INSOLVENCY 36/2012 · JUDGMENT 163/2023 · RPL 2523/2025

Calificación evidence map

One view showing who filed what, which copy is located, what is certified, what remains open and which material belongs to another forum. The map prevents a strong narrative from becoming broader than its sources.

Reading rule: three located or reported appeal instruments for four appellant interests.Gil: one separate · Pink Canary and Patricia: one joint · LPB: one separate reported · Aweswell: none identified in this Calificación. A certified docket may correct this reconstruction.

ATTRIBUTION

Whose position this is

This is the public position of Gil Marer / Por Derecho. It does not speak collectively for LPB, Pink Canary Services, Patricia Domínguez or Aweswell; it does not speak for any procedural representative; and it does not replace, amend or enlarge any filed pleading.

Appeal firewall. RPL 2523/2025 must be determined only on the procedurally usable record, pleaded grounds, adversarial process and applicable law. This map, later public analysis and action in other forums are not presented as appeal evidence without a proved route of filing, admission or transmission.

INSTRUMENTS · DO NOT CONFUSE A PARTY WITH A PLEADING

First-instance oppositions

InterestInstrumentEvidence stateFinite gap
LPBSeparate opposition dated 23-Apr-2019Complete source set located
Opposition and nine annexes; Judgment 163/2023 AH 7; LexNET receipt and first page also controlled.
Certified reconciliation of the located set with the exact filed pleading/annexes and court index.
Gil MarerSeparate 64-page opposition; digitally signed 10-Jun-2019Signed copy located
SHA-256 f442b685…a9815; the distinct draft is separated.
Certified court index and principal receipt.
Pink Canary + PatriciaOne joint six-page opposition filed 24-Mar-2021Copy + receipt located
LexNET 202110397349419; SHA-256 fd87b981…f24fe.
Certified service and record mapping.
AweswellNo opposition identified in this sectionNot identified
Not listed as an affected person in Judgment 163/2023.
Only a contrary certified docket would change the control.

Appeals from Judgment 163/2023

InterestInstrumentEvidence stateFinite gap
Gil MarerSeparate appeal filed 30-Oct-2023Filed copy located
The 31-Oct receipt evidences the deposit, not by itself the principal transmission.
Principal LexNET receipt and certified mapping.
Pink Canary + PatriciaOne joint 17-page appeal filed 30-Oct-2023Copy + receipt located
The 19-page version is a superseded draft.
Certified service and docket mapping.
LPBSeparate appeal reported filed 2-Nov-2023Filing supported; principal pending
Contemporaneous report, later deposit/cure material and 11-May-2026 decision.
Exact appeal, principal receipt, entry, pages and grounds.
AweswellNo appeal from Judgment 163/2023 identifiedSeparate lane
RPL 3319/2025 and RPL 421/2026 are not Calificación merits appeals.
None absent contrary certification.

POSSIBLE CRIMINAL MISUSE · SERIOUS, DOCUMENT-BASED AND REFUTABLE

Five pillars; five outstanding proof tests

1 · Insolvency Administrator

Materially excessive allegations

The complete 47-page report is located; Judgment 163/2023 rejected or narrowed several branches.

Missing: certified proposition-to-source index, autonomous DOC3 explanation and actor-specific knowledge/response matrix.

2 · Ministerio Fiscal

Exceptionally severe two-page opinion

The 12-Mar-2019 opinion is located: 15 years, damages and deficit; very limited visible individual reasoning and a facial actor-description defect.

Missing: source file, reviewed material, drafting history and individual knowledge. The defect may be an error and requires clarification.

3 · DI 248

Institutional circularity

The adverse Fiscal Calificación position was invoked in the 7-May-2019 archive decree.

Missing: complete DI 248 file and requested/performed/omitted/assessed/decided diligence ledger. No personal coordination is inferred.

4 · Judgment 163/2023

Selected judicial adoption

The judgment accepted some propositions, rejected or narrowed others and is under appeal.

Missing: certified evidence-before-court matrix, official hearing record, transmitted index and certified current decision/status.

5 · Economic effect

Possible benefit to the Acosta Matos perimeter

The sequence permits investigation of direct or indirect benefit; it does not prove agreement, agency, purpose or offence.

Missing: asset–decision–flow–beneficiary–harm–counterfactual trace, strongest innocent explanation and legal-person separation.

Controlling hypothesis: transfer of value + inversion of responsibility + diversion of scrutiny. It must be narrowed or abandoned when primary production contradicts it.

PROCEDURAL STATUS

What cannot yet be stated

Not located

a later merits judgment or order after the deliberation scheduled for 4-Jun-2026.

Not located

its service, finality or pending-remedy certification.

Not located

a certified appeal docket and transmitted-record index.

Not located

an official hearing acta, certified recording or integrity/provenance record.

Not located does not mean nonexistent. The finite action is to obtain current certification from the court or procedural representatives, not infer the outcome.

RELATED CONTEXT · OUTSIDE THE RPL LANE

ACTÚA–GESVALT is not presented as appeal evidence

The public comparison of 2018 valuations may inform an economic investigation into value, causation and benefit. It is not asserted to have been filed, admitted or transmitted in RPL 2523/2025.

CONTRARY EVIDENCE AND REPLY

The strongest contrary explanation belongs in the control

Drafting error, legitimate evidential disagreement, lawful procedural discretion, incomplete source access, independent institutional reasoning or benefit without agreement or criminal purpose must be tested, not hidden. Silence is not admission; an adverse decision is not proof of offence; aligned benefit is not proof of coordination or capture.

Right of reply and correction. Every person or institution may provide a decision, certified index, exculpatory document, alternative explanation or verifiable correction. A substantive correction receives equivalent visibility with its date, source and scope preserved.

CAEPR IDENTITY · RPL 2523/2025

Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo^

The 12 March 2019 prosecution opinion and the 25 July 2023 hearing form part of the documentary chain under appeal. This link does not attribute an act in RPL 2523/2025 to the prosecutor.

^ verifies identity only. Full census and pending exceptions →