Sur Finanzas case: Ariel Vallejo returns to federal court and says there is “no crime to prosecute”

Ariel Vallejo, the financier linked to AFA president Claudio Tapia, testified again before Argentina’s federal courts in the Sur Finanzas case and filed a written defense against the accusations. For payment operators, the interesting bit is not the football cameo; it is the mix of alleged usury, fraud, money laundering, and the side mention of unauthorized FX and financial intermediation claims.

1. The Federal Court of Lomas de Zamora is moving into a new phase of the Sur Finanzas case. In recent days, former Club Atlético Banfield executives Eduardo Juan Spinosa and Federico José Spinosa were questioned, as were the people behind Centro de Inversiones Concordia SRL. On the Sur Finanzas Group SA side, Maximiliano Ariel Vallejo testified for the second time as an accused party.
2. The judge in charge is Luis Armella, and the case is being driven by prosecutor Cecilia Incardona. Vallejo faces four charges: criminal association, charging usurious rates, fraud tied to the loan agreements signed with Club Atlético Banfield, and money laundering, with the last count aggravated by habitual conduct and by the alleged existence of a group formed to carry out that offense continuously.
3. The accusation also gestures, more indirectly, at possible breaches of the criminal FX regime and unauthorized financial intermediation. The filing, however, does not identify specific transactions, does not specify amounts for each incident, and does not cite any final judgment or definitive administrative ruling to support those characterizations.
4. Vallejo’s written statement was prepared with technical assistance from lawyer Pablo Parera and expands on the defense he already gave in his first appearance. His position is blunt: he says he will provide elements showing the lawful activity of the companies under investigation and challenge what he describes as vague accusations against him and the other defendants.
5. The defense’s core line is that simply being part of a business organization, even one with different roles, clear hierarchies, and specific functions, cannot by itself support a criminal association theory. It also argues that a criminal organization operates in secrecy, has no formal employees, and does not account to anyone — a description clearly meant to separate ordinary corporate structure from the legal threshold prosecutors need to meet.

The procedural backdrop matters here because high-risk payment businesses often sit right on the line between ordinary financing, merchant funding, and allegations that can quickly expand into FX and licensing issues. The court has also set new hearings for defendants who did not appear, with a warning that they may be declared in default if they ignore the summons.