In recent days, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s lawyers added a key novelty in the case for the confiscation of assets: they requested that the properties and assets that the former president transferred to her children as inheritance be left outside the scope of the judicial measure. The central argument is that these assets are no longer part of Cristina Kirchner’s personal assets and, therefore, should not be affected by the confiscation ordered by Justice.
Máximo and Florencia appear as owners of the properties and companies that the children inherited from Néstor Kirchner and those that their mother inherited to them during her lifetime in 2016, after leaving power. According to calculations in the file—and which had already been analyzed in previous reports—the inheritance would be around $4,486,557,970 per child.
What assets they seek to exclude from confiscation
According to the judicial information and the asset declarations revealed in the case, the inventory that the defense tries to protect includes:
- Apartments in the City of Buenos Aires, mainly in Puerto Madero and Recoleta, declared with tax values much lower than the market values, but which together represent one of the most important assets of the family patrimony.
- Properties in Santa Cruz, including properties in Río Gallegos and El Calafate, which historically formed part of the hard core of the Kirchners’ real estate investments.
- Corporate interests linked to hotel and real estate companies, transferred to the children’s names in 2016, plus those they inherited before after the death of Néstor Kirchner.
- Bank accounts and financial assets declared in successive presentations before the Anti-Corruption Office and the AFIP.
According to the documentation included in the file, many of these assets appear with declared valuations that are far below their real market value, a point that was questioned by the experts and the prosecutor’s office.
The defense strategy consists of drawing a dividing line between Cristina Kirchner’s personal assets and the already consolidated inheritance headed by Máximo and Florencia. In this sense, the lawyers maintain that the confiscation cannot advance on assets that belong to third parties, even when they are their children, and that were acquired through succession.
The proposal reopens a key discussion within the file: whether the confiscation should cover the entire patrimonial network built during the years in power or be strictly limited to the assets that are still listed in the name of the former president. The resolution of this point will be decisive in defining the real scope of one of the most sensitive measures issued against the heritage of Kirchnerism.
