There are phrases and questions that function as period slogans. Eugenio Zaffaroniformer Supreme Court judge, rehearsed one of them in an interview with Julia Mengolini: When asked why “there are no good rich people,” he responded that what worried him was “why there are so many rich people.” The phrase condenses an uncomfortable worldview: wealth as a structural suspicion, accumulation as a symptom of injustice, capital as a prelude to crime.
But the problem is not the philosophical discussion. The problem is the messenger.
Zaffaroni He is not a marginal academic. It was proposed by Nestor Kirchner to join the Supreme Court in 2003, within the framework of the post-Nazarene. Then, his sworn statement gave an account of 10 properties—five rented studio apartments in Buenos Aires and apartments in Madrid and Costa Rica—in addition to being in succession proceedings for another eight properties, of which he owned 50%. He also declared four bank accounts, including one in the Credit Suisseopened in 1986, with nearly 10,000 euros.
At that time he decided not to calculate the total value of his assets because – he argued – the real estate market is “variable.” He also did not want to give details of his clients as a criminal lawyer, so as not to affect acquitted people. Managed Transparency: Just enough to say “look,” not enough to actually look.
A brothel court
Years later, his anti-oligarchic discourse would coexist with a more uncomfortable reality: brothels operated in at least five (and later six) apartments he owned. The initial complaint was promoted by the NGO The Alameda in 2011. The properties were in his name. He admitted ownership, but maintained that he did not know what was happening in them because the administration was delegated to his agent, Ricardo “Richard” Montivero.
The journalistic investigation added a problem to that “I didn’t know”: they were not abstract rumors, but addresses, telephone numbers, expenses, consortiums and complaints. NEWSin an investigation signed by Edi Zuninolisted addresses and described the mechanics of the circuit. The case broke out with a studio apartment of Vicente López 2217 (Recoleta): “services” were offered to 120 pesos an hourthey attended three girlsand the place was rented—according to the investigation—through the real estate agency “Juan Calvo”which also was not enabled. It is not a minor detail: when the business is opaque, intermediaries matter.
The second point was Marcelo T. de Alvear 1906, 9° “A”: The neighbors even posted a flyer in the elevator asking “not to continue facilitating the circulation of people outside the building” who went to the “9th floor brothel.” The third case, Bacacay 3112, 6° “B”also with property and expenses in his name. The Alameda He reported that the consortium tried to resolve it by talking to the same real estate company “Juan Calvo” and that the name of Montivero as an interlocutor, without results. In that department, the phone number was listed in the name of Marcia Gonzalez (known as “Dora” or “Dorita”), another recurring piece in the public file.
The fourth address was Luis Dellepiane Passage 668, 3° “8”with an even more corrosive fact: the problem came from 2008with transvestites, complaints for damages and mediations. A lawyer who represented neighbors related a phrase that, in institutional terms, is dynamite: “They don’t know who they are messing with; the owner is Montivero. AND Montivero is Zaffaroni“In 2009 it was reopened, they closed it; and at the beginning of 2011 it was set up again, with complaints to prosecutors and the name of Montivero as pointed out.
And there was the fifth: Paraguay 877with contradictions between units “A” and “B”, telephone numbers published on portals, and neighbors slipping that the brothel would have occupied both. In parallel, while the official thesis said “it’s beyond me,” the daily evidence said “strangers rise and fall at all hours.”
The explanation of Zaffaroni It was almost literary: “If after 40 years teaching criminology I decided to commit a crime, would I do it on a property in my name?” He did not ask to be considered honest; He asked that they not believe him an idiot, although he acknowledged that the case had affected him “on an ethical level.” The problem with that defense is that, when one occupies a seat on the Court, the standard is not “I am not an idiot”: it is “I am responsible.”
Scandal without consequences
Inside the court it was not just another day. NEWS described a warm support of the president of the Court, Ricardo Lorenzettiwho spoke of a “personal issue” and asked for “explanations.” And he mentioned internal discomfort for the media handling of the scandal and for responding without coordinating with the rest of the body, as if the problem were just a communication misstep and not a blow to institutional prestige.
The investigation led to a criminal case for violation of the prophylaxis law. In 2013, Montivero He assumed responsibility as administrator and paid a fine of 10,000 pesos. The judge declared the criminal action extinguished. No criminal record, minimum fine, file closed. Zaffaroni was dismissed. In other words: a scandal with a name, address and expenses ended in Argentina as too many things end: with a sanction that does not sanction.
It is difficult not to notice the irony: while he was denouncing the “punitive power” and the “global financial oligarchic forces” that, according to him, seek new massacres, his properties were exploiting—at least commercially—an activity that he himself Pope Francis defined as a “disfigurement of human dignity.” Even so, in 2023 the Pope Francis appointed him a member of the founding academic board of the Institute for Research and Promotion of Social Rights Fray Bartolome de las Casas. Friends are friends.
The story had a dark epilogue. In February 2024, Ricardo Montivero was found dead in the bathtub of the house Zaffaroniin Flores. The former judge declared that they lived together and defined him as his “close friend.” The death was attributed to natural causes. There were no signs of criminality. The attorney who had assumed the blame, paid the fine and closed the case died at the magistrate’s home. The plot does not need further explanation: it needs memory.
The Zaffaronian double standard
Let’s go back to the original phrase: “I am worried that there are so many rich people.” Zaffaroni has maintained for years that poverty does not cause crimes, that wealth also causes crimes, that the problem is the lack of projects and global polarization. It is a debatable thesis, but defensible on a theoretical level. What is less defensible is the moral lightness with which one pontificates about other people’s wealth while managing a robust real estate asset, with income abroad and international accounts. And, when the conflict breaks out, the national wild card is activated: “I wasn’t there,” “they manage me,” “it’s beyond me.”
The question is not whether there are “good rich people” or “bad rich people.” The question is which ethical yardstick is used to judge others and which to judge oneself. When a former judge of the Court relativizes private accumulation but exhibits a multiplicity of properties; when they denounce exclusion but ignore what happens in their departments; When criminal liability is resolved with a fine equivalent to the price of a monthly rent, the debate stops being ideological and becomes institutional.
Zaffaroni was always consistent with its guarantee: criminal law must be reduced to a minimum. In his case, that minimum was literal. But the ethical standard of a supreme judge is not measured only in the Penal Code. It is measured in exemplarity.
Maybe the real problem is not that there are “so many rich people.” Perhaps the problem is the ease with which, in Argentina, moral indignation functions as a discourse while concrete responsibility is outsourced. And it is paid—when it is paid—with a minimal fine and a closed file.
In politics, incendiary phrases earn applause. In history, what remains are the facts.
Image gallery
