Argentina: Case Filed Against Prosecutor in Charge of Milei’s Crypto Scam - Abolish Capital!
A group of Argentinian opposition parliamentarians filed a criminal complaint
against federal prosecutor Eduardo Taiano, in charge of the $Libra crypto scam
investigation, for misconduct and violation of public duties. The accusation is
based on “unjustified delays in the production of evidence” and the “retention
and concealment” of the same from the plaintiff. On Thursday, April 2, the
complaint was filed by legislators Mónica Frade and Maximiliano Ferraro from
Civic Coalition; Sabrina Selva, Juan Marino, Itai Hagman, Julia Strada, and
Rodolfo Tailhade from Union for the Homeland; and Esteban Paulón from United
Provinces. These parliamentarians, who last year led the investigative committee
on the $Libra case, argued that the prosecutor’s actions affect the progress of
the judicial process related to the massive fraud of citizens’ assets through a
cryptocurrency promoted by President Javier Milei. > #Libra
[https://twitter.com/hashtag/Libra]: El fiscal Taiano obstruye el avance de la
causa, y recordemos que hizo lo imposible para que la comisión investigadora no
pudiera reunir pruebas. Nos enterarnos que durante cinco meses, desde que la
comisión investigadora elevó su tarea, Taiano durmió la causa. Por eso…
pic.twitter.com/DcVU2th0wj [https://t.co/DcVU2th0wj] > > — Pablo Juliano
(@PabloJulianoLP) March 16, 2026
[https://twitter.com/PabloJulianoLP/status/2033669075558404306] Chronology of
the events in the complaint
In the document, the signatories detail a sequence of events that clearly show
unjustified delays. The judicial scandal of the $Libra case started on February
14, 2025, with a promotional tweet from the Argentinian president about a
cryptocurrency whose value plummeted just hours later. However, the seizure of
electronic devices belonging to Mauricio Novelli and Sergio Morales—the original
orchestrators of the plot—only took place on March 6, 2025. “Between the months
of March and May 2025, the material was received by the prosecutor’s office,
making potentially decisive elements available to them for the advancement of
the process from that moment on,” the complaint mentions. “Nevertheless, it was
not until September 9, 2025, that the analysis of said material was ordered,
which implied a significant initial delay in the handling of essential
evidence.” On October 15, 2025, the parliamentarians had requested a meeting
with Prosecutor Taiano to access the case file and expedite the work of the
investigative committee. The prosecutor’s refusal, according to the
complainants, “broke the entire legislative tradition regarding cooperation
between the legislative and judicial branches of the state.” On November 17,
2025, the prosecution received a preliminary report on Novelli’s phone analysis,
which was finally completed on January 7, 2026, “without this translating into
an effective boost to the investigation.” It was not until March 13, 2026, that
the parties to the case were granted full access to the evidence collected from
the mobile phone of Novelli, who acted as the local link in the
multimillion-dollar scam orchestrated with the US entrepreneur Hayden Davis.
“Thus, a sequence of delays exist which, due to their extent and lack of
justification, are incompatible with the diligent performance of the
prosecutor’s function,” the parliamentarians noted. “During that entire period,
despite the existence of elements indicating the possible presence of
significant economic agreements, communications among those involved, and signs
of prior and later coordination regarding the investigated events, no
substantial measures were adopted to advance the determination of
responsibilities. Not only were no summons for questioning issued, but no
charges were formalized either.” Route of the investigation and summons to
communicator Natalia Volosín
The legislators questioned the prosecutor’s diligence in other aspects. Taiano
summoned a testimonial statement from journalist and lawyer Natalia Volosín
after she made public the retention and concealment of evidence. The journalist
revealed the signing of a confidential contract between Davis and Milei, two
weeks before the launch of the cryptocurrency. “Immediately Taiano issued
summons to Volosín, with a haste that we had not noticed in the investigation of
the facts subject to the complaint. After the public scandal, Prosecutor Taiano
nullified the summons, a reaffirmation of an action—at the very least—errant and
slow,” the signatories noted. Moreover, the prosecutor directed the
investigation toward the people behind the media “leak” of audios and messages
from Novelli’s phone. “For the second time, he directed the focus of his
activity not toward the scandalous events that occurred on February 14, 2025 and
the months before and after, but toward everything ancillary,” they criticized.
> New Evidence Links Argentina’s President to $Libra Fraud
[https://orinocotribune.com/new-evidence-links-argentinas-president-to-libra-fraud/]
Possible crimes attributed to the prosecutor
The complaint identifies a “pattern of behavior” characterized by unjustified
delays, which affects due process, cooperation between branches of the State,
and criminal action. “Journalism is moving faster than the judiciary itself,”
the legislators reproached. Among the possible crimes of the prosecutor, they
highlight “improper retention of relevant evidence” and its “potential
concealment from the plaintiffs,” incompatible with the principle of objectivity
of Article 9 of Law 27.148, which requires acting in the pursuit of truth
without selective criteria. They also point out the absence of substantial
measures—such as charges or inquiries—despite incriminating evidence, in
violation of article 25, sections (a) and (b) of Law 24.946, which mandates
judicial action in defense of legality. The redirection of the investigation
toward ancillary issues, such as the inquiry into the leak and the summons
Volosín, constitutes a “diversion from the object of the investigation,” once
again violating the duty of objectivity. The restrictions on access to the case
by interested third parties generate a lack of transparency and a refusal to
inter-institutional collaboration. The legislators concluded that “all of this
constitutes a case of functional misconduct, as it involves the serious breach
of the duties mandated by Article 120 of the National Constitution, Law 27.148,
and Law 24.946, directly impacting the proper functioning of the justice
system.” (Telesur
[https://www.telesurtv.net/denuncian-fiscal-criptoestafa-masiva-milei/])
Translation: Orinoco Tribune OT/SC/DZ — From Orinoco Tribune
[https://orinocotribune.com/feed/] via This RSS Feed
[https://orinocotribune.com/feed/].