LIBRA Case: A reported dismissal of proceedings in Argentina does not eliminate the losses of buyers

A reported dismissal of proceedings

Argentinian federal judge Marcelo Martínez de Giorgi pronounced a dismissal of proceedings on October 23 in favor of Javier Milei and ten other persons in the LIBRA case, reports Cointribune. The media indicates that the magistrate followed the prosecutor's request and considered that the elements gathered did not establish a criminal fraud. This presentation must remain attached to the procedure described. It does not allow automatically extending the decision to any complaint, any jurisdiction or any dispute related to the token.

A criminal decision concerns facts, persons and the conditions necessary to characterize an offense in a given case. A significant loss of money does not, by itself, demonstrate that these conditions are met. Conversely, the absence of an offense retained in this framework does not transform the operation into a prudent or profitable investment. It is therefore necessary to avoid confusing the judicial conclusion reported, the political assessment of events and the economic result actually suffered by the buyers of the cryptoasset.

Back on the token launch

The case goes back to the launch of LIBRA on Solana in February 2025 and its promotion in a message published by the Argentinian president. The token had known a rapid rise followed by a collapse. Analyses of transactions then fueled questions about withdrawals made by certain wallets. These movements explain the attention paid to the case. Their visibility on a blockchain, however, is not sufficient to identify all the persons controlling the addresses nor to establish alone their criminal responsibility.

The capitalization reached at the peak did not represent a sum of money available to all holders. It resulted from the token price multiplied by a reference quantity. In a shallow market, selling a large position can strongly move the price. The liquidity actually accessible and the distribution of tokens therefore bring essential information on the exit conditions. A spectacular capitalization figure does not guarantee that buyers will be able to resell their assets at a nearby price.

Consequences still distinct

Cointribune also reports initiatives by investors asking to find a place in the procedure. Their possibilities of contestation depend on the decisions rendered and their status, and must not be presented as an appeal already accepted. Political accusations and the statements of the protagonists constitute another dimension of the case. Reporting them requires attributing them, without taking their conclusions as judicially established facts. The announced dismissal of proceedings remains the event described, with the scope of the concerned procedure.

For buyers, a judicial decision favorable to the targeted persons does not reconstitute the lost value on the market. Any possible compensation would fall under a distinct mechanism, the existence and conditions of which must be established. The notoriety of a person promoting a token also offers no guarantee on its liquidity or future value. The LIBRA case illustrates thus the possible gap between public visibility, market price and recourse: these three dimensions do not replace each other and must be followed separately.