An Argentine judge has frozen 25 crypto accounts tied to the LIBRA probe and ordered six exchanges to identify the holders behind them, marking a fresh escalation in the investigation into the collapsed token.
An Argentine judge has frozen 25 crypto accounts tied to the LIBRA probe and ordered six exchanges to identify the holders behind them, marking a fresh escalation in the investigation into the collapsed token.
What to Know
- An Argentine judge froze 25 crypto accounts connected to the LIBRA probe.
- The same order directs six exchanges to identify the account holders, according to reporting on the ruling.
Why the Court Froze 25 Crypto Accounts in the LIBRA Probe
The freeze applies specifically to accounts flagged in the LIBRA investigation, as first reported by Clarín. A judicial freeze is a precautionary step that keeps assets in place while an investigation is active. For related coverage, see Crypto.com Secures $400 Million From Citadel Securities.
A freeze is not a final judgment on ownership or guilt. It is designed to preserve traceable assets and prevent funds from being moved before investigators can review them. For related coverage, see CryptoQuant: TradFi Futures Surge as Crypto Spot Trading Slows.
The measure sits within the LIBRA probe itself rather than any unrelated enforcement matter. Similar asset-preservation questions have surfaced in other jurisdictions, including a case where a New York judge stayed a lawsuit over 40,000 Bitcoin while proceedings advanced.
What the Order to Six Exchanges Means for Holder Identification
Alongside the freeze, the judge ordered six exchanges to identify the holders tied to the flagged accounts. Exchange records can bridge on-chain activity with the customer identity data that platforms collect at onboarding.
That identity data can help investigators connect wallet activity to named individuals or entities. Establishing ownership trails is often the step that turns anonymous transactions into an evidentiary record.
The directive may expand the probe by linking transactions across the six platforms and surfacing who controlled the frozen accounts. Compelled cooperation from exchanges has become a recurring pressure point in crypto-related legal cases, from revived fraud claims over yield products to insolvency proceedings such as the bankruptcy of the exchange Knaken.
No timeline for the exchanges to comply, nor the identities of the platforms, was detailed in the available reporting on the order.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset markets carry significant risk. Always do your own research before making decisions.
