LIBRA : the reported judicial decisions do not constitute a refund program

The scope of the Argentine case

Bitcoin.com News reports a decision of October 23 rejecting charges against Javier Milei and other persons in the LIBRA case. Cointribune also describes this dismissal, pronounced by Judge Marcelo Martínez de Giorgi. The accounts indicate that the elements of the case were not sufficient to establish criminal fraud. This conclusion concerns the persons and facts examined in the procedure described. It does not allow for the announcement that any challenge regarding the token is definitively impossible in all jurisdictions.

The word "acquittal" sometimes used in comments must not erase the procedural stage nor the nature of the reported decision. To understand the situation, it is necessary to distinguish proceedings, the parties' requests, and possible avenues of appeal. The investors' steps mentioned in the press do not mean that a court has already granted them compensation. A decision favorable to an accused person and a decision organizing the repair of a prejudice do not have the same object.

Separate market losses

LIBRA had been launched on Solana in February 2025, before a sharp rise then a collapse in price. Javier Milei's promotional message contributed to the project's visibility. These elements explain the attention paid to his role, but the notoriety of a promoter is not sufficient to establish all the conditions of an offense. Transfer analyses and testimonies can illuminate the chronology; their qualification and responsibilities fall under a distinct assessment in the concerned procedures.

Loss estimates vary according to methods, addresses studied, and moments of purchase or sale. They must not be added without checking their scopes. A drop in market capitalization is also not equivalent to a sum withdrawn by the promoters: the first stems from a market price applied to a quantity of tokens, while the second assumes flows actually observed. Keeping these measures separate avoids transforming a theoretical valuation into an amount necessarily recoverable.

Redistribution and compensation do not coincide

Bitcoin.com News also evokes an independent arrangement announced to allocate funds to Argentine entrepreneurs. This project must not be presented as a refund for LIBRA buyers. The targeted beneficiaries, criteria, and the purpose of aid to companies can be different from those of compensation for investment losses. An announcement of redistribution also does not prove that payments have taken place. No sum must be described as already received without confirmation of the concerned operations.

For a buyer who suffered a loss, avenues of recourse depend on his situation and the applicable framework. General information on the case does not constitute an individual decision in his favor. The follow-up of the case must therefore keep three distinct threads: judicial proceedings, verified fund movements, and possible payment devices actually put in place. The reported dismissal brings a new step in the criminal case; it does not automatically reconstitute the value of the tokens nor the assets lost by their holders.