Court to decide who investigates AFA leadership's maneuvers

Argentina's Supreme Court of Justice is set to determine which judge will ultimately investigate the leadership of the Argentine Football Association (AFA) for alleged fraud and money laundering. This decision follows eight months of complex legal maneuvering and conflicting rulings between federal, investigative, and economic criminal judges across Buenos Aires and Campana.

The AFA is pushing for all related cases to be handled by Judge Adrián González Charvay in the Federal Court of Campana, who has recently received a favorable ruling from judges Mariano Borinsky and Diego Barroetaveña of the Federal Cassation Chamber. This ruling pertains to the investigation of a property purchase in Pilar, suspected to be owned by AFA treasurer Pablo Toviggino but registered under individuals allegedly acting as straw men.

“

The AFA aspires to have all its cases fall under the Federal Court of Campana, headed by Adrián González Charvay, who is striving to consolidate all the files.

However, the prosecutor before the Cassation Chamber, Mario Villar, plans to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. This move is an extraordinary step, as the Supreme Court typically does not intervene in such jurisdictional matters. The case's convoluted path, with competence disputes being passed between various judges for eight months, highlights its unusual nature and the lack of progress in investigating the alleged fraud and money laundering.

Adding to the complexity, the Supreme Court is already handling another jurisdictional issue concerning the AFA, related to a fraud complaint filed by businessman Guillermo Toffoni. This complaint alleges a diversion of approximately $400 million by the AFA, presided over by Claudio “Chiqui” Tapia. The General Prosecutor of the Nation, Eduardo Casal, is currently preparing his opinion on whether this case should remain in ordinary jurisdiction or be transferred to federal court. Current indications suggest it will likely stay within ordinary jurisdiction.

“

This would be an unusual matter, as the Court does not typically resolve these issues. But this case is also not proceeding normally, given that a competence claim like this has been bouncing between different judges for eight months without anyone investigating either the alleged fraud or the alleged money laundering.