# Fiscalía DI 273/2013 → DP 332/2014 — causal attribution and archive-recovery control

**Control date:** 26 August 2026
**Scope:** repository + website + supplied files + connected correspondence + recovered archive families
**Public thesis owner:** Gil Marer
**Status:** source-controlled public allegation; no finding of prosecutorial crime, capture or knowing falsity

## 1. Controlled conclusion

The located record supports examining whether the 2013 Fiscalía querella adopted an affirmative criminal frame materially supplied by the administrador concursal (AC) against the incoming Gil Marer / Patricia Domínguez perimeter. That frame used an economic, Community and receivable architecture formed partly during 2008–2011, before their assumption of control, while directing criminal suspicion toward the 6 February 2012 operating arrangement and alleged non-payment/non-collection through September 2013.

Gil alleges that this was an inversion of causation and a misuse of the criminal route. The documentary record makes that allegation serious and testable. It does not presently establish that the fiscal knowingly filed a false querella, acted under private capture or committed a criminal offence.

It would be inaccurate to state that every operative allegation concerned conduct before Gil and Patricia arrived. The source itself centres important branches on 2012–2013 conduct. The correct audit is therefore **actor-specific and temporal**, not a blanket pre-arrival defence.

## 2. Earliest verified institutional chain

| Date | Actor | Act/status | Evidential classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 Jun 2012 | Mercantile Court / AC | Voluntary insolvency declared; AC appointed | documented judicial/insolvency context; **not a Fiscalía act** |
| 17 Jul 2012 | AC → Gil | AC says it required an action to terminate the 6 Feb contract and claim sums | reproduced in the AC's 11 Feb 2019 calificación report; underlying annex not public here; **not a Fiscalía act** |
| 15 Jan 2013 | AC | Article 75 report records the receivable and operating-rent frame | recovered report/digest; filing-certified copy and full annex set remain controlled gaps |
| 6 Mar 2013 | Mercantile Court | AC says it obtained authority to bring criminal actions | reproduced in the AC's complaint and later report; primary order should be separately certified |
| 18 Sep 2013 | AC → Fiscalía Las Palmas, Economic Crime | AC complaint against Gil and Patricia | complaint reproduced at length in the AC's 11 Feb 2019 report; annexes and independently certified 2013 filing copy remain gaps |
| 27 Dec 2013 | Fiscalía Provincial de Las Palmas | Fiscal Tomás Fernández de Páiz signs DI 273/2013 querella | primary official scan recovered and publicly redacted |
| 2014 onward | Juzgado de Instrucción no. 3, Arrecife | querella continues as DP 332/2014 | proceeding documented; complete docket/final disposition not yet controlled |

**Correction:** the current corpus proves Fiscalía involvement in **2013 concerning 2012–2013 events**. It does not prove that Fiscalía itself was involved during 2012. The 2012 acts in this chain belong to the court, AC and project actors unless a Fiscalía intake or instruction from that year is later produced.

## 3. Transformation audit: source uncertainty → accusation

The AC's reproduced 18 September 2013 complaint used qualified propositions, including that payment was not known to him, that the UK/Spanish corporate relationship was presumed, that the receivable had not been verified and that prejudice would exist *if* the alleged circumstances were so. The 27 December querella converted that material into an official accusatory act and asked the court to investigate it.

That conversion is not unlawful merely because it occurred: a querella may present a hypothesis and request evidence. It does create finite verification questions:

1. Which AC propositions were independently checked during DI 273/2013?
2. Which annexes supported the corporate-control assertion and Patricia's precise capacity?
3. Was absence of knowledge of payment treated as evidence of non-payment?
4. Was the EUR 737,338.85 receivable reconciled with Community participation, source ledgers and later treatment?
5. What evidence existed before the low-rent suspicion was advanced, given that the querella itself requested a market-rent expert?
6. Which facts were attributed to Gil personally, Patricia personally, LPB, the UK company and the Spanish operator?

## 4. Actor/date/capacity matrix

| Proposition in the first frame | Time | Correct controlled reading |
|---|---|---|
| LPB formation, original ownership and prior administration | 2008 | pre-arrival background; not a personal act of Gil or Patricia |
| apartment sales and Community/exploitation conflict | 2009–2011 | mainly pre-arrival architecture; actor-by-actor proof required |
| acquisition of LPB by the UK Monterecco entity | 1 Dec 2011 | transition event; corporate records and exact capacity require reconciliation |
| Gil's administrator status | Jan 2012 | post-arrival legal capacity; querella says 1 Jan while other sources distinguish decision/deed/registry/publication dates |
| LPB–Spanish Monterecco operating agreement | 6 Feb 2012 | post-arrival act requiring its own contractual, commercial and knowledge analysis |
| voluntary insolvency | 6 Jun 2012 | post-arrival judicial event; does not itself prove offence |
| rent/Community sums allegedly unpaid and receivable allegedly uncollected | through Sep 2013 | prosecution/AC allegation; requires bank, ledger, invoice, set-off and capacity proof |
| rent allegedly below market | 2013 suspicion | not established at filing; the querella requested expert valuation |

The UK Monterecco/Aweswell vehicle and Spanish Monterecco/Pink operator must never be collapsed into one entity. The claim that the UK company owned the Spanish operator at the material date remains dependent on primary corporate evidence.

## 5. Material supporting Gil's inversion allegation

- The querella itself narrates substantial 2008–2011 ownership, debt, sales and Community/exploitation history before the incoming perimeter.
- A complaint copy dated 21 October 2013 sets out a contemporaneous contrary causal account focused on pre-arrival Community/minority governance. No filing receipt has yet been located, so it is controlled as a dated party document, not proof of institutional receipt.
- Gil and Patricia submitted two counter-complaints dated 24 March 2014. Fiscalía archived DI 39/2014 on 8 May 2014, describing the allegations as vague/generic and principally civil/horizontal-property matters while preserving the judicial route.
- A 2018 party filing in DP 332/2014 says the AC supplied Fiscalía's original material and that records back to 2008 were sought. It is probative of the asserted transmission pathway, but remains party advocacy.
- The Fiscalía-requested rent expert, report dated 5 April and filed 25 April 2019, placed the combined contractual consideration within reasonable market ranges. The work was modelled and did not reconstruct actual operator cash, payment or arrears.
- Sentencia 163/2023 rejected culpability merely from entering the contract, rejected Patricia's complicity and rejected the specific asset-concealment/connivance branches described in the controlled repository analysis.

## 6. Evidence preventing overclaim

- The central 6 February 2012 contract and alleged later non-payment/non-collection occurred after arrival.
- The 2023 judgment retained an adverse rent/non-collection/gross-fault branch against Gil/Pink; it is appealed and must not be erased from the public account.
- The 2014 counter-complaints are party pleadings. In a 10 September 2014 private correspondence, Gil acknowledged that they had been drafted by the parties and could contain legal errors while maintaining that the events were accurate. The private email is not published.
- A low-rent appraisal being requested shows a matter under investigation, not necessarily a knowingly false assertion.
- No located source proves a personal relationship, instruction, benefit or corrupt agreement linking the fiscal to the AC or another private perimeter.

## 7. DP 332/2014 outcome control

The final procedural result is not safely reconstructed. Contemporaneous March–April 2021 correspondence describes recent reactivation. A later secondary procedural report forwarded in November 2022 says only that the matter was archived in 2021; a 2023 party pleading supplies the exact 29 March date. Neither is the signed disposition. The full file shared in 2023 is presently inaccessible through the connected source.

Public status must therefore read:

> **Reported archived in 2021; exact date, primary final disposition, grounds, notification, appeal and finality not yet controlled. The contemporaneous reactivation reports require reconciliation.**

It must not be described as an acquittal or a merits exoneration without the signed primary disposition.

## 8. Recovered archive families

The previous `metadata_only_not_opened` status is superseded for two archive families:

| Alias | Archive | Bytes | SHA-256 | Recovery result |
|---|---|---:|---|---|
| `GMAIL-ZIP-002` | exact private archive filename withheld | 21,153,250 | `dc7fb8c5cf988fef46a6c0130a7c8d505b312a50f561b0f6f5d2e03664a46079` | recovered, safely extracted, recursive nested ZIP reviewed and filenames/hashes inventoried |
| `GMAIL-ZIP-005` | exact private archive filename withheld | 22,692,319 | `03aa4f5869f1aab416c53e08ac1bf32d46a2caddf12ae237efa608d48f358abb` | recovered, safely extracted and contents inventoried; substantive 2019 enlargement and annex family identified |

No raw archive, mailbox identifier, private email or unredacted annex is published in Git. Recovery does not mean every allegation inside the archives is verified.

Key private-source hashes:

- 2013 querella native: `6531e1cd3677ddcfa600345c38fe69e463b0418b1025f27f0ee231a0817e697e`
- AC calificación report dated 11 Feb 2019 (reproduces 2013 complaint): `e7922f4cc74fa64f991089a63021953199626d4c6fe7a5d1521e73a7b8e48353`
- 24 Mar 2014 economic-crime counter-complaint: `d90871143be51cf4865091380719dbdee679a7e14a3a743537c35f4140f5ea1c`
- 24 Mar 2014 nullity counter-complaint: `35724672f627947e257ea9f5e55e114e4afbac453ad0fb57523f3cdf2055833b`
- DI 39/2014 archive copy: `5f1c5ef061a84a86e1706a6760d7795da6323779d1c267ef81a65a8f2308865e`
- complaint copy dated 21 Oct 2013: `2db402a4f5c351e4df66f3dcf1b9c01db5c307bdd0be679acef3aab638862850`

## 9. Name-resolution control

No separate entity, case or actor named **Armata** or **Armada** was located in the scanned repository, recovered archive inventory or searched correspondence. **María Paz Armas González** appears in later DP 332/2014 material as Patricia's procuradora. Those names must not be conflated. Any intended “Armata” matter remains an open identity question until a primary reference is supplied.

## 10. Legal characterization control

- The 2013 querella is an official accusatory act, not a judgment and not proof of its factual hypotheses.
- Objective treatment can be audited under the Ministerio Fiscal's constitutional/statutory functions without asserting a crime by an individual fiscal.
- Criminal attribution to a fiscal requires actor-specific conduct, knowledge/intent, applicable offence elements and evidence. Institutional persistence or an evidential error does not automatically establish prevaricación, falsedad, coacción or corrupt capture.
- Article 36.2 of Law 2/2023 entered into force in 2023. It does not retroactively convert the 2013 querella into a prohibited reprisal. Any post-entry act must be assessed separately for protected-informant status, qualifying communication/public disclosure, disadvantage and causal connection.

## 11. Publication formula

> Gil Marer alleges that the 2013 querella was a causal inversion and misuse of the criminal route: an AC-supplied frame used inherited 2008–2011 architecture to direct official suspicion toward the incoming Gil/Patricia perimeter. The record supports an independent actor/date/capacity and verification audit. It does not yet prove knowing prosecutorial falsity, corrupt capture or individual criminal liability.

## 12. Finite production requests

1. Complete DI 273/2013, including intake, internal steps and every annex.
2. Certified AC complaint of 18 September 2013 and the 6 March 2013 authority order.
3. Corporate records proving each person's and entity's exact capacity at each material date.
4. Bank, ledger, invoice, payment, set-off and Community records for each alleged non-payment/non-collection proposition.
5. Complete DP 332/2014 docket, including the signed final disposition and notification/finality record.
6. A documented explanation of how the 2019 rent expert and later judicial findings affected the original theory.
7. A reasoned comparison between the 2013 accusation and the March 2014 counter-theory, without presuming that different complaints had to produce identical results.

## 13. Publication controls

- publish only the redacted querella derivative and structured digest;
- keep native sources, annexes and private correspondence outside Git;
- label every proposition as official act, AC assertion, prosecution hypothesis, party allegation, later expert evidence, appealed finding or unresolved gap;
- preserve a visible correction/right-of-reply route;
- never infer Patricia's adoption of Gil's current “misuse” characterization merely because both were accused or joined earlier pleadings.


## 16. Exact 2015 personación recovered; transfer refusal and representation lifecycle — 19 September 2026

**Controlling update:** the 24 February 2015 primary personación gap in §§14–15 is now closed by a located court-copy providencia. The April declaration minutes/actual attendees remain open. The July 2017 inhibition instrument and September refusal are now both recovered; a completed DP 3017 → DP 332 merger must not be inferred.

The recovered private archive contains **30 PDF objects / 42 pages**. Its exact binary SHA-256 is `3330e91ae2141bcb862ff9c5b02c71e38c98b603dd07f05c02b75527988e5dbd` (4,016,986 bytes). It was preserved with its originating communication and safely extracted. The [file-by-file inventory](../evidence/fiscalia/dp-332-2014/recovered-court-copy-inventory-20260919.json) records each original PDF's hash, page count, proceeding and review level. The archive is counsel's selected corpus, **not a certified complete docket**. Four image-dominant files have provisional OCR sidecars; visually verified source wording controls.

### 16.1 The 24 February 2015 event is now primary-record proved

The one-page providencia identifies JI nº 3 Arrecife, DP 0000332/2014, NIG 3500443220140001497, and **Rafael Lis Estévez** as the magistrate issuing this act. Its operative text admits:

| Side | Representative admitted | Represented parties expressly named |
|---|---|---|
| Acusación particular | **José Ramos Saavedra** | **Roque Prieto S.L., literal AMENEN S.L., Inversiones Salinetas S.L.** |
| Defence | **Manuela Cabrera** | **Gil Marer and Patricia Isabel Domínguez Montelongo** |

It orders the querellados to be summoned through their representation for **14 April 2015 at 10:30**, and an oficio for an **English interpreter**.

**PROVED:** all three private companies' admission through Ramos Saavedra on this date, alongside the defence appearance and declaration scheduling. This supersedes the earlier pronoun-only inference that foregrounded two companies: **Roque Prieto is expressly included by the primary operative text**.

The source describes Gil and Patricia with corporate-representative parentheticals. Preserve those literal court descriptions without treating them as independently verified corporate mandates, merging the UK/Spanish entities, or changing their personal accused status. The title's abbreviated notification reference is not a separately verified service receipt.

**Not proved:** which lawyer or procurador physically attended, whether the English interpreter attended, whether the listed magistrate took the statements, or the absence of the AC/Fiscalía. A party's admission does not prove hearing attendance.

Source: inventory item 25, SHA-256 `c916d1768dfcd60670010ad7d98ed62741c14d9e99351bb120057854eac4e743`.

### 16.2 A same-day 14 April order is recovered; the declarations are not

The one-page providencia dated **14 April 2015**, naming Rafael Lis Estévez, orders the proceedings sent to **Ministerio Fiscal for the appropriate report**. The visible copy bears a notification marking **17 April 2015** and reception marking **20 April**. Keep act, notification annotation and receipt annotation separate.

This official routing act supports that aspect of the 29 April counsel account. It contains **no attendance list, declaration transcript, judicial criticism, or finding of non-attendance**. The name of defence counsel on a transmitted copy is not an attendance record.

Source: item 30, SHA-256 `118588aa6cb46c193a1acc190425cb87022c7eceeea8006df1c22374a3458160`.

### 16.3 The professional substitution is documented, not merely inferred

| Date/source | Act recorded | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| 9 January 2017 professional-college certificate | Certifies José Ramos Saavedra's retirement effective **31 December 2016**. | Date/capacity evidence; private identifiers and signature remain unpublished. |
| 16 August 2017 DP 332 providencia | Requires the companies formerly represented by Ramos to appoint a new procurador within ten days, with warning of exclusion as private accusation. | Does not itself appoint the successor. |
| Pleading dated **11 September 2017**, traslado marking **13 September** | Soledad Tello Checa seeks substitution for Ramos on retirement for Roque Prieto, Inversiones Salinetas and literal AMENEN. It bears a Juan Carlos Prieto Puente signature appearance dated 11 September. | Party representation request; cryptographic signature validation not performed. |
| **25 September 2017** diligencia, Antonio Vázquez Soto | Records completed apud-acta appearance in favour of Soledad Tello and refers the matter to the judge. | The underlying full power/apud-acta instrument is still required for its entire scope. |

The September pleading moves the **Prieto Puente / Tello professional pairing in DP 332 back to September 2017**, rather than beginning with the January 2018 pleading. It still does not identify the April 2015 lawyer.

The June 2017 DP 168 header names Ramos despite the certificate's December 2016 retirement date. Preserve these as differently scoped sources: a dated header entry is not proof that he continued practising after retirement. Do not infer improper practice or silently overwrite either source.

### 16.4 DP 3017 → DP 332: ordered inhibition followed by express refusal

**2 July 2017**, JI nº 4 Arrecife, **Auto 001925/2017**, magistrate Ricardo Fiestras Gil: the DP 3017/2014 order directs inhibition in favour of JI nº 3 for accumulation into DP 332/2014, with remittal once final, on its stated same-facts rationale. The copy bears a **6 July** notification annotation.

**25 September 2017**, JI nº 3, magistrate Rafael Lis Estévez: the court **expressly refuses the inhibition**, stating that Fiscalía reports that the facts differ, and treats the resolution as the first communication for a possible competence dispute. The copy bears a **3 October** notification annotation. The underlying Fiscalía report and any subsequent competence-resolution/finality record are not recovered here.

**PROVED:** the outgoing inhibition decision and receiving-court refusal. **DISPROVED as an account of these two acts:** that the July order alone establishes an accepted/completed merger into DP 332. Later disposition of the competence dispute remains **BOUNDED-NOT-LOCATED**.

Reuse **LZ-JUD-047 ↔ LZ-JUD-002** with dated, typed edges: `inhibition_ordered` and `inhibition_refused`. Do not convert them into `accumulation_completed`. The separate **DP 168 / LZ-REF-038** June consultation remains the event controlled in §15.4. Repeated or combined names in administrative headers do not override the operative refusal.

Source hashes: item 01 `bd12a276a3765182527bc78ce7c5eeefec6c28d7d53589073272d8c5a816f74c`; item 02 `d094a7e7ca8f2bef284c938484b485021d9eb725fac9cd3bdd386df2423e04fe`.

### 16.5 New primary Fiscalía acts and the unresolved complexity history

- **25 May 2016:** located Fiscalía request names **Jorge Pobre Menguy**, Economic Crime section, requesting declaration of complexity. The one-page request does not itself state an eighteen-month number; the 31 May court order recites that period. Its result remains the exceptional twelve-month extension, not a complexity declaration.
- **29 October 2018:** a located Fiscalía report bears the signature block of **Jorge Pobre Menguy**, dated that day. It requests compliance with point QUINTO nº 2ª of the querella, refers to an earlier **8 May 2015 report**, and seeks eighteen further months using wording that assumes complexity had been declared. The 8 May 2015 report is a new precise production target.
- The 2018 wording conflicts with treating the located May 2016 order as a complexity declaration. An intervening order may explain the later wording; no such order is established by this archive. Do not infer knowing falsity or an unlawful extension without the complete procedural sequence.
- **21 January 2019:** Rafael Lis Estévez's providencia gives the other parties five days to respond to Fiscalía's request; **4 February 2019:** Antonio Vázquez Soto's diligencia passes the matter to the judge. Neither is the eventual extension decision.

Keep the 2018 report's **act/signature date** distinct from its attachment to a January 2019 notification. Reuse the existing Fiscalía/proceeding objects and reconcile the fiscal's identity before allocating a new canonical person record. These acts do not establish that this fiscal attended or failed to attend in April 2015.

### 16.6 January date correction and July 2018 use of the declarations

The actual **15 January 2018 providencia**, Rafael Lis Estévez, requires the AC to comply with the 4 July 2017 production requirement under warning of possible disobedience. The copy bears notification **19 January 2018**. The later private pleading's literal **15.01.2017** must be preserved with the source-fidelity rule, but the court-act chronology can now use **15 January 2018**, supported by the recovered order. This is a resolved cross-source date discrepancy, not permission to alter the original pleading.

A **12 July 2018** pleading by Tello for the same three source-form companies, also bearing Prieto Puente's signature appearance, seeks procedural progress and AC testimony. It refers to an AC enlargement pending admission and reproduces extracts attributed to Gil and Patricia's declarations about the AC's knowledge of the financial arrangements.

**PROVED:** the private accusation relied on those attributed statements and asked to confront them with the AC's account. **Not proved by this pleading:** a complete or accurate transcript, the date/attendees of the quoted declarations, truth of either account, admission of the AC enlargement, or the AC's actual knowledge. The primary declaration records remain essential.

### 16.7 October 2020: witness summons, private withdrawal and Fiscalía referral

- **7 October 2020 providencia**, José Luis Ruiz Martínez: summons the AC **as witness for 28 October at 12:15**. It proves scheduling, not completed testimony.
- **15 October 2020 providencia**, same magistrate: records the AC's written request and directs arrangements for the ordered diligence via Cisco Webex. The underlying request and hearing record remain needed.
- **14 October 2020 withdrawal pleading**, Tello for Roque Prieto / Salinetas / literal AMENEN, with Prieto Puente signature appearance: requests their withdrawal from the private accusation, stating that they sold their properties and consequently lack a continuing direct/legitimate interest. This rationale is **party assertion**, not independent proof of each sale or legal standing. The bundled LexNET record supports filing on 14 October; court acceptance is a separate act.
- **28 October 2020 providencia**, José Luis Ruiz Martínez, with LAJ María Belén Bouzas Santas signature block dated 29 October: treats Tello as withdrawn on behalf of the private accusation and sends the proceedings to the Economic Crime fiscal for the stated Article 779 purpose. Bundled LexNET transmission/collection and notification annotations concern 29–30 October.

**This is not an archive order, acquittal or merits exoneration.** The apparent continuation to Fiscalía and the later reported 2021 archive must remain separate. The final disposition, service, appeals and finality gap in §7 remains open.

### 16.8 Publication and remaining gap control

Create a distinct **BLUE / PURPLE primary personación panel** for 24 February 2015 naming the three companies, Ramos, defence representation, court/date/source hash and limited effect. It can now state that private accusation joined the AC-originating criminal proceeding on that date. It must not infer a common plan, improper coordination, AC disloyalty, or hearing attendance.

Retain a **separate** April-attendance panel:

**HIGH-PRIORITY LINKAGE EVENT — PARTY RECOLLECTION + COUNSEL CORROBORATION; PRIMARY DECLARATION MINUTES STILL REQUIRED.**

The finite next retrieval queue is now:

1. Both **14 April 2015 declarations**, signatures/attendance/interpreter record and audiovisual material.
2. The **15 April 2015 AC-testimony request** and **8 May 2015 Fiscalía report**, now identified by later source references.
3. Complete admitted personación applications and powers; underlying September 2017 apud-acta; exact lawyer appointments at each date.
4. Underlying Fiscalía competence report, any competence-dispute resolution and final accumulation disposition.
5. Any intervening complexity/extension orders; actual October 2020 AC testimony and its recording.
6. Signed final DP 332 disposition, notice, appeal and finality.

The 30-object recovery closes specific earlier gaps; it does not certify an exhaustive court file. Four image-only or image-dominant items were OCR-assisted using the available English model; Spanish wording was checked visually where relied on here. Public PDF derivatives, bilingual viewers/cards, search/register changes and reciprocal live links remain an atomic task through issue #1621. No raw source publication, CI acceptance, merge or deployment is claimed.