Milei said the $LIBRA case had “coup-plotting aims,” accused journalists and warned: “The sons of bitches have to burn at the stake”

Javier Milei responded to the dismissal of the $LIBRA case with harsh political and personal attacks. He described the affair as having “fines golpistas,” or alleged coup-plotting aims. That accusation matters because it presents the investigation and its supporters as an attempt to destabilize his government, not simply as a legal dispute.

He also accused journalists and used the phrase “Los hijos de puta se tienen que quemar en la hoguera.” The source specifically identifies Natalia Volosin, a PERFIL journalist, as someone Milei insulted after being cleared. These remarks placed the criminal case alongside a broader confrontation with the media.

The case was dismissed for Milei and his sister, Karina Milei, according to the cited reports. The dismissal did not end the political controversy. Milei’s language, the journalists’ criticism, and continuing attention to the crypto scheme keep the episode publicly contested, even after the judicial decision.

$LIBRA was a cryptocurrency promoted in a public setting involving Javier Milei, according to the case described in the source. It matters because the promotion became connected to allegations of a cryptocurrency scam. The cited reports frame the dispute as both a legal investigation and a political controversy.

The basic concern in a case like this is whether promotion helped attract buyers before a rapid price collapse. If early holders sell into that demand, later buyers can suffer major losses. The source does not provide the token’s price, the amount lost, or a detailed account of who sold. It only refers to the crypto scheme and the alleged fraud.

The Argentine justice system later dismissed the case against Milei and his sister, Karina Milei. That decision changed the legal status of the accusations, but it did not erase public questions about the promotion. The source presents the episode as an unresolved clash between cryptocurrency claims, journalism, and politics.

Javier Milei was the central public figure linked to $LIBRA’s promotion and later attacked journalists over the case. Karina Milei was also named in reports about the dismissal. The source presents both siblings as the people who were “sobreseídos,” meaning the case against them was closed by the court.

Journalists supplied public scrutiny and became targets of Milei’s criticism. Natalia Volosin, a PERFIL journalist, is specifically named as someone he insulted after the dismissal. Prosecutors would have investigated the alleged cryptocurrency fraud, while judges decided whether the case against the accused could continue. The source does not identify those officials or describe their filings.

The roles therefore remain sharply different. Milei and his sister were defendants or subjects of the investigation. Journalists reported on or criticized the affair. Prosecutors pursued the legal inquiry, and judges issued the dismissal. Because the source is only a set of headlines, it does not establish each actor’s precise conduct or whether other people remain under investigation.

In Argentine criminal law, “sobreseído” generally means a court has dismissed the criminal case against a person. The decision can reflect different legal reasons, such as insufficient evidence, conduct not constituting a crime, or the accused not being legally responsible. Its exact effect depends on the ruling and its grounds.

For Javier Milei and Karina Milei, the cited reports say the justice system dismissed the case connected to $LIBRA. That means the criminal proceedings against them ended at that stage. It does not necessarily describe every transaction, every participant, or every disputed public statement. The source does not provide the judges’ reasoning.

A dismissal is not the same as a universal factual certificate that nothing improper happened. It means the legal case against the named people could not proceed or was closed under the court’s reasoning. Other investigations or civil claims could theoretically differ, though the source does not say whether any exist. This explanation uses established Argentine legal meaning beyond the supplied headlines.

The scale of harm depends on how many people buy, how much they invest, and how sharply the token falls. A newly promoted cryptocurrency can reach a large audience quickly because social media and prominent endorsements create sudden attention. If the price collapses, losses can spread across many investors at once.

For example, 10,000 investors losing an average of $1,000 would represent $10 million in losses. That is an illustrative calculation, not a figure from the $LIBRA reports. The key mechanism is a mismatch between buyers entering at inflated prices and sellers exiting before or during the collapse. Thin trading markets can make the fall especially violent.

The supplied source does not state how much money or how many investors were affected by $LIBRA. It only describes an alleged crypto scam and a legal case involving its promotion. Therefore, no reliable case-specific total can be given here. Exact scale would require court records or detailed financial reporting.

A coup is an organized attempt to remove a government or take power outside ordinary constitutional procedures. It can involve military force, coercion, or an effort to make elected institutions unable to govern. Calling a campaign “coup-plotting” therefore alleges an attack on the state’s democratic order, not merely partisan criticism.

Argentina’s history makes that language especially serious. The country experienced repeated military interventions and a dictatorship before the restoration of democracy in 1983. Those events left deep political and social consequences. This historical context is established background beyond the supplied headlines, which identify Milei’s accusation but do not explain Argentina’s history.

In the $LIBRA controversy, Milei said the affair had “fines golpistas.” That framed the investigation, media attention, or broader campaign as politically destabilizing. The source does not establish evidence for that allegation. Such wording can raise the stakes of a legal dispute, intensify confrontation with journalists, and make later debate more difficult by treating opponents as threats to democratic government.

A cryptocurrency uses a blockchain, a shared digital ledger that records transfers between wallet addresses. Users control funds with cryptographic keys, while a network verifies and stores transactions. The ledger can be publicly visible, but an address normally does not reveal its owner’s legal identity. This structure differs from a bank account tied directly to a named customer.

If someone promotes a token, buyers may send money or cryptocurrency to wallets connected with the project. Analysts can follow those transfers across the blockchain. They still must connect addresses to real people, exchanges, or companies. If the controller moves assets through multiple wallets, trading platforms, or privacy services, attribution becomes harder. Transfers are usually difficult to reverse.

These mechanisms help explain why suspected crypto fraud can be difficult to investigate and recover. The source calls $LIBRA a crypto scheme but supplies no wallet addresses, transaction records, or recovery figures. The explanation here uses established blockchain knowledge, not additional facts about the case. A court dismissal does not itself explain where any disputed funds went.