Specialised prosecutors appeal Milei’s dismissal in the $LIBRA case and seek to reopen it

The prosecutors are challenging Federal Judge Marcelo Martínez De Giorgi’s decision to dismiss charges in the $LIBRA case. Prosecutor Eduardo Taiano had requested those dismissals, but the Office of Administrative Investigations later joined the case and took over the criminal prosecution. It argues that the investigation ended too soon.

Reopening would allow investigators to trace the funds and examine money movements connected to the cryptocurrency. They also want to recover and analyse communications, investigate possible commercial agreements, and assess whether President Milei’s conduct could involve conflicts of interest in public office. The office says evidence should be considered as a whole, not separately.

The request is now before Federal Court No. 8, temporarily led by Judge Daniel Rafecas. The prosecutors also filed a subsidiary appeal. If reopening is refused, the Federal Appeals Court could review that decision. The appeal does not itself establish wrongdoing, but it seeks further investigation before the case is closed.

$LIBRA is a cryptocurrency, according to the article. It became central to the case because President Javier Milei shared it on X in February 2025. Its value then soared and collapsed within hours, causing losses for thousands of investors. The rapid reversal turned the post into a key event in the investigation.

Milei deleted the post, denied promoting the project, and rejected any wrongdoing. Those statements form part of the dispute over what his post meant and whether his conduct had legal significance. The prosecutors want more evidence before that question is settled.

The case therefore concerns more than a cryptocurrency’s price movement. It also concerns the president’s possible connection to the project, related communications, money movements, and possible commercial agreements. The Office of Administrative Investigations has asked that the investigation reopen, including examination of whether his conduct could amount to conflicts of interest in public office.

The article says thousands of investors lost money after the $LIBRA cryptocurrency’s value changed dramatically. It does not provide an exact number of affected people. It also does not state the size of the price increase or collapse.

The timing was extremely fast. Milei shared $LIBRA on X in February 2025, and its value soared before collapsing within hours. That sequence caused losses for thousands of investors and made the cryptocurrency central to the criminal case. Milei later deleted the post and denied promoting the project.

The speed of the collapse is important because prosecutors say the investigation is not complete. They want investigators to trace funds, examine money movements, recover communications, and investigate possible commercial agreements. The article does not say how much money investors lost. It reports that investors were removed from their role as plaintiffs, but they have appealed that decision.

The prosecutors say the investigation still lacks important evidence. They want investigators to trace the funds and examine money movements linked to the case. They also seek the recovery and analysis of communications, plus an investigation into possible commercial agreements connected with $LIBRA.

These steps could help show how the project operated and whether people connected to the case exchanged money or made arrangements. The article does not identify the agreements or specify which communications remain unavailable. It does say prosecutors believe technical difficulties and incomplete responses cannot justify ending the investigation.

They also object to the evidence being assessed piece by piece instead of as a whole. Their position is that the case should remain open while these lines of inquiry continue. They further propose examining whether Milei’s conduct could amount to conflicts of interest in public office. The judge must now decide whether the case should reopen.

The prosecutors planned for a possible rejection. Alongside their request to reopen the case, they filed a subsidiary appeal. This means that if the reopening request fails, the Federal Appeals Court can review the decision instead.

For now, the reopening request is before Federal Court No. 8. Judge Daniel Rafecas is temporarily heading that court while Judge Marcelo Martínez De Giorgi is on leave. Martínez De Giorgi was the federal judge who granted the dismissals requested by prosecutor Eduardo Taiano.

There is also a separate appeal by investors who lost money and were removed from their role as plaintiffs. That appeal is awaiting a ruling from the Federal Court of Criminal Cassation. The article does not say when either court will rule. The immediate question is whether the investigation returns to Federal Court No. 8 or moves to appellate review.

The appeal could prevent the $LIBRA case from ending at the dismissal stage. If successful, investigators could continue examining Javier Milei, his sister Karina Milei, and nine other defendants. The Office of Administrative Investigations could pursue missing evidence and consider whether Milei’s conduct involved conflicts of interest.

For investors, continued proceedings could create another opportunity to examine what happened to their money. They lost money when $LIBRA’s value collapsed and were removed from their role as plaintiffs. They have separately appealed that decision and are awaiting a ruling from the Federal Court of Criminal Cassation.

The appeal does not prove wrongdoing or guarantee charges. The article says Milei denied promoting $LIBRA and rejected any wrongdoing. Its immediate consequence is procedural: a court must decide whether the investigation should reopen, or whether the Federal Appeals Court should review a refusal.

In general, a conflict of interest exists when a public official’s private financial interests could influence, or appear to influence, official duties. The concern is not automatically proof of corruption. It is a reason to examine whether public power and personal or connected financial interests overlapped.

That issue arises here because Milei shared $LIBRA publicly while serving as president. The cryptocurrency’s value then soared and collapsed within hours, causing losses for thousands of investors. Prosecutors propose examining whether his conduct could amount to the crime of conflicts of interest in the exercise of public office.

The article does not establish that a conflict occurred or that Milei gained financially. Milei deleted the post, denied promoting the project, and rejected wrongdoing. Prosecutors say more evidence is needed, including fund tracing, communications, possible commercial agreements, and money movements. A reopened investigation could clarify whether any relevant connection existed.