The $LIBRA case reopened an institutional front for the national government after the Administrative Investigations Prosecutor's Office took over the criminal action and appealed the dismissal of Javier Milei, Karina Milei and other defendants. The anti-corruption body entered the case after requests from CIPCE and INECIP, which argued that closing the investigation before exhausting relevant evidence was premature.
The move changes the procedural balance because prosecutor Eduardo Taiano had stopped pushing the investigation and requested dismissal. Federal judge Marcelo Martínez de Giorgi accepted that position and closed the case. With the PIA, headed by Sergio Rodríguez, a prosecutorial office is again arguing that facts remain unresolved and that new investigative steps are needed.
The appeal does not establish guilt and does not automatically reverse the dismissal. The immediate question is procedural: whether closure was reasonable given the available evidence or whether the relationship among public officials, promoters of the digital asset and the launch of $LIBRA required further investigation. The presumption of innocence remains intact.
The organizations that requested the PIA's intervention say the case involves public interest because it concerns the highest levels of the executive branch. Their argument is that possible corruption or misuse of office requires an exhaustive and specialized investigation, particularly when relevant lines of inquiry may still be undeveloped.
The case is now before Federal Court No. 8, temporarily led by Daniel Rafecas. The court can admit the PIA's intervention and reopen the file. If it refuses, the PIA has already filed a subsidiary appeal so the Federal Chamber can review the decision. The mechanism guarantees a higher level of judicial scrutiny.
The case also has unavoidable political consequences. The government had presented the dismissal as confirmation that accusations lacked substance. The appeal does not disprove that position, but prevents the matter from being treated as fully closed. Opposition groups and civil organizations see the move as a chance to review facts and responsibilities.
The institutional challenge is to separate partisan conflict from judicial standards. A criminal investigation must rely on evidence, traceable communications, financial movements, official functions and verifiable relationships, not speculation. Conversely, a dismissal must explain why pending investigative measures would not alter the conclusion.
The next step is whether Rafecas allows reopening and what measures the PIA requests. If the Federal Chamber intervenes, it will review the legality and sufficiency of the dismissal. Whatever the outcome, $LIBRA is again an active judicial and political issue rather than a definitively closed file.
