Sur Finanzas defendants miss court appearance as judge warns of police search if they stay in default

Two representatives linked to Banfileños S.A. and the Banfileña Reconstruction Trust did not show up for questioning in the Sur Finanzas case, where the lender tied to the Argentine Football Association (AFA) is being investigated for money laundering, criminal conspiracy, and fraud by fraudulent administration. For PSPs and high-risk payment operators, the point is simple: once a financial network becomes part of a broader criminal probe, counterparties, sponsors, and related entities can quickly turn into procedural and banking risk.

1. The missing appearance was scheduled before Judge Luis Armella at the Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 2 in Lomas de Zamora. After the non-attendance, Armella set new hearings for 15 July and warned that unjustified failure to appear would lead to rebeldía (default) and a search by public force.
2. The case is centered on Sur Finanzas, a financial company linked to the AFA and under investigation for money laundering, criminal association, and fraud by fraudulent administration. The article says the company has been tied to operations involving clubs and other football-related entities, which is exactly the sort of ecosystem that attracts bank and PSP scrutiny once investigators get involved.
3. This is not the first time the case has met silence. In May, Maximiliano Ariel Vallejo, owner of the holding and a friend of AFA president Claudio “Chiqui” Tapia, also tried to avoid the hearing. His defense sought to nullify the summons to questioning and then appealed when that failed, arguing that the three charges against him belonged in other courts.
4. Vallejo did not appear on 5 May, but the appellate instance did not back his defense, and he eventually appeared before Judge Armella on 26 May. His appearance was limited: he submitted a written statement, answered only questions from his own defense, and refused to answer the court directly.
5. In his written statement, Vallejo said: “I categorically and emphatically reject each of the accusations made against me.” He also described the file as a “media” case and did not answer questions about operations involving San Lorenzo, Argentinos Juniors, Temperley, and Estrella del Sur, among others, where Sur Finanzas allegedly acted as sponsor or provided loans that the court characterizes as usurious.

Several other defendants — Graciela Beatriz Vallejo, María Fernanda Sena Argis, Bárbara Denise Sena Argis, Gerardo Salvador Carrozza, and Daniela Eliana Sánchez — also refused to testify. Under Article 18 of the National Constitution and Article 298 of the National Criminal Procedure Code, silence itself cannot be treated as evidence of guilt, which is the part compliance teams usually know by heart; the practical issue is not silence, but the escalation that follows when a court starts issuing default orders and summonses through public force.