Currently, the judicial discussion revolves around how to turn that confiscation declaration into a real recovery of assets, a process that involves inventory, appraisal, registration measures, eventual auction or asset management, and defining the final destination of the confiscated assets according to the mechanisms provided for seized or confiscated goods. With the filed request, the case enters a phase of definitions that go beyond the symbolic: if the court proceeds with a broader confiscation, it will consolidate one of the most significant asset executions associated with a corruption conviction in Argentina. The request is framed within the patrimonial execution stage of the Vialidad case, a key section of the file: the criminal responsibility is no longer in question, but rather how the recovery of assets is effected to cover the amount of confiscation set by the final sentence. According to the prosecution's argument, the magnitude of the economic damage attributed to the scheme of directing public works requires advancing with a comprehensive confiscation policy, capable of reaching the values established by the conviction. In this sense, the representatives of the Public Ministry stated that the initial list of executable assets is insufficient to cover the total set by the court, for which reason they expanded the universe of reachable properties —real estate, stakes and linked assets— with the objective of guaranteeing the effectiveness of the economic reparation. The axis of the presentation was the identification of presumably confiscatable assets within the period that the sentence considered associated with the illicit activity investigated. If, on the other hand, the process gets bogged down in challenges or evidentiary limitations, the confiscation could take years, keeping the case in a permanent legal dispute. That is why the request aims for the court to enable seizure and confiscation measures on a broader set of properties, including those that would be in the name of companies or related third parties. In this context, the San José 1111 apartment appears, a point of high political and operational tension due to its double condition: it is the place where the former president serves her sentence under house arrest and, at the same time, a property that the prosecution intends to incorporate into the universe of assets to be confiscated. On the other side, the defenses usually raise objections about the traceability of some assets, the date of acquisition, the real ownership, and the possibility of affecting assets that would not have a direct relationship with the proven fact. The Federal Oral Court No. 2 must now analyze whether it grants the request as requested, if it narrows it down to a subset of assets, or if it requires prior verification measures (appraisals, registration reports, ownership verification, and corporate cross-checks). The prosecution argues that several assets were acquired, transferred or reconfigured through corporate structures or registration changes that, in practice, hinder the execution. In the prosecution's logic, any delay erodes the State's ability to recover assets, either due to litigiousness, the deterioration of market value, or the possibility of new asset reconfiguration maneuvers. Furthermore, any relevant decision can escalate to higher instances, in a scheme where each step usually triggers appeals and precautionary measures, especially when it comes to emblematic or high-value properties. The patrimonial offensive also revives the background of the case: the Vialidad case maintained that the scheme for awarding and executing public works in Santa Cruz favored the business network of Báez and generated a multimillion-dollar loss to the State. Buenos Aires-February 12, 2026-Total News Agency-TNA— Prosecutors Diego Luciani and Sergio Molas requested the Federal Oral Court No. 2 the confiscation of an expanded package of assets attributed to Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and businessman Lázaro Báez, with a list that exceeds 140 properties and includes the apartment at San José 1111, in the Buenos Aires neighborhood of Constitución, where the former head of state serves house arrest. The eventual inclusion would not automatically imply an 'eviction' in the immediate term, but it would open a complex scenario: the court would have to reconcile the patrimonial execution with the conditions of serving the sentence, in addition to resolving possible oppositions from the defense and third parties who claim ownership or affectation of rights.
