The public figures tied to Zoe’s victims reveal a tangled web of media appearances and legal maneuvers. A prominent lawyer who represented victims on television was also active on social platforms during the period in question. A trusted ally of a media promoter who defended Cositorto and was closely connected to a leading figure in the organization was arrested. The names involved include Maximiliano Javier Batista.
Many supporters expressed their gratitude for the backing and friendship online. A well-known attorney, Ignatius Trimarco, shared messages of appreciation with followers, underscoring the social reach of the case and its supporters.
As the Zoe case intensified in August 2020, and again at year’s end during a time of ongoing coverage, Trimarco publicly celebrated a colleague’s birthday in a way that raised questions about professional boundaries and personal ties within the legal team. The public celebrations coincided with high-profile appearances and the ongoing narrative surrounding Zoe and her associates.
Reports indicate that Trimarco appeared on television to advocate for Zoe’s victims, charging clients in advance for his services. It was noted by some outlets that he warned clients about potential conflicts of interest arising from friendships with Pierri, clarifying that personal relations should not cloud professional judgments.
Within the ethical frameworks governing the Bar Associations, the codes emphasize transparency about relationships that might influence a client’s decision to retain or terminate counsel. In the Capital Federal Bar Association, guidance requires a lawyer to disclose any friendship or kinship with the opposing party, or any circumstance that could reasonably impact the professional relationship. The Buenos Aires City Bar Association likewise cautions against accepting cases where personal ties could threaten independence, stressing that discussions should remain serious, frank, and fair.
Some victims expressed discomfort with the optics of the relationships among the lawyers and commentators associated with Zoe’s case. Reports described moments of hesitation among certain victims who observed a lawyer’s travel and public statements, feeling that these actions could benefit the opposing party more than the clients themselves.
A publicly shared video from a television broadcast showed two lawyers together, which fueled further speculation about the dynamics within the defense team. Amid the controversy, a post surfaced suggesting that Zoe’s trust agreements were being discussed in ways that raised concerns about the integrity of investigative processes. The attorney’s social media activity appeared to frame the discussion of the case in a way that participants felt could influence public perception and ongoing investigations.
One post questioned who exactly Trimarco was defending, prompting debate about loyalties and the portrayal of a client as a victim. In another televised appearance, a colleague described a person associated with the defense as a definite victim in the eyes of the speaker, a claim that appeared to conflict with later statements that treated the same individual as an associate of the defense team who traveled with the main organizer by private jet and positioned as a key promoter rather than a mere student.
The translator who was linked to the main organizer publicly promoted Zoe’s work at events across several countries and even advertised cryptocurrency on television. There were claims about a particular token’s value and the potential profitability of trading, though such assertions were contested as the case progressed. Later remarks from Trimarco about Gabriel González shifted, avoiding direct naming while signaling a change in stance after a perceived breach with the core organizers.
As discussions about ethics and aesthetics of the Zoe case continued on public forums, the dynamic between the two main attorneys grew more pronounced after another birthday celebration, this time for Pierri. Supporters and observers shared messages of friendship and continued to analyze how the case was being publicly presented.
In social posts, gratitude for long-standing friendships was mixed with questions about the breadth of involvement and the timing of public appearances. Observers noted that a prominent young man connected to the case appeared on television as one of Zoe’s early public accusers in Buenos Aires, and he was connected with the defense circle in multiple public settings.
The circle of participants invited to events around the defense included the city’s early complainants and others associated with Zoe’s case. Publicly shared images from these events drew scrutiny about the normalcy of such gatherings in the context of a high-stakes legal matter. A young man described by some as an actor stated that he had invested significant sums into Zoe, with discussions about contractual terms and the timeline of payments spanning multiple years.
The strategy of the defense’s leadership often hinged on consistent timing of payments and the framing of trust agreements as an essential element of the arrangement, while others argued that delays could simply reflect the evolving nature of the case rather than fraudulent intent. Some critics challenged the assertion that Zoe’s investment network lacked formal authority to trade such assets, pointing to the involvement of a chief legal officer and other high-ranking figures associated with the defense team.
As the narrative continued to unfold, questions about legal and ethical conduct persisted. The public discourse highlighted the lawyers’ willingness to engage in media interventions while defending their client base, prompting discussions about the balance between publicity and professional responsibility. Some observers suggested that hiring media-savvy lawyers could influence outcomes, while others warned about the risks of media-driven strategy in complex fraud or investment cases.
During the broader coverage, questions remained about the consistency of arguments and the roles played by various individuals within the defense network. The discourse emphasized the importance of clear, accountable practices within the legal team, especially when public perception intersects with investigative processes. The case continued to draw attention to how trust agreements and promotional activities were interpreted by both the courts and the public, underscoring the need for rigorous ethical standards in high-profile financial dispute matters. These ongoing discussions kept Zoe’s case in the spotlight as new developments emerged and authorities pursued clearer answers. This summary reflects the public record and the evolving debates surrounding the key figures involved, without presuming outcomes or conclusions. [Citation: Argentine media coverage and legal ethics guidelines]