# FIVE PRIVATE ACTORS / SHADOW ADMINISTRATION / AC AFFIRMATIVE ENABLEMENT / JUDGE CULPABILITY CONTROL

**Control date:** 24 August 2026
**Proceeding:** Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. — Concurso Ordinario 36/2012
**Status:** `CANONICAL ALLEGATION-STRENGTH / EVIDENCE-STATUS / PUBLIC-SOURCE IDENTITY / PUBLICATION CONTROL`
**Applies to:** repository analysis, prompts, actor registers, homepage copy, public pages, institutional gateways, source maps and future unitary reader simulations.

## 1. Purpose and priority

This control adopts Gil Marer's 24 August clarification without weakening it:

1. the alleged private-actor mechanism is criminal, not merely civil or mercantile;
2. the Administrador Concursal allegation is not limited to approval, ratification or omission: Gil alleges affirmative commissions, communications, meetings, authorisations, implementation and full enablement;
3. the allegation against Judge Alberto López Villarrubia is not omission-only: Gil alleges affirmative judicial acts and direct enablement, together with the strongest omission-based prevaricación theory;
4. Gil directly characterises the combined conduct as sabotage of a funded, viable and successful exit from the concurso; and
5. Gil says Aweswell performed or could perform all sponsor-controlled finance conditions and alleges that operative blockers lay in collateral/security preservation and delivery and in court/AC/adverse-perimeter control; third-party lender/credit/management conditions remain separately tested; and
6. direct attribution and evidential/adjudicative status remain different fields.

Read this control with:

- `EXPRESS_CRIMINAL_ATTRIBUTION_NON_DILUTION_SOURCE_FIDELITY_RULE_23AUG2026.md`;
- `CAM_2017_2018_DIRECT_INSTRUCTION_LENDER_POSSESSION_SHADOW_ADMINISTRATION_JUDICIAL_OMISSION_LEAD_23AUG2026.md`;
- `AC_PRIVATE_ACTOR_DE_FACTO_ADMINISTRATION_COMMUNITY_DEBT_TEXTOS_FORENSIC_CONTROL_20AUG2026.md`;
- `JUDGE_ALBERTO_LOPEZ_VILLARRUBIA_UNITARY_ALLEGATION_LEDGER_16AUG2026.md`;
- `JUDICIAL_KNOWLEDGE_RESCUE_EXIT_JUNE2018_SOURCE_REFRESH_16AUG2026.md`;
- `CALIFICACION_A03_COMMERCIAL_NORMALISATION_EXIT_SOURCE_COMPLETION_16AUG2026.md`;
- `ONA_FINANCE_CONDITIONS_STAGED_SECURITY_POSITION_16AUG2026.md`;
- `RECENT_EMAIL_PRIMARY_SOURCE_INGEST_QUEUE_20AUG2026.md`;
- `knowledge-project/SUN_PARK_CANONICAL_ACTOR_REGISTER.md`;
- `knowledge-project/HOMEPAGE_ACTOR_IDENTITY_RELATIONSHIPS_CONTROL_19AUG2026.md`;
- current correction and missing-evidence registers; and
- the source-specific adverse decisions and procedural-status controls.

Where an earlier summary describes the AC allegation as principally passive or the Judge allegation as principally omission-based, this record supplies the controlling allegation-strength correction. It does not supersede primary evidence, applicable law, a later competent finding, or any evidence-status/contrary-record correction.

## 2. Architecture — `five private actors + AC + Judge`

### Five private actors

1. **Francisco Mario Matos Matas (`FMMM`)**;
2. **Antonio Cogolludo Rojas**;
3. **Shaila María Cogolludo Ramos**;
4. **José Daniel Acosta Matos (`JDAM`)**; and
5. **Laura Patricia Acosta Matos (`LPAM`)**.

The five-person frame is a reader and investigation architecture. It is not proof that all five performed every act, had the same knowledge, held the same legal capacity, shared one intention or received the same benefit.

### Separate Insolvency Administrator point

**Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte** is analysed in his statutory/professional capacity as Administrador Concursal. He is not automatically a member of the private group.

### Separate judicial layer

**Alberto López Villarrubia** is analysed by exact judicial act, resolution, refusal, delay, omission, knowledge and legal competence. He is not a private actor and is not attributed the private actors' conduct merely because a judicial outcome benefited them.

## 3. Controlling direct criminal allegation

### 3.1 Five private actors

> **Gil Marer directly alleges that the five identified private actors formed or used a coordinated instruction, authority and implementation chain that converted disputed Community governance, creditor status and isolated-unit title into material control and shadow or de facto management of the Sun Park hotel platform. He alleges affirmative criminal conduct through Community records, debt and voting machinery, access and security, representations of ownership/control, entry and locks, maintenance/works, project implementation, later adoption and benefit. This is not alleged as mere family, corporate or professional association. Each person's instruction, knowledge, act, contribution, purpose and benefit must be proved separately.**

### 3.2 Administrador Concursal — affirmative commission plus omission

> **Gil Marer directly alleges that the Administrador Concursal did not merely approve, ratify or passively maintain the alleged conversion of creditor/Community authority into material hotel control. He alleges affirmative commissions and complete enablement: communications, meetings, the 18 May security/authority route, selection or use of security arrangements, access and maintenance authorisations, decisions and procedural positions, reliance on the private/Community implementation structure, and continued adoption or retention of its effects. He additionally alleges legally operative omissions after notice: failure to delimit, supervise, protect, recover, reverse, account, report and preserve a genuine exit route. Gil characterises the combined affirmative conduct and omissions as criminal participation, enablement and ratification.**

### 3.3 Judge — affirmative role plus omission-based prevaricación

> **Gil Marer directly alleges that Judge Alberto López Villarrubia played an affirmative, direct enabling role in the alleged private-control mechanism and its economic consequences. Gil attributes to him identifiable decisions, refusals, deferrals, evidential and protective treatment, continuation of the liquidation/control result and later affirmative judicial adoption of selected AC/Fiscal propositions, combined with failures to protect the hotel and estate and to give effective treatment to the financeable exit architecture. Gil alleges that this combined course knowingly obstructed and sabotaged a funded, viable and successful exit from Concurso 36/2012 and constituted judicial prevaricación, refusal or malicious delay.**

These three statements are **Gil Marer's direct criminal attributions**. They are not merely questions or investigative leads. They are also **not adjudicated findings of guilt**. The sources, contrary record, missing proof, legal elements and procedural outcomes remain adjacent and independently classified.

### 3.4 Institutional/economic characterisation

> **Gil characterises the alleged private, AC and judicial mechanism as a coercive parallel-control and capture-like enforcement/asset-control apparatus that operated in functional lender-in-possession terms and obstructed redemption, refinancing and restoration of ordinary control.**

This is a **Gil Marer direct criminal/economic characterisation**, not an adjudicated institutional classification. `Lender in possession` is a functional comparative description, not a standalone Spanish statutory status. `Capture-like` requires proof of the actual control channel and does not establish that a court, office or profession was captured. No person or entity may be called a `mafia` or `organised crime` as an established fact on this record.

## 4. Administrador Concursal correction — the allegation is not silence-only

### 4.1 Affirmative authority and implementation nodes presently controlled

The present corpus contains affirmative nodes that prevent an omission-only description:

- the AC is linked to the request that the 18 May 2018 security resolution be convened on LPB's behalf;
- the controlled account of his 31 July 2018 declaration records selection of a security provider, pursuit of Community ratification and authority for limited entry by Laura Acosta into identified LPB premises for maintenance/supervision;
- his own later position refers to a narrower access/maintenance authority while denying the principal lock-takeover instruction;
- the Community was used as a practical access, maintenance, security, representation and later debt-information channel in the insolvency sequence;
- later AC filings and positions relied upon Community-produced certifications, spreadsheets or structures in liquidation/better-bid and related contexts; and
- the AC's post-event treatment is part of the alleged continuation, non-reversal, accounting and causal chain.

Each node has its own scope. A request for security, a narrow maintenance authorisation or reliance on creditor material is not by itself proof of authority for a whole-hotel takeover or criminal intent.

### 4.2 Four distinct possible classifications

| Classification | Required reading |
|---|---|
| Lawful narrow mandate exceeded by others | Potentially exculpatory; no knowledge or criminal approval follows without a bridge. |
| Negligent design, delegation or supervision | Possible civil/professional/concursal responsibility; not automatically an intentional offence. |
| Knowing tolerance, adoption or ratification after notice | Requires duty, actual knowledge, capacity, conscious retention and offence-specific intent. |
| Affirmative instruction, enablement or common purpose | Gil's strongest allegation; requires direct evidence or a compelling actor-specific circumstantial chain. |

The publication may and must state Gil's strongest allegation first. It must then show which evidential level each act currently reaches.

### 4.3 AC commission/omission proof table

For every alleged AC episode record:

| Field | Required entry |
|---|---|
| Affirmative act | Exact email, meeting, request, provider choice, authorisation, instruction, filing, reliance, procedural position or adoption. |
| Capacity/power | The precise statutory, judicial, contractual or practical authority invoked. |
| Knowledge | What was actually received, seen, said or reported, and on what date. |
| Scope | Exact finca, common element, LPB asset, CEXP right, Matkator/third-party asset or hotel function. |
| Alleged excess | How the act allegedly moved beyond a lawful security/maintenance/creditor perimeter. |
| Later omission | Exact duty to delimit, supervise, protect, restore, report, account, preserve or seek judicial action. |
| Causal equivalence | Why non-action allegedly enabled or retained the same prohibited result. |
| Mental element | Evidence of knowledge, purpose, reckless/intentional adoption or other offence-specific state of mind. |
| Contrary case | Lawful mandate, lack of knowledge, provider excess, limited capacity, prompt corrective act or reasonable legal interpretation. |
| Status | Source and procedural/adjudicative status, including DP 1956 provisional dismissal control where applicable. |

## 5. Judge correction — direct alleged commissions, not only omissions

### 5.1 Affirmative judicial nodes

The judge track must include affirmative judicial acts, not merely a list of remedies not granted. Current controlled categories include:

- the reported substantive response at the 13 June 2018 meeting concerning exploration of a conclusion/payment route, an updated AC debt figure and possible deposit/guarantee;
- the 26 June 2018 protective suspension, which is material favourable counterevidence;
- signed liquidation, credit/interest, protection/inspection, competition, adjudication and implementation decisions in the source-controlled chronology;
- the 24 October 2019 non-convalidation result and any incomplete implementation alleged to follow it;
- the 24 February 2021 treatment of inspection/pericial/protection requests;
- later supervision/removal rulings concerning the AC; and
- **Sentencia 163/2023**, in which selected AC/Fiscal propositions were affirmatively adopted as judicial findings while other propositions were rejected or narrowed.

The direct allegation is not that every listed act was adverse or criminal. Gil alleges that the full sequence of affirmative decisions and omissions, assessed together but proved proposition by proposition, enabled the private-control/liquidation result and later converted selected adverse propositions into a punitive judicial instrument.

### 5.2 Exact criminal-law boundary

No safe shortcut exists from an adverse or wrong decision to criminal prevaricación. The source-specific analysis must distinguish:

- a knowingly unjust judicial resolution;
- a manifestly unjust resolution caused by gross negligence or inexcusable ignorance where the statute applies;
- refusal to judge without legal cause;
- malicious delay intended to obtain an illegitimate purpose;
- a legally relevant omission under an offence-specific duty and equivalence test; and
- appellate error, incomplete reasoning, evidential disagreement, delay or disciplinary deficiency that does not satisfy a criminal threshold.

The phrase **`omission-based prevaricación`** may identify Gil's allegation. The legal analysis must map each episode to the exact judicial offence, resolution/refusal/delay provision and contemporaneous subjective element; it must not assume that administrative-prevarication omission doctrine automatically governs a judge.

### 5.3 Judge-by-act matrix

For each alleged commission or omission identify:

| Element | Required proof |
|---|---|
| Judge / date / capacity | Exact judicial actor, court, procedural section and date. |
| Matter before the court | Filed pleading, evidence, hearing, report or other proved receipt; informal notice remains separately labelled. |
| Competence and duty | The power and legal duty actually held at that moment. |
| Affirmative act | Exact resolution, ruling, evidential treatment, refusal, deferral, authorisation or adoption. |
| Omission/delay | Exact unperformed act, deadline or refusal and why it was legally required. |
| Objective injustice | Contemporaneous law/evidence showing more than a debatable or erroneous result. |
| Knowledge/purpose | Evidence the Judge knew the result was unjust or delayed/refused for an illegitimate purpose. |
| Causation | Effect on access/control, preservation, operation, finance, competition, adjudication, calificación or recovery. |
| Alleged private effect | The benefit or protection Gil attributes to a named private actor; benefit alone does not prove procurement or agreement. |
| Contrary explanation | Jurisdiction, procedural posture, insufficient proof, legal interpretation, appeal route, later correction or protective act. |
| Proper forum | Appeal, CGPJ, criminal Fiscalía/TSJ, LAJ/office, civil/concursal recovery or another competent route. |

## 6. Funded/viable exit — attribution and proof must remain separate

### 6.1 Gil's controlling causal attribution

Gil alleges that Daniel Irigoyen went to the court repeatedly, explained and advanced a financed, operationally successful route out of the concurso, and that the AC and Judge affirmatively enabled its sabotage or deliberately failed to implement/protect it.

That attribution may be stated directly. It may not silently become a documentary finding of repeated visits, unconditional funding, assured success or sabotage intent.

### 6.2 What the current controlled record independently supports

| Proposition | Current status |
|---|---|
| Signed 6 June 2018 hotel-operation instrument and suspensive addendum | `VERIFIED PRIMARY DOCUMENT`; effectiveness depended on sufficient court-account funds and Community approval. |
| Operating plan, due diligence, valuation, bridge-finance work and alternative sale route | `VERIFIED CONTEMPORANEOUS COMMERCIAL PACKAGE`; developed process, not closing proof. |
| VSO facility up to €15.5m | `VERIFIED CONDITIONAL OFFER`; required judicial mortgage authority, AC debt certification, valuation/DD and credit/management approval. |
| 13 June Daniel Irigoyen meeting account | `DIRECT CONTEMPORANEOUS PROFESSIONAL SOURCE`; reported personal judicial notice and substantive response, not a judicial minute. |
| Separate Carlos Sanz account | `CONTEMPORANEOUS CORROBORATION` of occurrence/core strategy; not a second eyewitness transcript. |
| Formal June conclusion application | `NOT LOCATED`; informal transmission is reported, but filing/receipt/proveído remains open. |
| Updated AC debt certificate, deposit/guarantee and closing/drawdown | `NOT PROVED`. |
| Repeated Irigoyen visits | `GIL DIRECT ATTRIBUTION / VISIT-BY-VISIT PROOF REQUIRED`; the currently controlled record proves no generic count. |
| 26 June protective suspension | `VERIFIED JUDICIAL COUNTEREVIDENCE`; contradicts a claim that every judicial act uniformly obstructed the route. |
| Guaranteed successful exit absent the alleged conduct | `COUNTERFACTUAL / CAUSATION PROOF REQUIRED`; conditionality, authority, timing and third-party decisions remain material. |

### 6.3 Finance-condition burden matrix

| Condition lane | What Gil says | What the controlled corpus presently establishes | Boundary / proof burden |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Aweswell / sponsor side** | Aweswell performed, or stood ready and able to perform, every condition within its control. | Signed/produced sponsor-side and transaction materials support a developed process and staged-security undertaking. | `GIL MARER PARTY POSITION` as to complete sponsor performance/capability. Build a route-specific ledger; do not convert it into independent proof that every condition was satisfied. |
| **Operator / business package** | The operator, plan, DD and valuation work were available to support closing. | Signed operator instrument/addendum, contemporaneous package, DD and valuation references are controlled at different source levels. | Exact legal party, authority, current/acceptable form, updates and delivery to each lender/court remain condition-specific. |
| **Collateral/security preservation and delivery** | Operative blockers lay in loss/non-preservation of control and collateral value, restricted access/diligence, and prevention of interim and post-exit security delivery. | Contemporary correspondence and term-sheet structures independently verify staged security as part of the contemplated architecture. | Actual execution, perfection, registration, asset condition and causal prevention remain open route by route. The sabotage proposition is Gil's allegation. |
| **Court / AC outputs** | The Judge, AC and alleged adverse-control perimeter withheld, obstructed or failed effectively to deliver the outputs needed to close. | Documentary conditions included judicial mortgage authority, an AC debt/payoff certificate and conclusion/deposit/guarantee treatment. | Identify exact request, filing, receipt, competence, response and date. Sponsor readiness cannot satisfy an institutional output; informal notice is not filing. |
| **Community / other asset-side authority** | The alleged control apparatus prevented normal authority, possession and delivery needed for operator and finance performance. | The signed addendum required a favourable owners' resolution; Community authority and mixed ownership were disputed. | Do not attribute every Community or third-party condition to Aweswell or assume the relevant authority existed. |
| **Lender / credit / management / other counterparty** | Gil's causal position is that these were not the operative reason the route failed. | Credit/management approval, acceptable DD/valuation, lender acceptance, definitive documents, waivers, proof of funds, closing and drawdown remain separate conditions. | Do not say `nothing else remained` or that third-party approvals were complete without route-specific sources. Test the counterfactual: would each have been satisfied absent the alleged obstruction? |

### 6.4 Named transaction/source-status lock

| Name / route | Exact current source status | Prohibited upgrade |
|---|---|---|
| **ONA / Clubotel La Dorada** | `VERIFIED PRIMARY DOCUMENTS`: signed 6 June 2018 industry-lease instrument and signed suspensive addendum. The facial operator-side legal party is **Clubotel La Dorada, S.L.**; contemporaneous correspondence describes ONA as intended operator context and the contract refers to `OnaSystem`. | Do not collapse ONA and Clubotel without a separate bridge; signature does not prove Community authority or satisfaction of the suspensive conditions. |
| **Ben Oldman** | The currently inspected confidential 11-page `BINDING TERM SHEET`, dated 1 August 2018, identifies the Ben Oldman lender perimeter and contains borrower-side signatures for Aweswell and `Markator, S.L.` as written. The supplied copy's Ben Oldman signature line appears blank. | Do not call the supplied copy a fully executed lender-borrower agreement, approved facility, committed drawdown or inevitable closing without separate lender execution/acceptance evidence. |
| **Lagune / Elaia** | Lagune Hospitalidad / Groupe Batipart signed an expressly indicative, non-binding approximately **€26m** own-funds proposal; Aweswell separately signed a conditional preferred-right letter addressed to **Elaia Investment Spain SOCIMI, S.A.** Seller acceptance on the Lagune LOI and Elaia acceptance on the separate letter are blank in the controlled copies. Contemporaneous package correspondence also attributed the alternative route to SOCIMI Elaia. | Do not infer Lagune was Elaia's subsidiary or upgrade the record into Elaia authority, approval, accepted take-out, proof of funds or closing. |

### 6.5 Mandatory public wording

> **Gil Marer directly alleges deliberate sabotage of a funded, viable and successful exit from the concurso. The independently controlled record establishes a developed and financeable but conditional commercial-normalisation, operation, refinancing and exit architecture and a contemporaneously reported substantive meeting with the Judge and later discussion with the AC. It does not yet establish unconditional funding, formal filing, satisfaction of the finance conditions, drawdown or inevitable closing. Those gaps qualify proof and causation; they do not dilute Gil's attribution.**

The adjacent finance-condition sentence must be:

> **Gil says Aweswell performed or could perform every sponsor-controlled condition and alleges that the operative blockers were preservation and delivery of collateral/security and court/AC/adverse-perimeter controls. The present record separately leaves lender, credit/management, acceptable DD/valuation, definitive-document, waiver, closing and drawdown conditions to route-specific proof.**

## 7. Five-actor specificity matrix

| Actor | Direct allegation to preserve | Presently controlled anchor | Boundary / principal proof gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Francisco Mario Matos Matas** | Gil alleges coordination and implementation through Community administration, records, debt/voting, security and later continuity/benefit. | Community secretary-administrator/record roles are controlled; later Orion/AGM nexus is officially documented. | Native operative instructions, exact physical role, provider orders, knowledge/purpose and benefit; later corporate association does not prove the earlier agreement. |
| **Antonio Cogolludo Rojas** | Gil alleges Community-officeholder authority relay and direct participation in the 7 June operation. | Community presidency/authority role and filed direct-day allegation are controlled; official later corporate roles are separately documented. | Exact communications, mandate limits, instruction to providers, presence/conduct, knowledge and intent. |
| **Shaila María Cogolludo Ramos** | Gil alleges administrative/service-company continuity and actor-specific enablement where the source supports it. | Pamanil/Community communications role is controlled; later Noalpa/Pamalexsha roles are in BORME. | No automatic transfer of Antonio/FMMM acts; exact 2018 instruction, presence, authority, knowledge and benefit require proof. |
| **José Daniel Acosta Matos** | Gil alleges planning, instruction and coordination of the creditor/private-control route. | Prior approach/control allegations, later Community/project role and official Orion/AGM nexus are controlled to different source levels. | Bridge from alleged planning to the operative 7 June order; native communications and mandate; physical presence on 7 June is not presently established. |
| **Laura Patricia Acosta Matos** | Gil alleges direct CAM-side participation and instruction responsibility on 7 June. | Same-day source literal `Laura Matos`, filed pleading and later controlled corporate/project roles support the identified lead. | Mandate, presence, exact instruction, knowledge and purpose; canonical identity must not rewrite the source literal. |

No row establishes criminal responsibility. No missing element permits the allegation to be rewritten as if Gil had not made it.

## 8. Official public-source identity and two-cluster boundary

### 8.1 Exact names

Use:

- **Francisco Mario Matos Matas** — not the shorter **Francisco Matos Matas** without an identity bridge;
- **Antonio Cogolludo Rojas** — not `Antonio Cogoyudo`;
- **Shaila María Cogolludo Ramos** — not `Shayla`, `Shayla Cogoyudo` or another variant;
- **ORION RENTAL SOCIMI, S.A.** — not `Orion Sosimi Rental`, `Sosimi Rental` or `Orion Socimi Rental`;
- **AGM CANARY ASSET MANAGEMENT, S.L.**;
- **PAMALEXSHA SERVICIOS INTEGRALES, S.L.**;
- **EXPLOTACIONES NOALPA, S.L.**; and
- **SANTA LUCIA REAL ESTATE, S.L.** as the BORME legal-name form.

`SOCIMI` is the legal acronym; `Sosimi` is not the company name. `orionsocimi.com` is a corporate domain/first-party shorthand, not authority to reorder the legal name.

### 8.2 Cluster A — FMMM / Orion / AGM / JDAM

| Official source | What it verifies | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| [BORME-A-2024-69-35](https://www.boe.es/diario_borme/txt.php?id=BORME-A-2024-69-35) | ORION RENTAL SOCIMI, S.A.; Francisco Mario Matos Matas and José Daniel Acosta Matos appointed as directors on the recorded date. | Board connection does not prove Sun Park coordination or criminal knowledge. |
| [BORME-A-2024-98-35](https://www.boe.es/diario_borme/txt.php?id=BORME-A-2024-98-35) | EL BARCO DE LA GARITA renamed AGM CANARY ASSET MANAGEMENT, S.L.; FMMM and JDAM named among joint/several power-holders. | Power-holder status does not establish every management act or historic purpose. |
| [CNMV ISIN ES0105829008](https://www.cnmv.es/portal/ancv/isin?isin=ES0105829008&lang=es) | Exact legal name ORION RENTAL SOCIMI, S.A. and ISIN. | Identification, not merits verification of issuer statements. |

### 8.3 Cluster B — Antonio / Shaila / Pamalexsha / Noalpa / Santa Lucia

| Official source | What it verifies | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| [BORME-A-2013-196-35](https://www.boe.es/diario_borme/txt.php?id=BORME-A-2013-196-35) | Antonio Cogolludo Rojas recorded as sole administrator at formation of Pamalexsha Servicios Integrales. | Does not by itself prove every later shareholder, agent or transaction. |
| [BORME-A-2018-3-35](https://www.boe.es/diario_borme/txt.php?id=BORME-A-2018-3-35) | Antonio recorded as sole administrator at formation of Explotaciones Noalpa. | Office is not proof of a Sun Park act. |
| [BORME-A-2022-3-35](https://www.boe.es/diario_borme/txt.php?id=BORME-A-2022-3-35) | Shaila María Cogolludo Ramos recorded as Noalpa apoderada. | Does not establish kinship or criminal coordination. |
| [BORME-A-2026-140-35](https://www.boe.es/diario_borme/txt.php?id=BORME-A-2026-140-35) | Shaila recorded as Pamalexsha apoderada. | A 2026 office does not prove a 2011–2018 act or state of mind. |
| [BORME-A-2021-97-35](https://www.boe.es/diario_borme/txt.php?id=BORME-A-2021-97-35) | Antonio recorded as sole administrator of Santa Lucia Real Estate. | Does not establish Shaila's share ownership. |
| [Canary Government release](https://www3.gobiernodecanarias.org/noticias/el-gobierno-materializa-la-colaboracion-publico-privada-con-la-calificacion-de-132-inmuebles-protegidos/) | The Government describes Shaila Cogolludo as owner of the promoting company in the Santa Lucía housing/grant context. | Attribute the description to the Government; it is not BORME share-register proof. |

### 8.4 No proved official-public co-company bridge

The bounded official-source screen described above proves two corporate clusters:

`FMMM — ORION / AGM — JDAM`

and

`ANTONIO / SHAILA — PAMALEXSHA / NOALPA / SANTA LUCIA`.

It does **not** prove a common company containing FMMM and Antonio/Shaila. No public network visual may draw that co-company edge as verified without an additional primary corporate source. `Not located` is not `nonexistent`.

This boundary does not delete source-specific Sun Park working relationships, Community minutes, emails, pleadings, issuer self-disclosures or Gil's allegations. It requires them to retain their own source class. A corporate issuer document, company website, government press description, social profile, third-party aggregator and BORME act are not interchangeable.

### 8.5 Identity-collision and kinship controls

- BORME material concerning **Francisco Matos Matas** and Hermanos Matos Inversiones is not automatically a record concerning **Francisco Mario Matos Matas**. Require DNI, Registry continuity or another independent identity bridge.
- A shared surname does not prove parentage, marriage or any other family relationship. Existing project relationship assertions must retain their underlying source class; the bounded official corporate screen did not independently prove kinship.
- Family or corporate relationship never proves instruction, knowledge, shared purpose, criminal participation or benefit.

## 9. Shadow/de facto administration classifications must remain separate

The public record may test but must not conflate:

1. **company-law de facto/shadow administration of LPB** — stable autonomous administrator functions or habitual direction of formal organs;
2. **de facto management/possession of particular insolvency-estate assets** — practical control of keys, access, use, works, income or disposition;
3. **de facto hotel operation/control** — reception, guests, bookings, staff, suppliers, utilities, licences, contracts and revenue;
4. **creditor/lender in possession** — a functional comparative description, not a standalone Spanish statutory status;
5. **Community administration** — notices, minutes, accounts, debt, vote, security and common-element functions under separately tested authority; and
6. **interference with CEXP, Matkator or third-party rights** — not administration of LPB merely because the right/property sat inside the hotel platform.

The actor-by-asset test is:

> `OWNER / RIGHT-HOLDER → ESTATE STATUS → FORMAL CUSTODIAN → ACTUAL CONTROLLER → AUTHORITY → USE / INCOME / WORKS → TRANSFER → BENEFIT → REMEDY`.

## 10. Mandatory contrary and exculpatory record

Every first-read publication must preserve, at minimum:

1. the 2018 provisional dismissal and appellate confirmation, accurately scoped;
2. the AC's denial of the principal lock-takeover instruction and his narrower maintenance/security-authority explanation;
3. the possibility that onsite providers or private actors exceeded a lawful narrow mandate without AC knowledge;
4. CAM's valid secured-credit rights and valid title to identified individual properties;
5. the absence so far of a recovered whole-hotel CAM possession order, stated as `not located`, not `never existed`;
6. the conditionality of the June 2018 finance and lack of proved closing/drawdown;
7. separate lender, credit/management, acceptable DD/valuation, definitive-document, waiver and closing conditions that sponsor willingness could not itself satisfy;
8. the informal-notice/formal-filing distinction;
9. the 26 June 2018 protective suspension;
10. the 24 October 2019 non-convalidation result and any corrective effect it did have;
11. later formal adjudication/conveyance within its exact prospective perimeter;
12. the possibility that judicial rulings were legally debatable, procedurally constrained or based on an incomplete record rather than knowingly unjust;
13. Sentencia 163/2023's rejection/narrowing of material AC/Fiscal propositions, including protections for defence rights where recorded;
14. the need to separate Judge, LAJ and court-office acts;
15. the possibility that no named private actor procured or knew of a judicial result; and
16. every produced denial, correction, lawful mandate, accounting or restorative act.

These controls do not suppress the allegations. They prevent the repository from becoming a predetermined finding.

## 11. Priority evidence gaps

### Private actor chain

- native 2017–2018 emails, messages, calls and meeting records;
- CAM mandates, Board/management approval and legal powers;
- 18 May drafting and implementation communications;
- security/locksmith contract, payer, instructions, logs and key/cylinder inventory;
- witness-by-act identification and original media/metadata;
- property-by-property authority and control map;
- post-event adoption, internal reporting, income, works and benefit records; and
- person-by-person instruction, knowledge, purpose and contribution proof.

### Administrador Concursal

- complete 18 May request and preceding communications;
- exact provider-selection, security, access and maintenance authority file;
- meetings/emails with Community, FMMM, Antonio/Shaila, CAM/JDAM/LPAM and providers;
- first notice of alleged excess and every same-day/later response;
- court/police/Registry protective or restorative action;
- asset/key/access inventory and estate/non-estate treatment;
- debt verification, liquidation, calificación and accounting treatment; and
- all records showing prevention, limitation, reversal or lack of practical capacity.

### Judge / exit

- certified 2018–2022 docket and complete judge-by-act chain;
- native Daniel Irigoyen and Carlos Sanz communications plus headers;
- visit/calendar/attendance proof for every alleged court visit;
- formal filing/receipt/proveído for the conclusion/payment/debt-certificate route;
- full VSO/Stoneweg approval, acceptance, closing and drawdown file;
- route-by-route sponsor-condition performance ledger and proof of each alleged prevention event;
- Ben Oldman lender execution/acceptance, credit approval, definitive-document, closing and proof-of-funds record;
- Elaia authority, diligence, funding, acceptance and outcome record, plus any source bridging Lagune and Elaia;
- exact debt certificate, deposit/guarantee and mortgage-authority treatment;
- protective/inspection/valuation requests and decisions;
- full competition/adjudication/implementation record;
- evidence-before-Judge and contemporaneous law for each alleged unjust proposition;
- evidence of knowledge, illegitimate purpose, private procurement or benefit; and
- every favourable/corrective act and strongest lawful explanation.

## 12. Publication rules

1. State Gil's direct five-actor, AC and Judge criminal allegations forcefully and visibly.
2. Do not replace them with `concerns`, `questions`, `possible involvement` or an investigation-only formulation.
3. In the same first-read unit, state that the allegations are not adjudicated findings, identify the strongest contrary record and name the decisive open proof.
4. Describe the AC allegation as **affirmative commission/enablement plus omission**; do not reduce it to silence, passive approval or negligent supervision.
5. Describe the Judge allegation as **affirmative acts/direct enablement plus omissions**; do not reduce it to mere failure to act.
6. Attribute `sabotage of a funded successful exit` to Gil. Independently describe the documented route as developed/financeable but conditional until closing evidence is produced.
7. State as Gil's position that Aweswell performed or could perform every sponsor-controlled condition; separately preserve court/AC, collateral/security, Community/asset-side, lender, credit/management and other counterparty burdens.
8. Preserve ONA/Clubotel, Ben Oldman and Elaia at the exact source statuses in section 6.4.
9. Do not claim repeated Daniel Irigoyen visits as a verified count without dated source support.
10. Preserve the two official-public-source corporate clusters and no-proved-public-co-company boundary.
11. Use canonical names in narrative and preserve exact source literals separately.
12. Do not equate family, company, professional, Community or project association with participation or intent.
13. Keep every actor's capacity, act, knowledge, benefit, defence and missing proof separate.
14. Keep LPB estate, CEXP, Matkator, Community and third-party assets/rights separate.
15. Keep Pamanil and Pamalexsha separate.
16. Preserve filings, dismissals, appeals, receipts and referrals at their exact procedural status.
17. Attribute the coercive parallel-control, capture-like apparatus, lender-in-possession and redemption/refinancing-obstruction characterisations to Gil; never publish `mafia` or `organised crime` as established.
18. Offer an effective right of reply, identity correction, exculpatory production and source challenge to every named person and entity.

## 13. Prohibited overstatement

Do not publish as established fact, without the additional proof or competent finding:

- that all five actors jointly administered LPB or shared one criminal purpose;
- that FMMM and Antonio/Shaila are proved by official public records to share one company;
- that **Francisco Matos Matas** is FMMM;
- that the AC ordered or approved every 7 June act merely because he participated in a narrower authority chain;
- that the Judge was required to approve a particular commercial deal;
- that Daniel Irigoyen made a proved number of visits beyond the dated record;
- that the VSO structure was unconditional, drawable or closed;
- that the supplied Ben Oldman copy was fully executed by the lender or that the Elaia proposal is proved beyond the contemporaneous attribution;
- that Aweswell had independently proved completion of every sponsor-side condition, that `nothing else remained`, or that third-party approvals were complete;
- that the exit would certainly have succeeded but for one actor;
- that an adverse decision, delay or error by itself proves prevaricación;
- that economic benefit proves private procurement, corrupt agreement or judicial personal gain;
- that any named person/entity is a mafia or organised crime, or that `capture-like` proves actual institutional capture; or
- that a complaint, investigation, referral or provisional dismissal decides the merits beyond its exact scope.

## 14. Supersession and anti-regression

The following shorthand is superseded wherever it appears as the controlling description:

- `the AC merely approved/ratified/maintained the conversion`;
- `the AC allegation is principally omission`; and
- `the Judge allegation is only omissionary failure to protect`.

Replace with:

- **AC affirmative commissions and full alleged enablement, together with operative omissions**; and
- **Judge affirmative acts/direct alleged enablement, together with omission-based prevaricación/refusal/delay allegations**.

This allegation-strength correction does not supersede:

- the lawful-narrow-authority and provider-excess defences;
- the developed/financeable-but-conditional exit status;
- the reported-meeting/not-judicial-minute boundary;
- the informal-notice/not-proved-filing boundary;
- the 26 June counterevidence;
- the judge-by-act criminal-element test;
- the two-cluster official public-source boundary;
- the 2018 dismissal and later adverse procedural results; or
- the rule that direct attribution is not adjudicated guilt.

## 15. Right of reply and no-send boundary

FMMM, Antonio Cogolludo Rojas, Shaila María Cogolludo Ramos, JDAM, LPAM, the relevant CAM entities, Pamanil/Pamalexsha, providers, the Administrador Concursal, Judge/court and every separately named person/entity retain a full right of reply, correction, exculpatory production and source challenge.

This is a repository and publication-control record. It does not authorise sending an email, filing a complaint, contacting an institution or publishing private/privileged source bodies.