# JTP fee authority / source-of-payment evidence close — 24 September 2026

**Control ID:** PD-JTP-SOURCE-CLOSE-20260924-01  
**Status:** private-source review distilled into public-safe propositions; not a finding of crime, bribery, collusion or completed bank tracing.  
**Matter:** Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. — Concurso 36/2012.

## What this review closes

### 1. Original fee baseline — direct document
A 29-May-2012 pro-forma issued by Juan Tomás Parrilla states **€40,000 + IGIC** for the insolvency petition and handling: €20,000 + IGIC before filing and five later €4,000 + IGIC instalments. It is a budget/pro-forma, not proof that every later invoice or payment followed that structure.

### 2. Parrilla's own 11-Jun-2020 account — direct email
Parrilla stated a new proposed definitive fee of **€50,000 + IGIC**. He said he had already received **€32,250** from third parties associated with Gil/Patricia and therefore described **€17,750 + IGIC** as remaining. He proposed two routes involving the Insolvency Administrator and expressly stated that he required **Gil/Patricia's written approval** before proceeding and needed them to choose the option.

### 3. 12-Jun-2020 rejection — direct emails
Incoming counsel Daniel Jiménez forwarded the proposal saying he had told Parrilla it could not be accepted. Patricia replied that the client side agreed, considered it unacceptable, ended the discussions and would move to the insolvency incident. This is direct documentary rejection of the final proposal.

### 4. 18-Jun-2020 incoming-counsel assessment — direct email
Jiménez wrote contemporaneously that the team had broken negotiations with Parrilla and the Insolvency Administrator because, in his assessment, they were trying to condition the successor team's work in exchange for payment of fees, and that he did not want his own payment to depend on the Administrator's view. This is Jiménez's contemporaneous professional assessment of the negotiations; it is not an adjudicated finding of improper inducement.

### 5. 1-Jun-2020 "peace" / payment sequence — contemporaneous reported call
Jiménez's contemporaneous report of his call with the Insolvency Administrator records, in the same call sequence, a desire for "peace" and abandonment of cross-litigation, an assurance that Parrilla/procuradora invoices would be paid from insolvency funds, praise of Parrilla's work, and willingness to withdraw a complaint if there were "peace". This is evidence of what Jiménez reported the Administrator said, not a recording or direct admission and not proof of quid pro quo.

### 6. AC 21-Jul-2021 report — direct filed party report
The Administrator's report lists **€26,750** as paid in **July 2020** for "Honorarios abogado concursada" to Juan Tomás Parrilla. Numerically, €26,750 equals **€25,000 + 7% IGIC**. That corresponds numerically with the €25,000 immediate-payment figure appearing in the earlier fee discussions, but the arithmetic does **not** establish which proposal, invoice, authority or instruction the July payment implemented.

## Negative searches / open gaps

- A bounded search of the three connected mailboxes for **12-Jun through 31-Jul-2020** located no later written Gil/Patricia approval, acceptance or superseding agreement authorising Parrilla's proposed payment route. This is a bounded negative search, not proof that no approval exists anywhere.
- Targeted connected-Drive searches did not locate a direct July-2020 LPB bank debit or Parrilla recipient credit matching €26,750. Several "extracto" hits were older loan/liquidation extracts rather than the payment at issue.
- A 2020 final invoice/minuta corresponding to the €26,750 payment has not been located in this pass. The located 2012 pro-forma is not a substitute.
- The exact purchaser-debit → LPB-credit → estate-ledger → €26,750 debit → recipient-credit chain remains **OPEN**.
- A private working accounting spreadsheet contains simplified historic JTP-payment entries that do not exactly reproduce Parrilla's own 11-Jun-2020 €32,250 breakdown. It is therefore a reconciliation lead only and not controlling proof.

## Prosecutorial significance

The strengthened question is not whether a lawyer may ever be paid from estate funds. It is why a July-2020 reported payment of €26,750 was made after:
1. the lawyer himself required written client approval for the proposed routes;
2. the client side expressly rejected the final proposal;
3. incoming counsel contemporaneously recorded that the negotiations had been broken off because he perceived an attempt to condition the successor team's work on fee payment; and
4. the bank debit, final invoice and independent authority remain unrecovered.

The lawful explanation remains open: there may have been an independent entitlement, invoice, authority or later event not yet located. Production of those records would narrow or falsify the present inference.

## Source-handling boundary

Native mailbox bodies, provider IDs, private addresses, bank details and non-public attachments remain in authorised private custody. Public Git stores proposition-level source status only.