the The Supreme Court refused Proposal to defend Mauricio Novelli and Manuel Terrones Godoyinvestigated the $LIBRA case, which sought to remove plaintiffs, alleged victims, some of whom were sponsored by Rep Juan GraboisAs his lawyer.
The judges responded that “the extraordinary appeal, the denial of which was the motivation behind this complaint, is not directed against the final ruling.” Horacio Rosati, Carlos Rosencrantz, and Riccardo LorenzettiBy rejecting the offer.
Moreover, in a strategy aimed at expanding the ban by $25,000 on the assets of the business promoter, Hayden Davis, by order of Judge Marcelo Martinez De Giorgi, at the request of Prosecutor Taiano, a Belarusian investor has now appeared in the case as a plaintiff.
Krasotskaya Svyatlana Vitalievna He asked to become plaintiff through denunciation Losses amounting to 1,768,079 US dollars After the sudden drop in the price of LIBRA.
The woman accused the president Javier Miley And its environment to legitimize to cheat Which led to international investors being stripped of part of their savings.
According to the document, Vitalievna made the investment on February 14, 2025, prompted exclusively by a post by Melly on the social network X, where she emphasized that the project would boost the Argentine economy.
The complaint brought blockchain transaction traceability to court, documenting how the Belarusian investor’s purchases became a $1 million loss after official support was withdrawn.
His writings indicate that “Direct insultTo maneuver because he trusted her The legitimacy that the presidential office gave to business.
Their lawyers in Argentina, Martin Romeo and Nicolas Ozost, signed the document in which they say they were harmed by Karina Miley, Manuel Adorni and token developers.
They are accused of committing the alleged crimes Fraud, bribery and inconsistent negotiations With public service.
Justice is being served on whether there was a fraud scheme designed to artificially inflate the value of a token and then cause it to collapse, resulting in extraordinary profits for creators and millions of dollars in losses for investors.
In February 2025, Judge Maria Cervini – who initially handled the case and which today is in the hands of her colleague Marcelo Martinez De Giorgi – rejected the request of a group of people – Juan Marchito, Matías Paris and Alan Vega – to be considered plaintiffs in the case. The affected persons are represented by Nicholas Rechanek, Juan Grabois, and Carolina Palacio Roitbarg.
However, the Second Chamber of the Federal Chamber of Buenos Aires overturned this decision. “The right to acquire factual standing cannot depend on proof of the existence of certain events, nor on the probability of their occurrence in one way or another. Rather, it must be based on the defendants’ hypothesis, whether it is ultimately confirmed or not,” Justices Martin Errorzon, Eduardo Farah and Roberto Boyco said.
After noting that the preliminary ruling opens “a very wide panorama from factual and legal points of view,” the Chamber noted that there are “various alternatives and hypotheses for what happened” and “one of these narratives – which is insisted on, whether it is ultimately confirmed or not – is a version Possible scam Or, regardless of the framework chosen, for a process that – as alleged – would cause economic harm to buyers of crypto assets. Therefore, the potential victims were accepted into the investigation.
The defense appealed the ruling, and in April 2025, the Second Chamber of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber rejected the appeal.
The case came as a complaint to the Supreme Court, where they sought to argue that the decision was arbitrary and that their clients’ constitutional rights to due process had been affected. However, the Supreme Court today rejected the appeal.
Now, Martinez De Giorgi must decide to offer Krasotskaya Sviatlana Vitalievna, who seems to be leading the local landing of foreign investors in the Argentine case, to achieve the extension of the embargo on the assets of the business promoter, Hayden Davis, for 24,500 US dollars, which they consider “Funny” and “irrational”.