Argentina has closed its criminal investigation into President Javier Milei over the $LIBRA memecoin scandal. On October 23, 2026, Federal Judge Marcelo Martínez de Giorgi dismissed the case against Milei, his sister Karina Milei, and nine other people.
The decision ends a saga that started with a single social media post. That post ended up costing investors a reported $251 million.
What the judge decided
The ruling followed a recommendation from prosecutor Eduardo Taiano. He concluded there was insufficient evidence that any crime had been committed.
The allegations on the table were serious. They included fraud, influence peddling, and abuse of authority.
Judge Martínez de Giorgi rejected the fraud charge, known in Argentina as “estafa.” His reasoning was that nobody had proven deception connected to the losses investors suffered.
He also pointed to something crypto traders already know well. In his view, the wild price swings around $LIBRA were typical behavior for memecoins.
The judge drew one more key distinction. He classified Milei’s promotion of the token as a personal action, not an official government endorsement.
How $LIBRA blew up
The story goes back to February 14, 2025. On that date, Milei published a social media post promoting $LIBRA and sharing the token’s contract address.
Buyers found it fast. The token’s market value surged after the post, then collapsed just as dramatically.
The token reportedly shed 80-90% of its value in the crash. Investor losses were reportedly around $251 million.
Several of those inquiries reached the same place before this ruling did. Argentina’s anti-corruption office had previously cleared Milei of wrongdoing in the incident.
The US Department of Justice also declined to cooperate with the Argentine investigation. It cited insufficient evidence of a crime.
A related US class-action lawsuit was dismissed as well. Judge Martínez de Giorgi’s ruling lines up with the conclusions of those earlier reviews.
The case is now effectively closed. That status holds pending any appeals.
What this means for crypto and politics
The most direct takeaway concerns legal exposure. The ruling suggests that heavy losses in a speculative token do not, on their own, establish criminal liability for those who promoted it.
Prosecutors would have needed to show deception. Volatility, even violent volatility, was not enough to carry that burden in this case.
The personal versus institutional distinction may prove the most consequential part of the ruling. Politicians and public figures who promote tokens on personal accounts could point to it in future disputes.
For Milei, the ruling removes a legal cloud that had hung over his presidency since early 2025. Multiple bodies, from the anti-corruption office to a federal judge, have now declined to find criminal wrongdoing.
The remaining variable is the appeals process. Until that window closes, the case is closed in practice but not entirely in principle.
Disclosure: This article was edited by John Chen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.