Corrupt Arbitration? Questions Grow over Stampa’s Ties to Sulu Claimants’ Lawyers in Spain

Manila, Philippines - November 12, 2025 - The international arbitration community is once again facing scrutiny following the appearance of London-based lawyer Paul Cohen, known for representing the Sulu claimants, at the criminal trial of Spanish arbitrator Gonzalo Stampa in Madrid.

Stampa, who presided over the controversial $14.9 billion arbitration award against Malaysia, recently lost his appeal against a six-month prison sentence for contempt of court. His conviction stems from defying Spanish judicial orders that annulled his appointment as arbitrator.

Cohen’s attendance at the trial, while possibly an act of professional solidarity, underscores a deeper unease about the close professional and personal relationships linking Stampa and the Sulu claimants’ legal representatives.

New information continues to emerge pointing to Stampa’s enduring ties with B. Cremades & Asociados, the Spanish law firm that represented the claimants in the early stages of the arbitration. Stampa previously worked at the firm and reportedly remains close to its founder, Bernardo Cremades Sr. This connection raises serious questions about whether Stampa’s independence was compromised from the outset.

The potential conflict was amplified by a YouTube video posted on 11 May 2022, showing Bernardo Cremades Jr. openly boasting that his team had persuaded Stampa to continue the arbitration despite Spanish court rulings against it. Cremades Jr. even claims credit for convincing Stampa to illegally move the seat of arbitration from Madrid to Paris, an act that enabled proceedings to continue outside Spain’s jurisdiction.

That relocation directly paved the way for the 2022 award against Malaysia, an award that courts in multiple jurisdictions have since questioned.

Observers have described the episode as a “shameful display of partiality”, exposing the vulnerabilities of an industry that prides itself on independence but often operates behind closed doors.

While Stampa has faced sentencing, the broader network of individuals and entities who financed, influenced, or benefited from the Sulu arbitration remains untouched. Analysts argue that the lack of accountability reveals systemic weaknesses in how international arbitration manages conflicts of interest.

“The same small circle of lawyers, funders, and experts keeps reappearing in high-stakes cases, often switching roles between counsel, arbitrator, and advisor,” said one European arbitration specialist. “This case shows what happens when that overlap goes unchecked.”

The Sulu arbitration has become a global flashpoint, challenging not only the legitimacy of the award itself but also the ethical boundaries of the legal professionals who engineered it. As investigations and public scrutiny intensify, the episode could become a defining test of whether the arbitration system is capable of self-correction or destined to protect its own.

Read the full article for details of the alleged meeting and what it could mean for the future of the Sulu case: https://knowsulu.ph/unforeseen-consequences/corrupt-arbitration-questions-grow-over-stampas-ties-to-sulu-claimants-lawyers-in-spain