A year after a judicial investigation began into the entry of fifteen unchecked parcels into the country aboard a plane belonging to former intelligence agent Leonardo Scatturice, the inquiry has stalled. The investigation awaits a response from the United States and faces a “structural evidentiary limitation” in determining if a call to or from those in power “opened the gates” at Aeroparque airport.
The investigation began on March 17, 2025, following a report of suspected smuggling. However, it was hampered from the start: the Bombardier Global 5000, registration N18RU, had landed on February 26th arriving from Miami and departed on March 5th for Paris with its pilots and central passenger, Laura Belén Arrieta, Scatturice’s right-hand woman. Investigators were never able to inspect the aircraft or the parcels, and a nineteen-day delay before the complaint was filed proved critical in losing crucial evidence.
Time proved detrimental to gathering evidence: records from the customs scanners were lost, as their preservation is limited.
The government initially denied any irregularities. Spokesperson Manuel Adorni stated, “We see factually impossible that anyone saw anyone with ten suitcases,” claiming that all luggage had been checked. However, after the Public Prosecutor’s Office provided evidence demonstrating the luggage had not been inspected, the official position shifted blame to customs personnel, with President Javier Milei stating, “They decide who passes and who doesn’t” through controls, calling it “absolutely conventional.”
Arrieta and Scatturice participated in organizing the conservative CPAC conference in Buenos Aires, which Milei likewise attended. Through CPAC, Milei gained access to President Donald Trump in the United States. Scatturice is now a shareholder in Flybondi, a low-cost airline operating in Argentina, and advises Santiago Caputo on security and intelligence matters.
After a year, the judicial investigation, led by Judge Pablo Yadarola and prosecutor Claudio Navas Rial—with the participation of the head of the Administrative Investigations Prosecutor’s Office (PIA), Sergio Rodríguez—remains inconclusive.
A Police Security Airport (PSA) agent, José Alfredo Flores Herbas, reported observing unusual behavior after the landing. He stated that Arrieta handed her phone to a customs officer, who responded with an affirmative gesture before Arrieta passed into the international arrivals area. The court verified the customs officer was Cintia Vanesa Cali, though the poor quality of the PSA and Aeropuertos Argentina 2000 cameras at Aeroparque prevented confirmation of Herbas’s account.
Vehicles belonging to Royal Class—the company involved in the Antonini Wilson case since 2007—and other unidentified vehicles operated around the aircraft. A Federal Police report identified at least seven vehicles, mostly Royal Class vans, maneuvering in reverse behind the Bombardier between 8:13 and 9:39 AM, with their purpose undetermined.
between 8:17 and 9:29 AM, the operator of one of the cameras deliberately moved the frame, losing sight of the aircraft before refocusing on it with another vehicle already parked beside it. There were also other changes in camera framing that prevented observation of what occurred.
It was also found that customs officer Cali communicated by phone with another customs officer, Ronaldo Humberto Basiluk, during the time the aircraft was on the tarmac, including a 52-second call at 8:42 AM, but this communication could not be directly linked to any facilitation or cover-up of a potential customs violation.
The aircraft’s luggage did not move through the scanners. The fiscal opinion established that the diversion was not due to operational congestion or a random selectivity procedure: it was a “direct and express decision by customs personnel” despite the availability of technology to perform the inspection. During the same period—between 8:56 and 9:20 AM—all other passengers entering the sector were subjected to scanner control without exception.
It was verified that the interim head of the Aeroparque Customs Division, Silvana Abalsamo, was present when Arrieta and the pilots exited with the luggage, interacted with them, gave them instructions, and allegedly authorized their departure through the “green channel”, although her specific role that morning remains under judicial investigation.
Some of the luggage entered the country, although two parcels declared as “in transit” remained on board the aircraft, as permitted by Customs Code and declared by the pilots, without any violation of that regime being proven within the Royal Class hangar. The fiscal opinion also identified that only five parcels had been declared.
The Court and prosecutors identified six “significant inconsistencies”: omissions in baggage checks upon arrival; lack of records tracing the baggage; deficiencies in the registration of crew and passengers; lack of documentation regarding the immobilization and safeguarding of the aircraft’s contents; absence of the flight’s registration in state databases; and doubts regarding the declared airport of origin.
The latest development in the judicial file occurred last Saturday in March, when Telecom Personal sent a report to the Court. It reported that it is not technically possible to determine if Arrieta made or received a WhatsApp or other digital message call during the critical minutes or if she browsed the Internet, sent or received emails, or connected to social networks. However, it was confirmed that the lines involved registered data traffic during that critical period.
After receiving further reports from the Federal Police and the Directorate of Judicial Assistance in Complex Crimes and Organized Crime (Dajudeco) that did not break the deadlock in the investigation, the Court is awaiting a response from U.S. Customs authorities to the cooperation request sent. They want to know if they inspected the contents of the suspect parcels before the Bombardier’s departure for Argentina. The response has not yet arrived.
“To date, it has not been possible to prove that we are dealing with a smuggling operation, but we cannot definitively rule it out either,” a court source indicated. “The key still depends on what, if they respond, the United States can report.”
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted the initial investigation?
The investigation began on March 17, 2025, following a report of suspected smuggling related to the entry of fifteen unchecked parcels into the country on a plane belonging to Leonardo Scatturice.
What hampered the investigation from the start?
The investigation was hampered by a nineteen-day delay in inspecting the aircraft and the parcels, resulting in the loss of critical evidence, including records from the customs scanners.
What is the current status of the investigation?
The investigation remains inconclusive after one year, stalled by a lack of response from U.S. Authorities and a “structural evidentiary limitation” in determining if external factors influenced events at Aeroparque airport.
Given the ongoing reliance on external information and the identified inconsistencies in the evidence, what role might international cooperation play in resolving this case?
