Millonario: After the $Libra Inflection Point, the Legal Pressure Tightens

millonario became the shadow word hanging over the $Libra scandal this weekend, after investigators recovered a deleted note describing a presumed five-million-dollar arrangement tied to President Javier Milei’s promotion of the cryptocurrency and as fresh call records added new pressure to the case.

What Happens When the $Libra Evidence Trail Gets Harder to Dispute?

Judicial investigators examining the phone of Argentine businessman Mauricio Novelli recovered a document that had been deleted and stored among his notes. The text described what it presented as a “final agreement” involving a total of five million dollars in exchange for support for the $Libra project, including staged payments tied to specific milestones.

The recovered note included language attributed to Novelli referencing Mark Hayden Davis, identified as the CEO of the company that created the cryptocurrency launched on February 14, 2025. The draft outlined a structure: an upfront 1. 5 million dollars, another 1. 5 million dollars conditioned on Milei announcing on X that Hayden Davis or related entities were his adviser, and a further two million dollars linked to an in-person signed contract for advisory work on blockchain and AI for the Argentine government and/or Milei, plus review sessions involving Javier and Karina Milei.

Investigators dated the drafting of the text to October–November 2024, before Davis traveled to Argentina. The context described in the case file includes a meeting on January 30 at the Casa Rosada between Milei and Davis, followed by Milei posting a selfie on X stating that the American adviser was supporting him on cryptocurrency issues. The post drew attention within local crypto circles because Davis was described as unknown to many observers at the time.

Separate from the recovered document, call and message records incorporated into the judicial investigation show more than twenty calls and messages between Novelli and Milei’s closest environment in the hours before $Libra’s launch and after its collapse. The phone traffic pattern is now a central element in the inquiry because it sits alongside the public impact of Milei’s promotion of the token.

What If Cross-Border Legal Moves Turn a Political Scandal Into a Wider Court Fight?

In parallel to the Argentine investigation, a law firm in New York representing a group of alleged victims is weighing steps that could expand the dispute into a criminal track in the United States. Lawyers for the claimants made contact with members of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies’ $Libra commission to request documentation certified by Congress, with the goal of adding it to a civil case file and potentially initiating a criminal complaint.

The request focused on material gathered by the parliamentary commission, including call records involving Mauricio Novelli and Javier and Karina Milei between the afternoon of Friday, February 14, and the early hours of Saturday, February 15, 2025—minutes before and after the launch of the cryptocurrency and Milei’s promotion of it on social media.

The commission is led by Deputy Maximiliano Ferraro. Members of the commission offered mixed accounts of the outreach: some confirmed the contact, while another said they were unaware of it. A deputy involved in leading the commission indicated that next steps would be reviewed on Monday and Tuesday.

The New York legal effort is connected to an earlier collective action filed about a month after the $Libra launch, seeking economic redress for more than 200 alleged victims. The evolving strategy now hinges on whether documentary and technical evidence—especially communications timing and the chain of custody around requested records—can support a criminal escalation.

What Happens When the Timeline of Calls Collides With the Public Narrative?

The peritages cited in the case materials put new weight on a narrow window: the hours around the token’s debut and rapid collapse on February 14, 2025. Milei promoted $Libra from his X account, describing it as a private project purportedly aimed at incentivizing Argentine economic growth by funding small companies and ventures. The post included a website link and the code for a contract enabling interested people to buy the asset.

The promotion triggered large-scale participation, with the token rising quickly and then collapsing a couple of hours later. The case file describes a familiar split outcome: a small number of people with access to privileged information made millions, while thousands of others lost everything they invested. The episode is now treated as a potential transnational fraud under judicial review, and it has been described as the most consequential scandal to hit Milei during his presidency.

In the days after the collapse, Milei attempted to distance himself from the project. One explanation referenced in the case coverage is that he claimed he only copied from the internet the contract needed to purchase $Libra and posted it. The peritages discussed in the materials, however, introduce friction with that framing by highlighting the density of contacts with Novelli and the surrounding circle at precisely the moment when the token was introduced to the public.

More specifically, peritages from the Ministerio Público Fiscal described in the record indicate that on February 14 alone Milei and Novelli exchanged seven calls totaling 13 minutes and 10 seconds, while Karina Milei participated in six other calls. The documented contacts clustered in the minutes before the presidential post and in the moments immediately after, and continued as the price fell.

One line of suspicion raised by complainants is whether, during these communications, Novelli could have sent Milei a 44-character code later posted to promote the token. The same set of questions in the investigation also includes why the post remained up for 5 hours and 30 minutes before it was removed, and how the code was obtained before it was available elsewhere.

Who Wins, Who Loses as the Millonario Question Shapes the Next Phase?

The immediate winners in the factual record are described as a small group with privileged access who profited during the rise and fall of $Libra. The clearest losers are the thousands of investors described as having lost their entire stake after being drawn in by the presidential promotion and the rapid appreciation of the token.

For the Argentine presidency, the costs are reputational and institutional: the case file describes a crisis that moved beyond a market event into a political scandal. For lawmakers, the parliamentary commission now sits at the intersection of domestic accountability and international litigation tactics, with certification requests aimed at strengthening court filings abroad.

For the legal system, the case tests the weight of digital forensics—deleted notes recovered from a phone, structured call logs, and messaging records—as the backbone of a narrative that prosecutors and plaintiffs can present. The uncertainties remain material: the investigation noted that there is not, for now, proof that the presumed agreement was validated by the government, even as the cited amount aligns with volumes of transfers through digital wallets detected by computer experts.

As this phase unfolds, the millonario theme is less a slogan than a pressure point: a figure attached to a presumed arrangement, now competing with official denials and a tightening web of forensic records and cross-border legal maneuvers.