7 JUNE 2018 · DIRECT CRIMINAL-ATTRIBUTION RECORD · UPDATED 24 AUGUST 2026
Gil Marer and Aweswell expressly allege that identified CAM / Acosta Matos and connected private actors—the five are Francisco Mario Matos Matas, Antonio Cogolludo Rojas, Shaila María Cogolludo Ramos, José Daniel Acosta Matos and Laura Patricia Acosta Matos—formed an actor-specific chain of instruction, coordination, authorisation, adoption or knowing implementation of the 7 June 2018 Sun Park control operation; that the insolvency administrator committed affirmative acts of request, selection, authorisation, enablement, approval or ratification together with legally equivalent omissions; and that Magistrate-Judge Alberto López Villarrubia issued resolutions and refusals or caused evidential closures, delays and omissions that Gil alleges knowingly frustrated or sabotaged a developed, finance-backed exit. These are direct criminal allegations supported by a multi-layer evidential corpus. They are not judicial findings.
It concerns the alleged deliberate conversion of secured credit, isolated-unit title and Community/security machinery into physical possession, management, whole-hotel project availability and later economic benefit. Gil further alleges that institutional acts and omissions enabled and consolidated that result and frustrated the exit alternative. The record supports a developed, financeable exit architecture; it does not establish unconditional cash, certain closing or guaranteed success.
The attribution is direct. Evidence strength, contrary material, missing proof and adjudication remain separate. The record supports publishing and demanding investigation of the allegations, while the 2018 provisional dismissal and appellate confirmation remain prominent. Missing native instruction or mental-state evidence does not erase the allegation; the allegation does not establish guilt.
DOCUMENTARY CONVERGENCE
A filed April 2018 complaint describes earlier access episodes, JDAM/FMMM involvement, whole-hotel ownership assertions and alleged efforts to secure cooperation from the onsite manager. It is a party pleading requiring authentication of its calls, transcripts, images and witnesses.
The Community record links the approximately 0.385% vote-qualified interest associated with Shaila Cogolludo, Antonio Cogolludo’s presidency, FMMM’s secretary-administrator role, private security authority and an insolvency-administrator request made using LPB’s majority position.
Contemporaneous emails report forced entrance/reception access, demands for keys, replacement locks, security, guest identification and an assertion that CAM owned the whole complex.
Later access, works, inspection, valuation and the separate 31-finca transaction create an accounting and actual-control inquiry across estate and non-estate property.
Whole-project investor representations preceded the later adjudication; by 2022 direct Acosta Matos Community/project control is documented.
The first 7 June email uses the source literal “Laura Matos” for CAM’s lawyer and reports that she and Community personnel arrived to “take possession,” forced entrance/reception access, demanded keys, controlled guests and said the complex was theirs. The repository’s canonical identity is Laura Patricia Acosta Matos. A same-day follow-up says the CAM side produced a paper claiming ownership of the whole complex while the Community relied on the 18 May minutes.
The 11 April complaint alleged that a secured creditor was acting as if already owner and sought criminal investigation. The 7 June amendment alleged direct-day conduct by Antonio Cogolludo and the Laura Acosta Matos actor identified there with a different forename controlled as a typographical error; the canonical identity is Laura Patricia Acosta Matos. This describes the source faithfully without creating a second actor.
CAM had a recognised secured-credit position. The later title control point distinguishes 54 CAM properties, 190 LPB properties and 18 third-party properties. A mortgage creditor or individual-unit owner did not thereby own or possess every unit, CEXP’s rights or the hotel business.
The administrator is linked to the 18 May access/security authority route and later gave a narrower-authorisation explanation. The court received complaints and requests. Criminal responsibility requires proving exactly what each actor knew, could do and decided at each date.
Canonical identity, party attribution and source literal are separate fields. Public narrative uses Laura Patricia Acosta Matos; exact source wording remains exact. No derivative may claim that the email or pleading literally used the corrected full name when it did not.
2017–2022 CAPACITY CONVERGENCE
| Capacity / node | What the controlled record supports | What it did not confer by itself |
|---|---|---|
| 18 April 2017 judgment | Materially altered the historic basis relied on for Community charges; its finca- and period-specific effect must be applied to later debt and voting records. | A universal finding that every later Community act was invalid. |
| 22 May 2017 Pink→LPB document | A facially signed access/key or possession instrument exists. Authenticity is not presently displaced, while its capacity, areas and exact key inventory remain disputed. | CEXP's master-key system, third-party units or CAM whole-hotel possession. |
| 12 June 2017 Community | Approximately 87.098% was present/represented but approximately 6.545% was treated as vote-qualified; Antonio Cogolludo presided and FMMM was secretary-administrator. | Proof that CAM directly instructed those officeholders or that a reduced electorate could convey another owner's possession. |
| Properties 8,499 and 8,500 | The located 2016 instrument was conditional; April 2017 Registry material still showed Montelanza; a later 2018 schedule showed CAM. | The missing condition-satisfaction, consideration and onward-transfer bridge. |
| Secured credit | The current ledger places the PH122→CAM assignment on 20 October 2017 and judicial recognition on 15 February 2018, subject to the complete native deed. | Ownership, interim administration or possession of all LPB/CEXP/Matkator/third-party property. |
| 18 May 2018 authority inversion | Approximately 86.715% was present/represented, approximately 0.385% was vote-qualified, security up to €8,500/month was authorised, and the AC asked that LPB's majority be used to convene the route. | Facial whole-hotel possession, eviction, operating authority or extinction of third-party rights. |
| February 2022 direct control | Three Acosta Matos companies voted; JDAM presided; FMMM remained secretary-administrator and joint signatory; the CAM project, works, licences and operational unity were approved. | Retroactive proof that JDAM, those companies or FMMM issued the operative 7 June 2018 order. |
Across 2017–2022, CAM's isolated-title, Community and secured-credit positions converged. Gil directly alleges that by the 2018 control events those positions were deliberately converted into material possession and management beyond CAM’s lawful asset and creditor perimeter. The evidence and missing command-chain proof are classified separately; by 2022 direct CAM Community and project control was documented.
DIRECT CRIMINAL-ATTRIBUTION · PRIVATE INSTRUCTION
Gil alleges that the 7 June operation was not an unauthorised improvisation by a locksmith or guard, and that CAM, Francisco Mario Matos Matas, Antonio Cogolludo Rojas, Shaila Cogolludo Ramos, José Daniel Acosta Matos and Laura Patricia Acosta Matos, together with providers and other separately identified participants, formed or used a coordinated authority, instruction and implementation chain to convert limited credit, title and security rights into practical whole-hotel control. Inclusion in the chain does not attribute the same act to every person: order, presence, relay, vote, implementation, knowledge, purpose and benefit must be proved actor by actor.
| Proposition | Current support | Status | Missing bridge |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAM institutional role | Creditor status, CAM representation at the event, whole-complex ownership paper reportedly shown, later project benefit. | Direct attributed allegation | Board/management mandate, instruction records, payer and ratification. |
| JDAM instruction or coordination | Earlier access/ownership/control allegations, claimed future handover, CAM role and later governance/project control. | Direct attributed allegation | Native calls/messages, witness attribution, Board authority and post-event adoption. |
| FMMM instruction or implementation | Community secretary-administrator role, earlier alleged access episode, debt/voting/records/security apparatus and later continuity. | Direct attributed allegation | 18 May–7 June communications, instructions to providers and records/certifications. |
| Antonio Cogolludo Rojas — presidency and implementation | He chaired the Community and the 18 May security route; the 7 June amendment alleged direct-day conduct, and his later declaration acknowledged replacement of the code system by a guard while denying broader lock changes. | Direct actor-specific allegation | Communications with CAM, AC, FMMM and providers; exact orders, presence, scope, knowledge and contrary evidence. |
| Shaila Cogolludo Ramos — voting and operational relay | She is recorded as treasurer and linked to the 0.385% vote-qualified interest. Her preserved declaration places the Community communicating decisions to the AC, changing access mechanisms, relaying an AC rule to guards and allowing CAM access as owner. | Direct allegation; differentiated declared acts | Exact authority and vote, communications, specific order, physical participation, knowledge, purpose and contrary evidence. |
| Laura Patricia Acosta Matos — direct-day participation | Gil’s express attribution; same-day email source literal “Laura Matos”; filed amendment concerning the Laura Acosta Matos actor with the different forename controlled as a typo. | Direct actor-specific allegation | CAM mandate, presence, exact orders, witnesses, communications, knowledge, purpose and contrary evidence. |
| Source-literal / canonical-identity separation | Canonical identity is Laura Patricia Acosta Matos. The native email and filed pleading are preserved as written and are not silently rewritten. | Controlled correction | Certified filing package, annex/page map and final consolidation of the documentary typo basis. |
Gil directly attributes actor-specific participation to all five. In particular, Gil directly attributes participation and responsibility to Laura Patricia Acosta Matos. Identity, mandate, presence, voting, relay, exact instructions, knowledge, purpose, contribution, benefit and criminal responsibility remain separate proof and adjudication fields. Incomplete proof does not turn the direct allegation into a mere question or permit responsibility to be presented as adjudicated.
A 22 March recorded call—whose speaker attribution to JDAM remains contextual rather than technically authenticated—contains advance-access, Community, guards, exclusion and concealment-language leads. The principal record does not place JDAM physically onsite on 7 June. No recovered native order presently proves the operative instruction. The evidence makes Gil’s direct allegation concrete and supports the production demand; it does not establish an adjudicated criminal fact.
CREDITOR IN MATERIAL POSSESSION
Project Sun Rock alleges that CAM crossed from protection and enforcement of a secured credit into possession, direction, use and management of assets before formal adjudication. Spanish-law consequences must be derived from the actual acts—not from the English label.
No instrument has been located in the reviewed corpus authorising CAM to take interim administration or possession under Article 690 of the Civil Procedure Act or equivalent insolvency authority. This is a corpus finding, not a categorical claim that no such instrument could exist. Mortgage security subjects an asset to enforcement; it does not itself transfer possession or permit appropriation merely by virtue of the security.
Who held keys, cylinders, guards, access logs and the practical power to admit or exclude?
Who controlled guests, reservations, deposits, staff, contractors, utilities, insurance and tourism-facing representation?
Who authorised works, bore expenses, affected valuation, removed assets or allowed deterioration?
Did practical control obstruct ONA, finance, inspections, competing bids or an exit from the concurso?
What rents, use value, income, avoided costs or project value arose during pre-adjudication control?
LPB, CEXP, Matkator and other owners require separate title, standing and accounting.
The hypothesis is strongest where CAM-perimeter persons actually performed administrator functions or formal decision-makers habitually followed their instructions: access, operators, works, revenue, insolvency strategy, disposals or use of LPB assets in project promotion.
Even if no one replaced LPB’s corporate board, practical control of particular insolvency-estate assets may require restitution, accounting, damages or criminal examination.
Hotel control must be proved through booking, reception, staffing, merchant, maintenance, utility, insurance and commercial records.
Control of Matkator, CEXP or third-party rights is analysed as unauthorised possession, interference, use, works or exploitation—not as administration of property LPB did not own.
Spanish company law extends administrator liability to de facto administrators, including persons who actually perform administrator functions without title or under whose instructions formal administrators act. That statutory concept is an evidence test, not an automatic label arising from creditor influence.
The accounting period begins with the first date on which material access, decision-making, use or economic benefit is proved—not only later adjudication or registration. It must separate revenue, reservations/deposits, occupation value, charged expenses, deterioration, avoided costs, related-party payments, rescue obstruction, the 31-finca route and later MYND value. Each head must be assigned to the legally correct claimant—LPB/the estate, Aweswell, CEXP, Matkator, Pink, another owner or another person—without double recovery.
INSOLVENCY ADMINISTRATOR
Gil alleges that the insolvency administrator criminally enabled, approved or ratified the 7 June operation and was not a passive observer: he acted affirmatively by advancing the security route, selecting a provider, seeking Community ratification and authorising limited access to LPB property, and those acts enabled or were used for the wider operation. Gil further alleges knowing approval or ratification and, after the alleged excess became known, legally equivalent omissions by failing to delimit, supervise, recover control, protect estate and non-estate assets, demand an account, reverse the effects or present the control change accurately to the court.
The controlled treatment of the administrator's 31 July 2018 declaration records selection of a security provider, pursuit of Community ratification, authority to open doors to identified LPB premises where necessary and limited authority for a Laura Acosta actor to enter LPB premises for maintenance or supervision. Read in full, this is both an affirmative authority-chain node and a narrower, potentially exculpatory account: the administrator denied authorising use, occupation or the principal takeover.
A valid, limited security or maintenance mandate was exceeded without the administrator’s knowledge. No criminal approval follows from that fact alone.
A foreseeable risk was created or inadequately controlled. Duty, breach, causation and damage must be proved.
After actual knowledge, the administrator had legal and practical power to intervene but consciously retained the result. The specific offence and mental element remain essential.
The administrator intended the wider control transfer or coordinated it with private actors. Direct or compelling circumstantial proof is required.
The administrator’s denial of the main lock takeover is important contrary evidence. The reference to narrower authorised access simultaneously places the administrator inside the authority chain. The decisive questions are scope, foreseeability, first notice, response, recovery, accounting and later use of the result.
Silence, passivity, professional breach or negligent supervision does not alone prove criminal cooperation. Criminal Code Article 11 requires a particular protective duty, knowledge, practical capacity to intervene, causal equivalence and the mental element of the underlying offence. Negligence is punishable only where the Code expressly provides it. This proof limit does not dilute Gil’s direct allegation.
AFFIRMATIVE JUDICIAL ACTS AND OMISSIONS · PREVARICATION ALLEGATION
Gil directly alleges omissionary judicial prevarication. That is one dimension of the unitary accusation, not its limit: he also attributes affirmative resolutions and refusals alleged to have been knowingly unjust.
Gil alleges that Magistrate-Judge Alberto López Villarrubia’s role did not consist only of omissions. He attributes a unitary sequence of affirmative judicial acts—resolutions, refusals and evidential closures concerning protection of the hotel and estate, control and works, bidding/adjudication and, ultimately, adoption of accusatory propositions in Judgment 163/2023—together with delays and omissions of protection, restoration, investigation and accounting. Gil alleges that, with knowledge of a developed, finance-backed exit architecture, that sequence preserved or legitimised the private-control result and knowingly frustrated or sabotaged LPB’s exit from the insolvency. This is his direct criminal allegation, not an adjudicated criminal fact.
The record documents the convenio, viability plan and payment plan filed on 27 April 2017 and, by June 2018, signed hotel-operation instruments, an operator plan, due diligence, an ECO valuation, staged security and parallel finance routes. The controlled record identifies one direct meeting with the judge: the meeting Daniel Irigoyen reported contemporaneously on 13 June 2018, followed by a separate meeting with the insolvency administrator. His account says the judge allowed the route to be explored and asked that the application be pursued, which is contrary evidence against a simplistic continuous-obstruction theory. The June finance was conditional, and a later route reached an executed term sheet that remained subject to conditions. This supports a developed, financeable architecture; it does not establish multiple judge visits, unconditional funds, certain closing or guaranteed success, or that every annex was received or personally read by him.
Gil directly alleges that Aweswell had fulfilled, or was ready and able to fulfil, the sponsor-side and counterparty conditions within its lawful control. He alleges that the operative blocking conditions instead depended on preserving and delivering collateral and staged security, maintaining access for inspection, valuation and hotel operation, obtaining the court and insolvency-administrator outputs required by the finance documents, and preventing the adverse private/Community perimeter from disabling those inputs. In Gil’s account, the alleged private-control or lender-in-possession mechanism destroyed or made unavailable the security package, obstructed payment or consignment of the insolvency liabilities and prevented refinancing. This is Gil’s attributed causation and sabotage allegation, not a finding that every condition was satisfied, that closing was certain or that any identified actor caused the non-closing.
| Condition / route | Exact controlled status | Unresolved limit |
|---|---|---|
| Aweswell sponsor/counterparty side | Gil alleges that Aweswell had performed or could timely perform the sponsor-side matters within its control and could provide the required sponsor, guarantee, comfort, funding, operator and security documentation. | The reviewed June VSO copy does not establish executed Aweswell acceptance, a completed condition ledger or satisfaction or waiver of every condition. A later executed term sheet remained conditional and was not a facility agreement or drawdown. |
| ONA / Clubotel operating route | The recovered 6 June hotel-industry lease and suspensive addendum are signed by the Sun Park Owners’ Community and Clubotel La Dorada, S.L.; contemporaneous correspondence described ONA as the intended operator. Effect depended on sufficient funds being paid into Mercantil nº1 to permit LPB to exit the insolvency and on the required favourable owners’ resolution. | ONA was the operator context, not the funder. The record does not establish that ONA and Clubotel were the same legal person, that the Community could bind every property, that both suspensive conditions occurred or that operation commenced under the instrument. |
| Stoneweg / VSO finance | The lender-issued instrument was an Oferta Vinculante Condicionada to Aweswell for up to €15.5m, subject to first-ranking mortgages and the agreed 65% LTV; judicial authority for the VSO mortgages; an AC certificate that insolvency and estate liabilities did not exceed €13.84m; an acceptable first-class ECO valuation; Matkator legal/Registry due diligence; VSO management/credit-committee approval; and other corporate/control conditions. | Stoneweg’s transmission called the attachment an “Oferta Vinculante”, but the instrument was conditional. Final acceptance, committee approval, definitive facility, condition satisfaction or waiver, closing and drawdown remain unproved. |
| Ben Oldman route | The repository identifies a separate Ben Oldman financing workstream among the parallel routes under examination. | It is an identified route, not a located executed facility, final lender approval, closing or drawdown. |
| Lagune / Elaia alternative | Lagune Hospitalidad / Groupe Batipart signed a €26m own-funds proposal that was expressly indicative and non-binding. 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 were blank; board approval, due diligence, definitive SPA, clean title and closing were outstanding. The record does not establish that Lagune was Elaia’s subsidiary or that Elaia accepted a binding take-out. |
| Court, AC, collateral and adverse-perimeter dependencies | The documentary finance conditions expressly required judicial mortgage authority and an AC debt certificate, while diligence, valuation, access, collateral preservation and delivery were material to the staged-security route. The record also supports a later incomplete interior inspection amid the access conflict. | Gil alleges that private-control acts and institutional acts or omissions disabled those inputs. Third-party valuation, owner, lender and committee decisions remained independent conditions; the exact failure, prevention, waiver and causal effect of each condition require a condition-by-condition ledger. |
Spanish criminal law separately addresses knowingly issuing an unjust judicial resolution, grossly negligent issuance of a manifestly unjust resolution, refusal to judge without legal cause and malicious delay intended to achieve an illegitimate purpose. Any commission-by-omission theory also requires a legally equivalent duty and the necessary subjective element. “The judge did not grant the requested remedy” is not by itself prevarication.
Every alleged act must be classified under the criminal provision in force when it occurred, subject to retroactive application of a later law more favourable to the accused under Criminal Code Article 2.2. The current consolidated Code is a research entry point, not authority to project later wording backwards.
The identified allegation concerns Magistrate-Judge Alberto López Villarrubia. Controlled notice/decision nodes include a 27 April 2017 filing, a reported 13 June 2018 discussion, the 4/17 February 2021 filing/registration, the signed 24 February 2021 order and Sentencia 163/2023. Contrary or corrective acts—including the 26 June 2018 suspension, 24 October 2019 non-validation and partly estimatory aspects of the 2021 order—must remain in the same matrix. Informal or draft material is not attributed to the judge without receipt proof.
Exceptional case law concerning omission in administrative prevarication cannot be transferred automatically to jurisdictional conduct. The allegation must be classified through the exact resolution, refusal or deliberate delay under Criminal Code Articles 446–449.
| Required element | Question |
|---|---|
| Exact judge and capacity | Which judge, court, date and procedural function? |
| Matter properly before court | Which filing, evidence, request and receipt? |
| Competence and duty | What lawful power and duty to decide, protect or restore existed? |
| Affirmative resolution/refusal/delay/omission | What precise judicial conduct—including adoption of a premise or consequence—is alleged criminal? |
| Evidence before actor | What did the judge demonstrably know then? |
| Objective injustice/arbitrariness | Why is the act more than an appealable error or debatable interpretation? |
| Knowledge and purpose | What proves knowing injustice or malicious illegitimate purpose? |
| Exit causation and benefit | Which condition depended on the court, which act frustrated or preserved the alternative, and what control, loss or private advantage followed? |
The website records the direct allegation and the proof matrix. It does not announce a judicial crime as established. The existence of a complaint, CGPJ filing or institutional receipt proves procedural notice—not its merits.
CONTRARY RECORD
The physical-entry complaint did not produce a conviction. The dismissal and appellate outcome must be read in full and compared with the expanded later title, creditor, Community, funding and benefit record. Their legal effect cannot be inferred from the word “provisional” alone: any renewed route must compare the same persons/facts, investigation completed, finality and genuinely new indicia or distinct later acts.
The administrator denied the principal takeover instruction and referred to narrower access. That may be exculpatory; it also requires the scope and response file.
Valid credit and ownership of isolated properties do not prove authority over every unit. Nor does partial title prove criminality.
The 2021–2022 adjudication/conveyance may establish later rights. It does not retroactively prove the legal basis of June 2018 control.
Irigoyen’s account attributes initial openness to exploring the exit; the record also includes the 26 June 2018 suspension, the 24 October 2019 non-validation, partly estimatory aspects of the 2021 order and rejection or limitation of accusatory branches in Judgment 163/2023. Each must be tested against the unitary allegation act by act.
FINITE PRODUCTION DEMANDS
Native messages and calls; mandates; Board records; 18 May drafting; security/locksmith contract and payer; key receipt; title list; witness statements; post-event adoption and reporting.
CAM mandate, contact data, location, witnesses, communications and original annexes sufficient to prove or disprove her alleged participation, exact instructions, knowledge and purpose. Identity is controlled; conduct remains to be proved.
Full 18 May file; limits; first notice; protective measures; court requests; access inventory; income/use accounting; third-party protection; calificación treatment and contrary records.
The exact post-13 June application, annexes and receipt; AC debt certificate; required deposit/security; resolutions, refusals, evidential closures, hearing records and timing; fulfilment, blockage or failure of each finance condition; and the link between each act or omission and the alleged frustration.
CAM, Francisco Mario Matos Matas, Antonio Cogolludo Rojas, Shaila Cogolludo Ramos, José Daniel Acosta Matos, Laura Patricia Acosta Matos, Pamanil/Pamalexsha, the providers, the insolvency administrator, the judge/court and every separately identified actor retain a full right of reply, identity correction and exculpatory production. Silence is not admission.