Supreme Court gets in the AFA's business: three files could define the judicial future of Tapia and Toviggino

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has taken a pivotal role in the ongoing legal investigations into the leadership of the Argentine Football Association (AFA). Three key cases could determine the future of President Claudio “Chiqui” Tapia and his treasurer, Pablo Toviggino. The highest court is now at the center of these matters, which have been scrutinized over months of internal conflicts within the association. One case already under review involves allegations of the misappropriation of millions of dollars from the AFA. Another could reach the Supreme Court if the prosecutor Mario Villar’s appeal against the relocation of the investigation related to a mansion in Pilar linked to Toviggino is granted. Meanwhile, a third case involving alleged money laundering has moved from the Economic Criminal Court to the Federal Judiciary, raising questions about which jurisdiction should oversee the AFA's affairs. One of the cases currently before the Supreme Court originated from a complaint filed by businessman Guillermo Tofoni, who accused the AFA leadership of diverting funds tied to international contracts. The complaint points to the management of money through TourProdEnter LLC, a company associated with theater producer Javier Faroni and his wife, Erica Gillette. The allegation suggests that part of the funds generated by contracts involving the national team and other international deals did not enter the AFA accounts. According to the complaint, the alleged misappropriation could amount to at least $42 million, within a total volume of operations estimated at around $260 million. The case began in the national instruction courts and became a dispute between different jurisdictions. Judge Adrián González Charvay of the Federal Court in Campana requested intervention, but the Crime Chamber rejected the transfer. The conflict escalated to the Supreme Court because of the clash between a federal judge and a national court. Now, Attorney General Eduardo Casal must issue his opinion before the Supreme Court reaches a decision. This decision will be crucial, as it may set a precedent for other cases questioning whether investigations into the AFA should remain in Buenos Aires or be transferred to Campana. A judge previously described the relocation of the AFA to Pilar as “juridical fiction.” The second case centers on a five-hectare property in Pilar valued at approximately $20 million, registered under Luciano Pantano and Ana Lucía Conte, his mother. Authorities suspect both may have acted as frontmen for Toviggino due to their apparent lack of financial capacity to purchase such a property. During a raid, luxury vehicles, sports facilities, a horse farm, and various items were found, all linked to Toviggino’s position as AFA treasurer. The Federal Criminal Appeals Court ruled that the case should continue in the Federal Court of Campana, as the investigated property is located there. Judges Mariano Borinsky and Diego Barroetaveña also determined that money laundering is a federal offense. Prosecutor Mario Villar opposes this ruling and is preparing an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court. His argument aims to challenge the decision and possibly shift the jurisdiction. The situation highlights the complex interplay between different branches of the judiciary and the growing scrutiny of high-profile figures within Argentina’s football administration. As the legal battles unfold, the outcomes of these cases could shape the legal landscape surrounding the AFA and its leaders for years to come.