Milei Just Got Cleared in the $LIBRA Crypto Scandal—But the Investors Who Lost $100 Million Are Still Waiting for Answers

 

Milei Just Got Cleared in the $LIBRA Crypto Scandal—But the Investors Who Lost $100 Million Are Still Waiting for Answers

 October 24, 2026 | 12-Minute Read**

---

## The Short Version (For the Busy American)

An Argentine federal judge dropped the criminal investigation into President Javier Milei and his sister Karina on Friday, ruling that the $LIBRA cryptocurrency scandal did not constitute a crime.

Judge **Marcelo Martínez de Giorgi** concluded that "the reported events do not fall under a legal category" and that no "criminally relevant deception" had been proven . The ruling aligned with the recommendation of prosecutor **Eduardo Taiano**, who found insufficient evidence to substantiate fraud charges .

The case stemmed from a February 2025 incident in which Milei promoted a little-known meme coin called **$LIBRA** on X, saying it would help fund small businesses and start-ups. The coin's value briefly spiked, then collapsed within hours after Milei deleted his post. Blockchain researchers estimated that **around $99 million** was withdrawn from the market by eight digital wallets linked to the token's creator, leaving thousands of investors with massive losses .

**The punchline:** Milei is legally cleared. But the ruling doesn't answer the question that matters most to the people who lost money: **if this wasn't fraud, what was it?**

---

## What Actually Happened: The $LIBRA Timeline

Let me walk you through the sequence, because the details matter.

### The Post

On **February 14, 2025**, Milei posted on X about $LIBRA, a new cryptocurrency. He said it was aimed at "incentivizing the growth of the Argentine economy by funding ventures." The post was pinned to his account, which had **3.8 million followers** .

Within hours, the coin's value skyrocketed—nearly quintupling from its initial price .

### The Collapse

Then the wallets moved. According to blockchain researchers, **eight digital wallets linked to the token's creator** withdrew approximately **$99 million** from the market—more than 80% of the circulating money .

The price crashed. Milei deleted his post. And **more than 40,000 investors** were left holding worthless tokens .

### The Defense

Milei's explanation was simple: he didn't know what he was promoting.

"I was not aware of the details of the project and once I found out, I decided to not continue giving it publicity," he said at the time .

He insisted he had acted "in good faith" and accused political rivals of trying to exploit the situation . His office said he had no involvement in the coin's development and announced that the Anti-Corruption Office would review whether he acted improperly .

---

## The Ruling: What the Judge Actually Said

The judge's decision wasn't a blanket exoneration of the project's ethics. It was a narrow legal finding: **the facts didn't fit the definition of a crime**.

### The Key Findings

**First**, Milei's promotion may have given the launch "greater impact" because of his institutional standing, but that alone "does not constitute a fraudulent scheme" .

**Second**, the mere sequence of events—promotion, price spike, collapse—didn't prove that the trajectory was "organized in advance for fraudulent purposes" .

**Third**, investigators found no proof that Karina Milei received payments for facilitating meetings between the crypto entrepreneurs and her brother. The judge wrote: "Facilitating a contact or helping to organize a meeting does not, in itself, amount to influence peddling" .

### The Prosecutor's Logic

Prosecutor Taiano's reasoning was crucial. He argued that **an adverse financial outcome is not sufficient to establish fraud**. To prove fraud, you need to demonstrate **what the specific deception was**, how it misled buyers, and how it prompted their investment decisions .

The judge agreed. The case was dismissed.

---

## The Human Touch: What This Means for the 40,000 Investors

Let me put this in terms that actually connect to real people.

### The Money Is Gone

The ruling doesn't return anyone's investment. The $99 million that was withdrawn from the market is still gone. The 40,000 people who bought $LIBRA at inflated prices still hold tokens that are worth a fraction of what they paid.

For them, the legal system has delivered a verdict that says: **you weren't defrauded, you just made a bad investment**. That may be legally correct. But it doesn't feel like justice to someone who lost their savings because a president with 3.8 million followers told them the coin was a good idea.

### The Precedent Problem

Here's the uncomfortable implication. If a world leader promotes a speculative asset and it collapses after insiders cash out, and that **doesn't** constitute fraud under Argentine law, what does?

The judge's ruling suggests that the bar for proving fraud in crypto cases is extremely high. You need to prove not just that people lost money, but that there was a **specific deception**—a lie about what the project was, how it worked, or who was behind it. The mere fact that it was a pump-and-dump in practice isn't enough.

### Milei's Response

Milei didn't hold back. On X, he declared that "the truth itself will prevail" and demanded compensation for "more than 20 months of false accusations" . He described the investigation as a "political and media operation" aimed at damaging his presidency for "putschist reasons" .

His office released a statement saying: "For the first time in history, a President of the Nation was investigated with complete freedom, resulting in absolute proof of his innocence" .

The opposition, predictably, cried foul. La Cámpora, the leftist youth organization aligned with former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, wrote: "In our country there is no justice. The judiciary is dominated by a mafia that serves power" .

---

## Frequently Asked Questions

### What was the $LIBRA crypto scandal?

In February 2025, Argentine President Javier Milei promoted a little-known meme coin called $LIBRA on X, saying it would help fund Argentine businesses. The coin's value spiked, then collapsed within hours after Milei deleted his post. Blockchain researchers estimated that around **$99 million** was withdrawn by wallets linked to the token's creator, leaving **more than 40,000 investors** with losses .

### Why was the case dismissed?

Judge Marcelo Martínez de Giorgi ruled that "the reported events do not constitute a criminal offence." He found that while Milei's promotion may have given the launch "greater impact," that alone did not establish a fraudulent scheme. The prosecutor had argued that investor losses and price movements were insufficient to prove fraud—you need to identify a **specific deception** .

### Did Milei admit any wrongdoing?

**No.** Milei has consistently said he acted "in good faith" and that he "was not aware of the details of the project." He deleted his post after learning more and decided not to continue promoting it. He has accused political rivals of exploiting the situation .

### What about his sister Karina?

Karina Milei, who serves as secretary-general of the presidency, was also cleared. The judge found no proof that she received payments for facilitating meetings between the crypto entrepreneurs and her brother .

### Who else was cleared?

**Nine other individuals** were cleared, including **Hayden Davis**, the American businessman who described himself as a "launch adviser" for the token. Davis had acknowledged holding close to **$100 million** after the crash but denied any wrongdoing .

### What did the opposition say?

Opposition figures criticized the ruling. La Cámpora called it evidence that "the judiciary is dominated by a mafia that serves power." Some opposition members of Congress had previously planned impeachment proceedings, though those efforts have not gained traction .

### Is Milei out of the woods politically?

**Probably.** The case is dismissed, and Milei is using the ruling to frame himself as the victim of a political witch hunt. But the scandal still lingers. The Anti-Corruption Office's review is separate from the criminal case, and public opinion may not be as forgiving as the judge. Milei's opponents will likely continue to bring up $LIBRA .

### What does this mean for crypto regulation in Argentina?

It's unclear. The ruling doesn't establish new rules or clarify what constitutes fraud in crypto promotions. It simply applies existing law to these facts. If anything, it may make it harder for future plaintiffs to win crypto fraud cases in Argentina, because the bar for proving deception is now higher .

---

## The Path Forward: What to Watch

### The Anti-Corruption Office Review

Milei's office said the Anti-Corruption Office would determine whether the president acted improperly. That review is separate from the criminal case. Watch for its findings—though it's unlikely to produce consequences for a sitting president .

### The Political Fallout

Milei is using the ruling to energize his base. The opposition is using it to argue that the system is rigged. Watch for how this plays out in Argentina's ongoing political battles, particularly as Milei pushes his libertarian reform agenda.

### The Investors

The 40,000 people who lost money have no legal recourse through the criminal case. Some may pursue civil lawsuits, but those are expensive, slow, and uncertain. The money that was withdrawn is likely gone.

### The Precedent

This case will be cited in future crypto fraud prosecutions in Argentina. The high bar for proving deception—requiring specific evidence of what was lied about, not just that people lost money—could make it harder to hold promoters accountable for pump-and-dump schemes.

---

## Conclusion: Cleared in Court, Not in the Court of Public Opinion

Here's what I want you to take away from the $LIBRA ruling.

Javier Milei is legally innocent. A federal judge, following a prosecutor's recommendation, found that the evidence didn't meet the threshold for fraud. The case is closed.

But the ruling doesn't erase what happened. A president with 3.8 million followers promoted a speculative token. The token collapsed. Insiders walked away with $99 million. And 40,000 people lost their money.

The judge said this sequence doesn't prove a crime. That may be true under Argentine law. But for the investors who trusted Milei's post, it feels like a technicality—a legal escape hatch that leaves them holding the bag while the man who promoted the coin declares himself the victim.

Milei called the investigation a "political operation." His critics called the ruling a "mafia" protecting power. Both sides are convinced they're right.

The only thing that's certain is this: **the money is gone, the case is closed, and the questions remain.**

---

## Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, investment advice, or legal advice. The author is not a licensed financial advisor or attorney. All investments involve risk, including the potential loss of principal. Readers should conduct their own research and consult with a qualified professional before making any financial or legal decisions. Data and figures cited are accurate as of the date of publication but may change.

---

**Tags:** #Milei #LIBRA #CryptoScandal #Argentina #CryptoFraud #Memecoin #RugPull #JavierMilei #KarinaMilei #HaydenDavis #CryptoNews #StockMarketToday #FinancialNews #MarketAnalysis #Investing #Cryptocurrency #Regulation #LegalNews #EmergingMarkets #PoliticalRisk #ArgentinaEconomy #CryptoRegulation #FraudCase #InvestorLoss #PumpAndDump #Blockchain #DigitalAssets #LatinAmerica #MileiCrypto #CourtRuling