The loan case is neither just another file nor an isolated episode in the Argentine crime drama. From a legal and institutional perspective, this is a Borderline case: One of those processes that force the justice system to look at itself and measure the gap between its regulatory design and its actual performance.
The abduction and disappearance of a child inevitably triggers social sensitivity. But on a legal level, it activates something even more sophisticated: the obligation of the state, without shortcuts, without improvisations and without sacrificing guarantees in the name of urgency. In this delicate balance – between effectiveness, due process and truth – The legitimacy of the ongoing process is at stake.
A system equipped with more tools
The federal judge who has to judge the loan hijackers is part of an institutional stage significantly different that shaped the system a decade ago, not only due to the regulatory change introduced by the new Federal Code of Criminal Procedure, but also due to an empirical accumulation of legally relevant court experience. Over the last five years especially in coastal areas and with particular frequency in the province of CorrientesThe system resolved the case of 1,602 people charged with federal crimes, of whom 1,540 were convicted and 62 were acquitted. Some of the latter are still being considered by the Court of Cassation, with cases concentrating on drug-related offenses in about 90% of cases.
Authoritarians don’t like that
The practice of professional and critical journalism is a mainstay of democracy. That is why it bothers those who believe that they are the owners of the truth.
From a strictly dogmatic perspective, these data cannot be read as a criterion for the legitimacy of punishment per se, since statistics in criminal law lack autonomous justificatory value. However, they acquire institutional relevance when linked to verifiable structural variables: the degree of functional specialization of operators, the inter-institutional articulation between specialized prosecutors and prosecutors, and the progressive increase in the standard of proof required to sustain a charge at a hearing.
In this context, the implementation of the new procedural rules does not represent a mere procedural reform, but rather a paradigm shift in the conception of the federal criminal processwhich shifts the axis from the logic of the file to the strategic direction of the case and assigns to the prosecutor a leadership role that is not limited to the formal encouragement of criminal acts, but rather imposes positive planning obligations, prosecution rationality and institutional responsibility. From a legal perspective, this change is particularly significant in cases of complex crime, where the legitimacy of the criminal justice response depends less on the speed of the outcome than on the methodological coherence of the process, the quality of the evidence provided and the ability of the system to distinguish between criminal effectiveness and strict adherence to constitutional guarantees.
Teaching as the backbone of the process
In this context the role plays Dr. Cristina Pozzer Penzo during the teaching phase requires specific analysis. The judge conducted an investigation deep, lush, extensive and technically soundin one of the most adverse scenarios that an investigating judge can face: constant media pressure, public questioning, systematic attempts to delegitimize and even unfounded complaints before the Judicial Council, aimed at conditioning his actions and forcing his institutional and emotional collapse.
This did not change the course of the process. Dr. Pozzer Penzo conducted the case with professionalism, strict adherence to the judicial method, exhausted the lines of investigation, ordered the production of evidence, structured the file and maintained the integrity of the investigation from external noise. The result is institutionally relevant: a complete, coherent and legally mature caseable to be judged by the February 27, 2025. File 92 follows the same line of in-depth investigation aimed at finding out what ultimately happened to LOAN.
The loan search is being renewed with scientific tools and federal cooperation
At a time when public attention tends to undermine the judicial function, his actions reaffirm that the majority of civil servants who work in silence every day and a basic requirement of the rule of law: Criminal investigations are determined not by public opinion, but by law and evidence.
Law enforcement and the logic of complex crime
Once the investigation is complete, the case enters a phase where the role shifts to the prosecution. In this context, the prosecutor’s approach Carlos Schäfer reflects a modern conception of the role of the prosecutor: not as a mere facilitator of the process, but as strategic case management body.
The experience gained in cases of drug trafficking and organized crime is crucial. This background teaches a key lesson: The most serious crimes are not isolated events, but structures. Networks, differentiated roles, cover-ups, silences and logics of action that can only be addressed with a systemic view.
This reading will be crucial to the process ahead.
PROTEX and the new standard of evidence
Contemporary crime requires a technically robust criminal law. At this point it was Technology Lawyer (PROTEX) occupies a central place in the institutional framework. Under the direction of Marcelo Colombo and Alejandra ManganoPROTEX has consolidated a model in which technology is not an accessory but a condition of the possibility of proof.
Geolocation, communication, data analysis, displacement patterns and technical reconstructions now integrate the core of procedural truth in complex cases. In a case like Loan, where time, movement and communication will be crucial variables, There is no place for improvised or mere testimony.
The coming process: effectiveness, guarantees and legitimacy
From a dogmatic point of view, the loan case calls into question the very essence of the system. It’s not just about condemnation. It’s about judge well.
Can the federal judge stand up to a serious accusation without giving in to the temptation to take shortcuts?
Can you resist social pressure without taking refuge in empty formalisms?
Can you demonstrate that its effectiveness is based on the accuracy of evidence and not on punitive automaticity?
Criminal law offers a clear answer: Without guarantees there is no justiceBut Without justice there is no rule of law. Between these two poles, the institutional credibility of the process is at stake.
A historical, paradigmatic and essential case
The loan case goes far beyond the logic of an ordinary criminal case. This is not just a trial for a very serious kidnapping: it is one historical casein the strictest sense of the word. Historical because it condenses an era, a way of research, an institutional structure and a social expectation that no longer allows for any regression. Paradigmatic because it will set standards: for investigations, indictments, trials and state responsibility. And important because it calls into question the very core of the rule of law.
It’s not just the defendant who is judged here. The justice system’s ability to transform a complex instruction into legitimate procedural truth is tested; to demonstrate that effectiveness is not achieved at the expense of guarantees; to confirm that technique, specialization and accumulated experience are not institutional rhetoric but concrete practice.
The loan event is recorded as a turning point. It will determine whether Argentina’s federal judiciary has reached a sufficient level of maturity to combat the most serious crimes without giving in to noise, pressure or the temptation to take shortcuts. Because when a system arrives strengthened, with tools, with methods and with time, can’t find any more excuses.
That’s why this isn’t just about the credit case.
It is the case that justice will also judge itself.
* Lawyer for family lawsuits in the event of a loan.
HB
About The Author
