uentasThe co-founder of Livestock Connection, Pablo Carrasco, imprisoned for fraud and money laundering since July 2025, requested in the bankruptcy court the lifting of the embargo and the expiration of the precautionary measures imposed against him. His five children also requested it, who will appear on behalf of Muralir SA, registered in 2007, by Carrasco and his wife Ana Iewdiukow, and since 2024 Guadalupe and Baltasar have been listed as shareholders, although Marcela, Matías and Valentín are also present.
In the writing to which he agreed The ObserverCarrasco argued that he had no control over the financial management of the company and attributes responsibility to “de facto administrators”, arguing that there was no fraud in his actions and says that this was proven by the criminal prosecution. He admitted possible “negligence” due to omission of control as managing partner, but stated that he never had banking, financial or economic control of the company Conexión Ganadera LTDA.
By “de facto administrators” we mean that the actual management of funds, income and expenses, as well as operational decisions, was in charge of people linked to the Basso Desk in Florida, even after the death of Gustavo Basso. “It has also been proven that, even after the death, personal accounts of people close to Gustavo Basso, (not administrators of the company), were used with the argument of avoiding the restriction that implied the blocking of the deceased’s accounts,” he said.
“I am fully aware of the extent of the unwanted effects that the final fate of the company had, which has been unintentionally caused, causing damage to multiple families. It is clear that I find myself facing and answering for it, (with my imprisonment and that of my wife),” he added.
Furthermore, the brief signed by lawyers Giacomino DiMatteo and Fernando Vollono, stated that the embargoes have expired by right, since the plaintiffs did not file the corresponding judicial action within the thirty-day period.
The main argument of the defense is that the precautionary measures have expired by operation of law as established by the General Code of Procedure (CGP), which gives the plaintiff 30 days to the promoters of the measure to file the lawsuit.
Carrasco also highlighted having collaborated with justice by handing over personal property and that of his family members to the criminal prosecutor’s office to mitigate the damage caused to creditors. Furthermore, he states that it was he himself who promoted the liquidation of the company to try to obtain the greatest possible economic result from the assets.
On the other hand, the defense questioned the appointment of Alfredo Ciavattone as trustee, alleging a position of conflicting interests and the lack of a comprehensive approach in the management of the company’s assets. He argues that the final amount of damages depends on the successes or errors of those who manage the assets after liquidation, and not only on their strict liability.
Appeal from Muralir SA representatives and movie tickets
The children of Carrasco and Iewdiukow, Guadalupe and Baltasar Carrasco, filed a motion for reconsideration and an appeal for subsidy, also alleging that the embargoes had expired. They stated that almost a year (eleven months) had passed since they were decreed and several months since they came into effect without the creditors presenting the main claim within the legal period of thirty days.
The defense argued that there is no appearance of good right to maintain the embargo against Carrasco’s children because they are young students or professionals who never intervened in the social sphere, administration or finances of Conexión Ganadera Ltda.
They argued that the seized properties were acquired with money donated by their parents before 2022 and have already been made available to the Criminal Prosecutor’s Office to mitigate damages.
They claimed that they could not know the insolvency status of their parents’ businesses with the Basso family, something that even experienced investors did not detect.
On the other hand, they maintained that the judge exceeded his limits by decreeing an embargo for an amount of US$250 million, based on execution rules without a prior process. “The measures adopted, in themselves very burdensome, a character that is enhanced by their inhibition, having been imposed for an amount of US$250,000,000.00 not only affect our assets, but our own lives, and cause us irreparable harm for reasons completely unrelated to those appearing.”
“Not only does it inhibit us from goods generally but from our own lives, we are prevented from accessing a bank account, which is not only necessary but indispensable for basic requirements such as buying a ticket to the cinema today, effects that worsen over the course of almost a year since they were carried out without our notice,” they argued.
Finally, they pointed out that the Court did not require those who initiated the embargoes to provide a counter-caution (guarantee) sufficient to cover the possible damages that these inhibitory measures are causing to third parties unrelated to the competition.
In the event that the appeal for reconsideration is not accepted by the contest judge Leonardo Méndez, they request that the file be submitted to the 7th Turn Court of Appeals for review.
Di Matteo and Vollono also presented an appeal for clarification and extension and question that in a resolution taken by Judge Méndez he did not rule on the express request to declare the expiration of the measures, despite the fact that it is a “duly articulated claim” that cannot be ignored. They argue that expiration is an objective issue that must be addressed regardless of whether the ruling that ordered the measures is considered “firm” or not.
The lawyers questioned the judge’s resolution that declared their previous appeals inadmissible because he considered that sentence No. 1595/2025 was already final. They indicated that the appearing parties were notified between May 13 and 20, 2026, and filed the motions for reconsideration and appeal on May 22, 2026, so the appeal was presented within the legal period of six days.
For this reason, they ask the judge to explain under what legal basis or calculation of deadlines he understands that the sentence would have become final, so as not to violate the right of defense and control of the defendant. They claim that the situation has caused them an “inevitable eventual defenselessness” and harm to third parties for almost a year without the main claim having been formalized.
