The court that convicted Cristina Kirchner is moving forward with the seizure of assets, which includes properties belonging to the former president's children.

The seizure of assets belonging to Cristina Kirchner, stemming from her conviction in the Vialidad case, is progressing through the legal system. Following a ruling by the Federal Cassation Court upholding the sentence that mandates the recovery of 685 billion pesos, the trial court has sent a request to the Supreme Court of Justice to move forward with the matter. The court wants to know if any of the 111 properties subject to seizure are of interest to the Supreme Court itself or to the Council of the Magistracy. The communication was addressed to the Internal Management and Infrastructure Directorate of the Supreme Court of Justice, headed by Sergio Romero. Judge Rodrigo Giménez Uriburu informed them that the Fourth Chamber of the Federal Cassation Court had rejected appeals filed by Cristina Kirchner, who opposed the seizure of her assets. The court also considered requests from Máximo and Florencia Kirchner to prevent the seizure of assets that had been transferred to them by their parents as inheritance. Judge Rodríguez Uriburu noted in the communication that on November 18 of last year, the directorate was notified about the seized assets so that the Supreme Court could decide whether to retain any of the 111 identified assets or if they were of interest to the Council of the Magistracy. The judge requested a determination of whether any assets would be "allocated for the use of the Court itself or for the Council of the Magistracy of the National Judicial Branch." The court had previously suggested that, given that the province of Santa Cruz is the primary victim in the Vialidad case, its interests should be considered when determining the fate of the seized assets. Cassation Court judges Gustavo Hornos, Mariano Borinsky, and Diego Barroetaveña, along with Nicolás Suárez, pointed out that Resolution 22 of 2025 states that the Supreme Court is responsible for managing seized assets, and that before any sale is ordered, it must be determined whether any of those assets could be used by the court itself or another branch of the judicial system, for example, to facilitate the operation of courts or judicial offices. The process is currently at this stage. However, Cristina Kirchner can still file a complaint with the Supreme Court of Justice. Legal precedent suggests that rulings are enforceable when extraordinary appeals are rejected, which would allow the sale of the assets to proceed. The new Criminal Procedure Code states that a ruling becomes final when the Supreme Court rejects the last appeal, although in this case, the seizure is not a direct punishment against Kirchner. The defense teams have argued to limit the scope of the seizure, questioning the inclusion of assets without a "direct link" to the crime. Kirchner, in particular, attempted to protect two properties and 10 apartments in Río Gallegos, as well as a series of land plots in Lago Argentino, all of which were transferred to her children and are not part of the legal proceedings. The 10 apartments are located on Mitre Street 500 and were originally purchased in 2007. In the same city, there is a house on 25 de Mayo Street 200, acquired in 2010, and another on Presidente Néstor Kirchner Street 400, added in 2006. However, Kirchner's strategy to shield these properties was rejected by judges Hornos and Barroetaveña, who, in line with the opinion of prosecutor Mario Villar, opposed the move. Hornos emphasized the need for a "real and effective" recovery of assets derived from the crime, stating that "the sentence only achieves full institutional effectiveness if it also translates into the concrete neutralization of the economic benefit obtained through the crime." Hornos was supported by his colleague Barroetaveña. Regarding Kirchner's argument about her children's assets, the judges stated that in complex corruption cases, it is not necessary to prove a "linear" connection between the illicit money and the assets, and that it is sufficient to prove a reasonable economic link. They also emphasized that this is not a punishment specifically against Máximo and Florencia Kirchner, but rather a measure to "restore the state's assets." "The seizure is not intended to punish the current owners, but to recover assets for the State whose legal basis is affected by their connection to the crime," they stated. Judge Mariano Borinsky argued that it was not sufficiently proven that certain assets came from the crime and proposed excluding the properties inherited by Máximo and Florencia Kirchner from the seizure. The deadline for the convicted individuals to jointly and "solidarily" respond for the updated amount determined by the Trial Court (TOF2) expired on August 13 of last year, but the parties appealed, and the seizure was delayed until the ruling that now orders its execution.