Asset seizure against Cristina Kirchner and children confirmed

Argentina's Federal Criminal Court of Cassation has definitively upheld the seizure of assets belonging to former President Cristina Kirchner and her children, Máximo and Florencia. The court's decision on Thursday rejected an extraordinary appeal filed by Kirchner's defense, which sought to have the Supreme Court review the asset seizure order. This ruling allows for the immediate execution of the seizure.

While Kirchner retains the option to file a direct appeal, known as a "recurso de queja," with the Supreme Court, legal experts suggest it is unlikely to succeed. Crucially, filing this appeal does not halt the execution of the asset seizure.

The judges of the court's Fourth Chamber, Gustavo Hornos and Diego Barroetaveña, rejected the appeals presented by the defenses of Kirchner, Lázaro Báez, and the representative of Máximo and Florencia Kirchner. These appeals contested a previous ruling that confirmed the asset seizure to enforce the confiscation in the "Vialidad" case, which involves corruption charges.

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Hornos stated that the appeals failed to demonstrate a sufficient federal question to warrant Supreme Court intervention. He argued that the grievances raised by the defense primarily concerned common law matters, specifically the interpretation of Article 23 of the Penal Code and rules applicable to asset forfeiture. These issues, he noted, generally do not qualify for an extraordinary appeal.

Hornos reiterated the fundamental principle behind asset forfeiture in corruption cases, emphasizing that "crime does not constitute a legitimate title to generate legally recognized wealth." He explained that the institute aims to prevent illicit activities from yielding permanent economic benefits. Judge Barroetaveña concurred with Hornos's assessment, finding that the defense's arguments merely expressed disagreement with the court's decision rather than presenting a concrete federal controversy regarding constitutional norms. He also determined that no arbitrary circumstances justified opening an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court.