The Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation rejected a complaint filed by the defense of the convicted Cristina Kirchner and maintained the preventive seizures on the apartment at San José 1111, where she is serving house arrest, and on various properties belonging to the companies Hotesur and Los Sauces.
The decision was made by Chamber IV, composed of judges Gustavo Hornos, Mariano Borinsky, and Diego Barroetaveña, within the framework of the execution of the sentence in the Vialidad case.
Cristina could lose ownership of the apartment where she is serving her sentence
Cristina Kirchner is serving a six-year prison sentence and a lifetime disqualification from holding public office as the author of the crime of fraudulent administration to the detriment of public administration. The sentence became final on June 10, 2025.
Following that conviction, the Federal Oral Court No. 2 is proceeding with the confiscation ordered against those responsible, the amount of which has been updated to $684,990,350,139.86. The court has already ordered to proceed in a first phase with 111 assets linked to Cristina Kirchner and Lázaro Báez, which are currently undergoing appraisal.
In a second phase, the TOF 2 ordered on August 11 the preventive seizure of different properties belonging to Hotesur and Los Sauces, companies whose current shareholders are Máximo and Florencia Kirchner, while it is determined whether those assets should also be confiscated.
Among the assets affected is the apartment at San José 1111, in Constitución, where Cristina is serving house arrest. Also included are a duplex, seven garages, an apartment, and a storage room from the Madero Center Complex in Puerto Madero, as well as land and buildings located in Santa Cruz. The list also includes the property where the Hotel La Aldea del Chaltén operates.
The former president's defense questioned the seizures, arguing that those properties do not constitute instruments, products, or profits from the crime judged in Vialidad. They also argued that Cristina Kirchner was entitled to appeal despite the fact that the properties belong to companies whose shareholders are her children, as the precautionary measure originates from the execution of her own sentence.
San José 1111
One of the central points of the argument was the situation of the apartment where she resides. Her lawyers pointed out that the measure could result in the definitive dispossession of the property and leave her without the home where she is currently serving her sentence.
However, Cassation rejected that argument. The judges recalled that for the moment it is exclusively a preventive seizure and that the Oral Court has not yet resolved whether the definitive confiscation of those assets is appropriate.
