The Provincial Court of Madrid where Cohen’s latest case was dismissed.

Image Source: Carlos Berbell/Confilegal.

In another misguided attempt to challenge the judicial system, Cohen’s criminal complaint against Enrique Calvo Vergara, a Court Clerk (Letrado de la Administración de Justicia, LAJ) at the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, has been decisively dismissed by the Provincial Court of Madrid.

Cohen’s Accusations

Cohen, representing the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu in their long-standing dispute against Malaysia, accused Calvo Vergara of an array of serious crimes, including:

• Procedural Fraud – Alleging deceit to manipulate court outcomes.

• Coercion– Accusing Calvo Vergara of undue pressure on a third party.

• Malfeasance – Alleging that Calvo Vergara made an unjust decision knowingly.

• Willful Delay – Claiming deliberate obstruction of judicial processes.

• Falsification of Documents – An assertion that official records were tampered with.

At the center of Cohen’s accusations was a simple email sent by Calvo Vergara to arbitrator Gonzalo Stampa, informing him of the annulment of his appointment in an arbitration case concerning the Sulu heirs’ $14.9 billion claim against Malaysia. Cohen argued that this communication was part of an unlawful act.

Cohen’s Claims Dismissed

After reviewing the claims, the Provincial Court of Madrid determined that no criminal offense had occurred. The court ruled that Calvo Vergara was merely executing his official duties by notifying Stampa of the annulment of his role as arbitrator. The judges found no indication of misconduct, reinforcing that Cohen’s claims of malfeasance, coercion, or procedural fraud were unsubstantiated.

Moreover, the court strongly reaffirmed that criminal law is not a tool to resolve administrative or procedural disagreements. It referenced Supreme Court Order ATS 20367/2024 (April 11) to stress that a criminal complaint is only valid if the allegations clearly indicate a criminal offense—a threshold Cohen’s case failed to meet. Furthermore, the ruling also aligned with the Constitutional Court’s 1996 decision, which states that judicial protection does not automatically grant the right to initiate criminal proceedings.

Implications of the Court’s Decision

This ruling presents yet another significant setback for Cohen, compounding his legal struggles in the Sulu heirs’ case against Malaysia. His effort to challenge a Spanish judicial official has now been firmly rejected, raising further doubts about his broader legal approach.

By closing the case without imposing any financial penalties, the court reaffirmed its position that not all legal disagreements warrant escalation into criminal litigation, especially in the absence of substantial evidence of wrongdoing.

REFERENCES

Berbell, C. (2025, February 6). La Audiencia Provincial de Madrid tumba la querella por prevaricación contra el LAJ del TSJM en el caso Stampa. ConfiLegal. https://confilegal.com/20250206-la-audiencia-provincial-de-madrid-tumba-la-querella-por-prevaricacion-contra-el-laj-del-tsjm-en-el-caso-stampa/