Federal Judge Marcelo Martínez de Giorgi issued the ruling on October 23, 2026, after federal prosecutor Eduardo Taiano asked the court to dismiss the case. The decision also covered Milei’s sister, Karina Milei, and nine other people linked to the cryptocurrency project.

The case followed Milei’s post on X on February 14, 2025, which promoted a project called Viva la Libertad Project and included the token’s contract address. The token’s price surged after the post before falling sharply within hours.

The judge acknowledged that Milei’s position as president may have given the project greater visibility. However, he concluded that the president’s endorsement and the token’s subsequent price collapse did not, by themselves, establish fraud.

The decision closes the criminal investigation against the 11 people covered by the ruling, subject to any appeal and the ruling’s final procedural status. It does not establish that the token was a safe investment or erase the financial losses reported by buyers.

Who was covered by the ruling?

The dismissal applies to 11 people investigated in connection with the launch and promotion of $LIBRA:

• Javier Milei: Argentina’s president, who promoted the token on X.
• Karina Milei: His sister and the secretary-general of the presidency.
• Hayden Mark Davis: A US businessman who described himself as an adviser to the token’s launch.
• Mauricio Gaspar Novelli: A businessman and intermediary linked to the project.
• Manuel Terrones Godoy: A business associate of Novelli.
• Sergio Daniel Morales: A former adviser to Argentina’s National Securities Commission.
• Chyi Haur Peh, known as Julian Peh: An individual linked to the project’s technology company, Kip Protocol.
• María Alicia Rafaele: Novelli’s mother.
• María Pía Novelli: Novelli’s sister.
• Camilo Rodríguez Blanco: An intermediary linked to the project.
• Orlando Mellino: Another intermediary named in the investigation.

The case examined possible fraud and alleged misconduct involving public office. The dismissal means the court found no sufficient legal basis to continue the criminal case against these individuals under the offences considered.

It does not mean that every business decision associated with the token has been independently certified as ethical or financially sound.

Why the judge dismissed the fraud allegations

The ruling focused on what Argentine law requires prosecutors to establish in a fraud case.

Under Article 172 of Argentina’s Penal Code, fraud generally requires a deceptive act that causes a person to make a financial decision, leading to economic harm. Prosecutors must establish more than a sharp price movement or an investor’s loss.

The judge concluded that the evidence did not establish the required criminal deception. Milei’s post helped draw attention to $LIBRA, but the court found that the post, the initial price rise and the subsequent collapse did not alone prove a fraudulent scheme.

The ruling also considered the nature of the cryptocurrency market. Meme coins can experience extreme price swings, and buyers may face substantial losses. The judge found that losses in a speculative market were not enough, by themselves, to establish that a criminal fraud had occurred.

This was the central legal distinction. A token can lose most of its value, and its buyers can suffer serious financial harm, without those outcomes alone proving every element of a criminal offence.

The judge also considered allegations involving abuse of authority, breaches of public duties and incompatible public and private interests. According to reports on the decision, the court found insufficient evidence of unlawful official acts, institutional commitments or the use of public resources to support those charges.

The ruling therefore addressed whether the conduct met the legal requirements for criminal prosecution. It was not a general judgment on the quality of the token or the wisdom of buying it.

How Milei’s post triggered the controversy

On February 14, 2025, Milei published a post on X promoting Viva la Libertad Project and sharing the contract address for $LIBRA.

The post attracted immediate attention. The token’s price rose sharply as buyers entered the market. Within hours, however, its value plunged, leaving many purchasers facing losses.

Milei later deleted the post and said he had acted in good faith. He said he had not known the project’s details and stopped promoting it after learning more about it.

The episode prompted complaints and calls for an investigation into whether the token’s launch involved fraud, improper payments or the misuse of presidential influence.

Investigators examined communications, electronic devices, cryptocurrency movements and possible links between people associated with the project and individuals with access to the president.

The investigation also examined allegations that payments or arrangements may have helped secure access to Milei. Such claims formed part of the wider inquiry, but they must be distinguished from facts established by the court. The dismissal does not allow unproven allegations to be presented as established misconduct.

What the blockchain evidence showed

Blockchain researchers reported that eight wallets linked to the token’s creator withdrew approximately US$99 million in cryptocurrency associated with the project. The figure became a central part of the public debate over the token’s collapse.

That amount needs careful interpretation.

A withdrawal figure is not automatically the same as verified investor losses. It can reflect the value of assets moved from a liquidity pool or trading environment, and the final economic outcome depends on the transactions, asset prices, timing and what happened to the funds afterward.

The figure also depends on how researchers linked the wallets to the token’s creator. Blockchain records can show transactions between addresses, but identifying the person or organization behind a wallet may require additional evidence.

Argentina’s fintech chamber previously warned that the episode could resemble a “rug pull”—a situation in which a project attracts buyers before insiders remove liquidity or sell assets, leaving others exposed to a collapse. That was a warning about a possible explanation, not a judicial finding that a rug pull had occurred.

The judge considered the distribution of gains and losses but concluded that it did not, on its own, prove fraud. The reported withdrawals remain relevant to understanding the token’s market behavior, but they do not independently establish criminal intent.

Why Milei’s presidential position mattered

The case raised a broader question: what legal responsibility follows when a sitting president promotes a financial asset to a large public audience?

Milei’s office gave his post unusual reach. Buyers may have interpreted the endorsement as a sign of credibility, even though a social media post is not the same as a formal government approval or a guarantee of investment performance.

The judge acknowledged that Milei’s institutional standing may have increased the token’s visibility. However, the ruling distinguished that influence from proof of fraud.

The court also considered whether Milei had acted through his official powers or used public resources to support the project. Reports on the ruling say the judge relied on government reports that treated the post as an individual or private act rather than an institutional decision.

That conclusion addresses the legal charges examined in this case. It does not remove the wider public-interest question of how political leaders should handle endorsements that could influence financial decisions.

The distinction is important. A president’s public influence can have real economic consequences, but criminal liability still depends on the evidence and the requirements of the law.

The prosecutor’s request and the status of the case

Taiano, the federal prosecutor overseeing the investigation, asked the judge to dismiss the case against all 11 people. The judge accepted that request.

The ruling also followed earlier procedural developments in which investors who had sought to participate as private accusers were removed from that role by a federal appeals court. Reporting on the decision said there was no independent accusation left to sustain the case after the prosecutor requested dismissal.

The judge concluded that the prosecutor’s request had a sufficient legal and evidentiary basis. He also stated that the existence of the proceedings did not affect the good name and honor of the people investigated.

The dismissal was issued on October 23, 2026. Reports published after the ruling indicated that it could still be appealed. The available reporting does not establish that an appeal has already been filed, so the decision should not yet be described as definitively final without checking the court docket.

The status of any related civil claims, regulatory reviews or proceedings outside Argentina must also be checked separately. A dismissal in this criminal case does not automatically determine the outcome of other proceedings that may involve different legal questions, parties or evidence.

What the ruling does not settle

The decision answers a specific legal question: whether the evidence in the Argentine criminal investigation justified continuing charges against the people named in the ruling.

It does not mean that buyers avoided losses. It does not establish that $LIBRA was a sound investment. Nor does it independently validate every claim made by people involved in the project.

The reported collapse, the movement of funds and the circumstances surrounding the launch remain important to understanding the financial consequences for purchasers. But the legal finding must be reported on its own terms rather than treated as proof of either a conspiracy or complete financial propriety.

For investors, the distinction between criminal liability and financial risk is crucial. A court can conclude that evidence does not meet the legal threshold for fraud while buyers still experience substantial losses. Likewise, large withdrawals can warrant scrutiny without automatically proving a criminal offence.

A legal dismissal, not a guarantee of financial soundness

Martínez de Giorgi’s ruling removes Milei, his sister and nine other people from the $LIBRA criminal investigation, based on the conclusion that the alleged conduct did not fit the criminal offences examined.

The judge recognized that Milei’s position may have amplified the token’s reach. He nevertheless found that the post, price rise, collapse and distribution of gains and losses did not establish the elements needed to prove fraud.

The decision marks a significant legal outcome in a controversy that began with a presidential social media post and a rapid cryptocurrency collapse. Its final status still needs confirmation, and separate proceedings must be assessed on their own terms.

The central lesson is that the legal standard for criminal fraud is not the same as a judgment about investment quality. The court dismissed the criminal case; that outcome does not turn $LIBRA into a safe investment or erase the financial consequences for those who bought it.

Reporting Credit: Argentine Federal Court No. 8 — October 23, 2026, ruling in the $LIBRA investigation, as described in published legal reporting. Prosecutor Eduardo Taiano — request for dismissal as reported in Argentine court coverage. Reuters — reporting on the ruling, Milei’s public response and the reported cryptocurrency withdrawals. Argentine legal and financial reporting — context on the scope of the ruling and the token’s collapse.

The post Argentina Dismisses Criminal Investigation Into Milei’s $LIBRA Promotion appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.