Judge Rules President Milei’s Crypto Moment Was Not a Crime

The price of the $Libra cryptocoin collapsed within hours of President Javier Milei sharing a purchase link on social media, a rapid decline that left many investors with the bulk of their funds lost. This financial event triggered a high-profile criminal probe that has now been officially closed. Federal Judge Marcelo Martinez de Giorgi dismissed the case after prosecutors requested the closure, marking the end of a legal chapter that had drawn intense scrutiny from the public and political opponents alike.

The judge’s ruling provides the definitive legal framework for the incident. According to court records, Martinez de Giorgi stated that the reported events did not fall under a specific legal category. The decision concluded that no criminally relevant deception had been proven in the timeline of the coin’s launch and subsequent crash. This outcome aligns with the position taken by the prosecution, who sought to end the proceedings rather than pursue a trial.

The investigation focused on the trajectory of $Libra, a newly launched cryptocurrency that saw a sharp increase in value following a post by the president on X, formerly known as Twitter. In February 2025, Milei wrote that the coin would help fund small businesses and start-ups. He included a direct link for users to buy the asset. The immediate reaction was a surge in interest and a corresponding climb in the coin’s market price.

However, the momentum reversed quickly. Within a few hours of the initial post, Milei deleted the message. The removal of the post coincided with a plunge in the coin’s value. For the majority of investors who had entered the market during the brief spike, the drop meant losing the bulk of their money. The speed of the rise and fall fueled speculation about the intentions behind the president’s endorsement.

The incident prompted significant political fallout. Opposition members of Congress planned impeachment proceedings in response to the crash. Critics online used the term rug pull to describe the episode, referring to a scheme where promoters attract buyers for a cryptocurrency and then halt trading to retain the raised funds. These accusations placed the president under pressure to explain his role in the promotion of the asset.

Milei has consistently rejected the idea that he orchestrated a fraud. In an interview with Todo Noticias, he clarified his position by saying, I didn’t promote it, I merely shared it. He maintained that he acted in good faith while the coin was rising in value. His defense centered on the distinction between actively marketing a product and simply sharing information with his followers.

The president also addressed the decision to delete the social media post. He explained that he did not know the details of the project at the time he shared the link. After learning more about the underlying mechanics, he decided not to continue promoting it. This rationale was part of his broader argument that the investors had acted voluntarily and understood the inherent risks of the cryptocurrency market.

The presidential office has reinforced the notion that Milei had no involvement in the technical development of $Libra. At the time of the crash, the office announced that the Anti-Corruption Office would examine whether the president had acted improperly. That internal review was part of the broader effort to assess the conduct of the executive branch during the brief window of the coin’s popularity.

With the case now closed, the legal questions surrounding the $Libra incident have been resolved in the favor of the administration. The dismissal suggests that the specific actions taken by the president, including the posting and subsequent deletion, do not constitute a crime under current interpretations. The decision brings a formal end to the criminal investigation, though the political debate over the ethics of such endorsements may continue.

The closure of the case leaves the matter of the $Libra crash in the realm of political history rather than criminal law. For the investors who lost money during the short-lived spike, the ruling confirms that their losses were the result of market movements and individual choices rather than a proven legal fraud. The judge’s decision stands as the final word on the criminal aspects of the episode.