufficient evidence to establish the crimes under investigation. Investigators had not identified a specific false statement that led buyers to purchase LIBRA.
-
Does the dismissal establish that no wrongdoing occurred?
No. The case was dismissed on the legal and evidentiary grounds set out in the ruling. The reporting does not establish whether the dismissal was appealed, and several factual questions remained unanswered.
-
Were the Argentine defendants formally questioned?
La Nación reported that none had been called for formal questioning before the dismissal.
-
Did the U.S. lawsuit decide the Argentine case?
No. The New York class action was a separate civil proceeding, with different claims and some overlapping parties.
-
Did investors receive the $57.6 million in released USDC?
No. The funds were released from court restrictions. The reported release did not compensate token buyers.
-
Are investors’ challenges in Argentina resolved?
No resolution was reported. The challenge concerned their exclusion from the proceedings as private complainants, not necessarily an appeal of the dismissal.
The rulings are significant legal outcomes, but they leave public questions about LIBRA’s launch, the communications around it and the movement of funds unanswered. Precision matters: unanswered questions are not proof of a conspiracy, and a dismissal does not amount to a blanket finding that every concern was unfounded.
