Rib vs. Judge Cano: Pending Case for Scams
- A criminal complaint has been filed against Judge María Virginia Cano, of the Court of First Instance in Commercial and Execution of Second Nomination, by Instruction Prosecutor No.
- José Lisandro Herrera, the complainant, initially accused José Werfil Vega of attempting to execute a fraudulent debt of $6.9 million.
- Herrera's complaint was originally filed with the Attorney General, who then referred it to Costilla's Prosecutor's Office.
Judge Accused in $6.9 Million Fraud scheme
Table of Contents
- Judge Accused in $6.9 Million Fraud scheme
- Judge Accused in $6.9 million Fraud Scheme – Your questions Answered
- What is the essence of the accusations against Judge María Virginia cano?
- Who is accusing Judge Cano?
- What is the alleged fraudulent scheme about?
- Who are the other key individuals involved in this case?
- What role did the promissory note play in the accusations?
- What did the original complaint to the Attorney General’s Office include?
- why is Herrera alleging collusion?
- What specific actions did Del Campo allegedly take, according to Herrera?
- What does the Costilla’s accusation focus on?
- What are the allegations against José Werfil Vega?
- What has Judge Cano said in response to the accusations?
- What is the background of Judge Cano?
- What are the potential legal implications for the individuals involved?
- What are the next steps in this case?
March 31, 2025
A criminal complaint has been filed against Judge María Virginia Cano, of the Court of First Instance in Commercial and Execution of Second Nomination, by Instruction Prosecutor No. 5, Hugo Costilla. the complaint is linked to alleged procedural scams that surfaced in mid-November 2023.Simultaneously, a similar accusation was reportedly made at the Secretariat of Summary of the Court of Justice.
Accusation Details
José Lisandro Herrera, the complainant, initially accused José Werfil Vega of attempting to execute a fraudulent debt of $6.9 million. Herrera alleges that Vega,purportedly associated wiht an illicit organization led by Mario del Campo,used an obviously falsified promissory note,which Judge Cano allegedly validated.
Herrera’s complaint was originally filed with the Attorney General, who then referred it to Costilla’s Prosecutor’s Office.
Herrera later expanded his complaint, focusing on what he described as “trout” firms under his and Vega’s names. he also alleged manipulation of court files by Del campo and Gordillo, with Judge Cano’s alleged consent.
According to Herrera, del Campo improperly removed documentation from the court with the court’s consent, despite lacking authorization.
Alleged Omissions
Notably, Costilla’s accusation regarding the alleged illicit association and procedural fraud does not mention Judge Cano or other commercial and execution judges. Rather, the accusation focuses on lower-ranking employees of the Cano Court, including:
- Aldana Soledad Santisteban de Ahumada, writer of secretariat No. 2
- Ernesto Gabriel Hernández, officer of Secretariat No. 2
- Ramón Rafael Rolando Rodríguez, main officer of the bankruptcy secretariat
- Ramón Eduardo D´abate, head of the Office of Secretariat No. 2
Herrera’s Initial Complaint
In his original complaint to the Attorney General’s Office,Herrera stated he discovered an executive claim against him in the Cano Court for allegedly failing to pay a $6.9 million promissory note to Vega, whom he claimed to not know.
Vega reportedly initiated the lawsuit on Aug.1,2023,with sponsorship from Gordillo.
Herrera contends the promissory note was falsified to execute against him,leading to a default and auction sentence and the preventive seizure of his truck,which he used for his livelihood.
He highlighted anomalies in the promissory note, including a date covered by a seal marked “original.”
Herrera also claimed his signature was forged and requested a calligraphic examination in the Cano Court, which was allegedly denied.
Herrera emphasized that Judge Cano was legally obligated to examine the promissory note,a point he made in his criminal complaint. Though, Costilla did not include this in the accusation against Del Campo and his alleged accomplices.
He further alleged that Liliana Batallán Ocampo, Secretary No. 1 of the Court, declared the executed promissory note valid despite the apparent falsification, a decision herrera attributes to Judge Cano.
Herrera requested investigations into Vega for potential crimes of “scam” and “falsification and use of a private document,” and into Judge Cano for “breach of the duties of a public official.”
Further Allegations
In the expanded complaint, Herrera pointed out inconsistencies among Vega’s signatures.
He also noted that on Oct. 3, 2023, Del Campo allegedly removed a notification card addressed to Herrera and a trade addressed to the automotive property registry to record the vehicle’s seizure. Herrera claims Del Campo was not authorized to perform such actions.
Herrera alleges collusion between Vega and Del Campo, with the alleged consent of the Cano Court.
The complaint states that Vega initiated approximately 46 commercial execution cases, challenging the Court of First instance in Commercial and Execution of Third Nomination to increase the likelihood of his cases being heard in the Cano Court.
Vega’s complaint is considered significant in the examination against the alleged illicit association purportedly led by Del Campo, as procedural fraud would allegedly require judicial approval.
Judge Cano’s Background
María Virginia Cano‘s appointment was approved by the Senate on Oct.3,2019. Similar allegations have also been reportedly made at the Secretariat of Summaries of the Court.
Requests for interviews with Judge Cano and other commercial judges were made during the past week, but no responses were received.
José Vega and Alleged Forged Signatures
Werfil Vega’s lawyer, Orlando Barrientos, stated that his client is accused of executing more than 100 million pesos through documents in a commercial court.
Barrientos said Vega denies signing the documents and suggested that lawyer Rocío Grisel Gordillo may have used his signature, as she had Vega’s personal data from a previous drug trafficking case approximately eight years ago.
Judge Accused in $6.9 million Fraud Scheme – Your questions Answered
Updated: March 31,2025
What is the essence of the accusations against Judge María Virginia cano?
The primary accusation against Judge María Virginia Cano centers on alleged involvement in a $6.9 million fraud scheme. The complaint alleges that cano, of the Court of First Instance in Commercial and Execution of Second Nomination in Argentina, validated a likely falsified promissory note. This validation is believed to be a crucial step which helped in an attempt to execute a fraudulent debt. Simultaneously, similar accusations were reportedly made at the Secretariat of Summaries of the Court of Justice.
Who is accusing Judge Cano?
The initial accuser is José Lisandro Herrera, who filed a criminal complaint. The investigation is being led by Instruction Prosecutor No. 5, Hugo Costilla. The complaint was referred to Costilla’s Prosecutor’s Office after being filed with the Attorney General.
What is the alleged fraudulent scheme about?
The scheme revolves around an attempt to collect on what Herrera alleges is a falsified promissory note for $6.9 million.This note was allegedly used by José werfil Vega,purportedly associated with Mario del CampoS illicit organization,to initiate an executive claim against Herrera.Herrera claims that Judge Cano validated the promissory note leading to a default and the seizure of his truck, which served as his livelihood.
Who are the other key individuals involved in this case?
the key individuals, besides Judge Cano and Herrera, are:
- josé Werfil Vega: Accused of attempting to execute the fraudulent debt.
- Mario del Campo: Alleged leader of the illicit organization Vega is connected to.
- Rocío Grisel Gordillo: Attorney allegedly involved.
- Liliana Batallán Ocampo: Secretary No.1 of the Court.
What role did the promissory note play in the accusations?
The promissory note is central to the allegations. Herrera claims it was falsified, highlighting anomalies such as a date covered by a seal marked “original” and a forged signature. He contends that the note should not have been validated by Judge Cano, particularly as he alleges that the signature was forged. This is what initiated the legal troubles for Herrera.
What did the original complaint to the Attorney General’s Office include?
Herrera’s original complaint stated that he discovered an executive claim against him in the Cano Court for allegedly failing to pay a $6.9 million promissory note to Vega, whom he claimed not to know. He also alleged that the promissory note was falsified to execute against him and lead to a default and auction sentence
why is Herrera alleging collusion?
Herrera claims collusion between Vega and Del Campo, with the alleged consent of the Cano Court. He alleges that Del campo improperly removed documentation from the court, unauthorized.
What specific actions did Del Campo allegedly take, according to Herrera?
According to Herrera, on October 3, 2023, Del Campo allegedly removed a notification card addressed to Herrera and a trade addressed to the vehicle registry related to the seizure of Herrera’s truck. Herrera asserts that Del Campo was not authorized to perform these actions.
What does the Costilla’s accusation focus on?
significantly, Costilla’s accusation does *not* directly target Judge Cano or other commercial and execution judges. Rather, it focuses on lower-ranking employees within the Cano Court, including writers and officers.
What are the allegations against José Werfil Vega?
Vega is accused of attempting to execute the allegedly fraudulent debt using a falsified promissory note. Vega’s initiation of 46 commercial execution cases raised suspicion. His lawyer, suggested that lawyer Rocío Grisel Gordillo may have used his signature from a previous drug trafficking case
What has Judge Cano said in response to the accusations?
Throughout this entire period, no official statement from Judge Cano has been received. Repeated requests for interviews with Judge Cano and other commercial judges were made.
What is the background of Judge Cano?
judge María Virginia Cano’s appointment to the Court of First Instance in Commercial and Execution of second Nomination was approved by the Senate on October 3, 2019.
What are the potential legal implications for the individuals involved?
The implications are meaningful and include potential charges of “scam,” “falsification and use of a private document”, and “breach of the duties of a public official.” Depending on the outcome, further charges may include those related to procedural fraud and organized crime.
What are the next steps in this case?
Even though details of the next steps are not directly provided in the article, it can be inferred that the legal process involves further investigation by Instruction Prosecutor No. 5, Hugo Costilla.Depending on the findings, criminal charges will be filed, leading to a trial. There is also the potential for further interviews and legal filings.