Sun Park’s Community — authority, debt and instrumentalisation

Plain-language explanation

The Community did not own the hotel.

It administered common elements and common expenditure. Repetition could not make it owner of 220 registered units, the hotel operator, the transferor of private units or an unlimited authority over LPB, Matkator and third parties.

The alleged mechanism

Instrumentalisation does not require every resolution to be false. It means using limited community powers to produce consequences outside the Community.

Debt is attributedCharges and costs are presented as each unit’s community liability.
Debt removes voting rightsThe majority owner is represented but prevented from deciding.
A minority ratifiesAdministrator, accounts, certificates, lawyers, banking, security and access.
The record travels“The Community resolved” is used before the court, insolvency administrator or authorities.
The appearance expandsAccess, possession, works, licence, operation, finance, RIC and incentives.
The result back-validatesThe later consequence is cited as proof that the original authority was sound.

Gil Marer’s opinion · 2008 origin

Structural vulnerability and the alleged root cause.

This is an attributed editorial conclusion, not a judicial finding of dishonesty by the sellers.

Opinion attributed to and assumed by Gil Marer

The unit-by-unit sale created a vulnerability; Gil places the alleged root cause in non-completion or breach and the later conduct of the perimeter associated, in specific acts, with Montelanza, S.L. and Molina-linked owners.

The hotel operated as one economic unit but had been horizontally divided into approximately 220 registered units. In June 2008 JSP and other owners transferred units individually. The located documents then place LPB as the new property company—the PropCo—and the Sun Park Operating Community as the operational vehicle—the OpCo—while units and premises remained outside LPB.

The causal distinction: selling the shares in Montelanza, S.L., while keeping title and the hotel mechanism within one company, would have reduced the fracture points. The chosen route separated title, Community, operation, costs and minorities and created a vulnerability. Gil does not now present that architecture, by itself, as the root cause: he attributes that causal position to the alleged non-completion or breach of the 2008 transaction by the perimeter associated, in specific acts, with Montelanza, S.L. and Molina-linked owners and to the relevant later acts or omissions which, he says, exploited the vulnerability. The 22 June 2011 minutes are the first located Community matrix joining debt, voting exclusion, Pamanil, custody and litigation; Bankia’s enforcement and scheduled auction were later the documented immediate timing trigger for LPB’s insolvency filing. This is Gil’s causal position, not a judgment or collective attribution of liability: seller, property, obligation, act, person, knowledge and effect must be proved individually. Read controlling Declaration 008.

Document control: the page does not state that Montelanza, S.L. itself was sold as a company to Multimatrix. It distinguishes the June 2008 asset deeds, LPB’s 171 apartments and 29 premises recorded on 15 July, and Multimatrix’s later December 2011 sale of LPB shares. The deeds, share purchase agreement and shareholder register must finally control the description of each step.

Layer	Documented design	Risk introduced
Asset	A physically integrated complex split into about 220 registered units.	The hotel could look whole while legal title remained unit-by-unit.
PropCo	LPB held 171 apartments and 29 premises according to the 15 July 2008 minutes.	A majority did not equal 100% ownership or authority over extra-insolvency units.
OpCo	The Operating Community assumed operation and, contractually, integrated maintenance.	Operator costs could later reappear as Owners’ Community charges.
Owners’ Community	Its proper purpose was the administration of common elements.	Its name could be presented as apparent authority over the whole physical hotel.
Minorities	Owners outside or leaving the hotel operation retained their units.	A plausible ordinary charge could become debt, loss of vote, litigation, access control or pressure on title.

Our early mistakeGil Marer and Monterecco’s then representative arrived in late 2011 and early 2012. They initially accepted as normal that minorities outside the hotel paid a common charge or service fee. The 2008 structure made that belief plausible. It changed as books, accounts, contracts, judgments and the real allocation of costs emerged.

The present positionNot “no charge ever,” but a valid budget, service, allocation, notice and resolution; no duplication of costs already borne by the operator, unsupported retroactivity or conversion of disputed debt into the key that decides who votes.

Historical correction · CEXP / Monterecco / Pink

CEXP has the strongest located collective origin; Monterecco/Pink was a real operator whose title, scope and period require proof.

CEXP’s origin: 84.988% was present or represented at the meeting of 29 April 2008, and holders representing 74.90% of the complex approved creation of the Exploitation Community, its statutes and authority to contract with Montelanza, S.L.; 10.01% opposed or reserved their decision. Among the materials reviewed, CEXP is the only entity for which both a participating-owner collective resolution and a direct transfer from Montelanza, S.L. have been located. That is documentary provenance, not lawful exclusivity, universal mandate, registry status or uninterrupted operation. Read the controlled public edition of the 1987 and 2008 instruments; view the 29 April 2008 minutes.

The 1 February 2012 notice exists: representatives of CEXP and Monterecco signed a letter purporting to subrogate the activity, describing Monterecco as the new operator and asking that contracts and payments be moved to it. The case is therefore not that every succession instrument is missing. What has not yet been located is approval by the competent CEXP body or the complete delegation chain showing that the notice could convey the full owners-derived mandate, affect third-party units or confer sufficient authority over common elements. The primary source has been reviewed; publication requires a version redacted for signatures and personal data.

Real operation, registration and keys: a tourism inspection of 7 February 2012 described the physical establishment as 220 units/660 beds and placed Monterecco in the operator/title-holder field. Following the 15 February application, Cabildo’s notice of 23 February—ref. H-35/3/0034, registry LZ/2012/000031—fixed its administrative position at 159 units/477 beds. That is the official and contractual baseline, not an absolute physical boundary: Provincial Court Judgment 89/2014 found possession or operation affecting claimant units as well. The May-2012 JV 1260/2011 records attribute maintenance copies to CEXP and leave the physical deliverer unresolved. A separate facially signed 22-May-2017 Pink→LPB instrument says Pink delivered “access keys to the Sun Park complex”; unless authenticity, signatures, inventory, scope or function are challenged, it contradicts the literal no-key proposition. Gil’s narrower current position is that Pink never held CEXP’s maintenance/master set and never had lawful whole-hotel authority capable of transferring CEXP or third-party rights. Physical key, access, operation, possession and legal capacity remain separate. Declaration 009.

Temporal limit and adverse evidence: Order 804/2018 affirmed provisional archive of a criminal investigation; it did not determine the lawful operator after trial or find Pink’s total abandonment. It conditionally summarised a May 2017 email, but the original distinguishes cessation of new commercialisation, existing stays, supplies, services, maintenance and later formal handover. The order contains incompatible 22 May 2017/2018 and 2012/2013 references, and did not recognise CEXP’s asserted possession at that time. Pink’s representative’s notarised account is a separate party source: operation through 27 April 2017 and residual management through 31 January 2018. The combined record requires act-specific proof; it establishes neither “total abandonment” nor that CEXP was judicially operator in 2018.

Source access: the control copy of Order 804/2018 remains in private custody. An anonymous public copy has not been verified; any redacted public copy remains subject to privacy, provenance and integrity review.

Forced error, not a proved bank instruction: Gil Marer and Monterecco’s then representative describe Monterecco’s introduction as an emergency restructuring and possible forced error in the practical sense, amid maturities, enforcement, auction risk, lack of cash and fractured governance. The record establishes the bind and a deliberate reduction from 220 to 159 units; it does not establish that Bankia or Garrigues directed Monterecco’s incorporation. This is an attributed causal assessment, not an adjudicated fact.

Gil’s controlling clarification · 22 August 2026: Gil states the asserted authority chain as owners → Owners’ Community acting lawfully → CEXP as operator. In this formulation, “all owners” identifies the universe entitled to participate through the collective organ; it does not rewrite the located 74.90% vote as unanimous assent. Gil recalls Garrigues recommending the Monterecco route under that pressure, says he came to regard the advice as wrong very soon, and now advances the primary position that the 6-February-2012 LPB–Monterecco contract was wholly void ab initio because LPB alone could not bypass or recreate that CEXP mandate for unitary hotel operation. He asks that Garrigues be called as a witness and records custodian. This is Gil’s recollection and unadjudicated legal position, not verified professional advice or acceptance by the firm. The exact organ, quorum, majority, affected rights and authority remain evidentiary questions. The contrary case remains visible: the 1-February CEXP–Monterecco notice, LPB’s own-unit rights, the contract’s severability clause, real 159-unit/477-bed operation/registration and adverse rulings. The first verified Garrigues activity is 28 March 2012, after the 1/6-February instruments; the earlier chronology bridge remains open, and confidential material requires legal review. Read Declaration 009.

Latest 360° control: Declaration 010 preserves Gil pressure account as a limited, unproved causal explanation—not incapacity or legal coercion—and records that personal responsibility does not appoint him to Pink. The whole-nullity theory remains open; the 2015 judgment, preclusion, severability and reciprocal restitution are explicit obstacles. The official 2019 NIF revocation is not extinction and requires current AEAT/Registry certification before any administrator change. Declaration 010 · 360° audit.

Three controls must be read together: (1) CEXP’s 26 May 2008 statutes; (2) the located Owners’ Community–CEXP agreement allocating exploitation, integrated maintenance and functions affecting common areas; and (3) the Canary Islands unitary-exploitation framework. Articles 38–39 of Law 7/1995, as amended by Law 5/1999, required one operator and a prior, documented enabling title issued by the owners. Decree 142/2010 defined the accommodation establishment as a functional and commercial unit operated by one company and required the enabling title and later changes to be placed before the tourism administration.

Finite production demand: anyone maintaining that Monterecco/Pink succeeded, limited or displaced CEXP should identify the competent authorising resolution, the participating owners and coefficients, the units and common areas covered, the duration, the tourism filing, and any instrument terminating or revoking CEXP. Factual operation and a 159-unit administrative position do not answer those questions by themselves.

Cabildo · tourismRecords administrative holder/operator status, units, beds and classification. It does not manufacture private title or a universal owners’ mandate.

Yaiza · municipalityHandles licences, activity, works and enforcement. It likewise does not determine CEXP succession, property-by-property consent or common-area scope by itself.

Fifteen named profiles · separated sources

Lawyers, administrators and companies connected by act and date.

The new package distinguishes official links, appearances in minutes, an attributed witness account and relationships that remain unproved.

PeopleÁlvaro Campanario Hernández · Juan Carlos Prieto Puente · Esteban López Noriega · Antonio Cogolludo Rojas · Shaila María Cogolludo Ramos · Francisco Mario Matos Matas · Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte · Asunción Aizpurúa Sánchez

EntitiesMillan and Miners, S.L.P. · Pamanil, S.L. · Pamalexsha Servicios Integrales, S.L. · Explotaciones Noalpa, S.L. · Santa Lucia Real Estate, S.L. · Montelanza / MONTE LANZA · Inversiones Salinetas, S.L.

Reconciled Declaration 011 Full named register

People and entities

Who occupied each control point.

Roles come from minutes, emails and the transcript. Inclusion is not a criminal conclusion; it identifies questions of authority, custody, instructions, knowledge, payment and benefit.

Actor	Documented role	What must be produced or explained
Francisco Mario Matos Matas — FMMMAdministrator / secretary-administrator	Acting as administrator by 22 June 2011; reads voting and debt lists; appears in later minutes; joins the recorded June 2016 meeting; remains secretary-administrator and joint bank signatory in February 2022.	Appointment and contract, remuneration, records received, charge and arrears criteria, certificates, lawyer instructions, banking, security and all later economic links.
Pamanil, S.L.Claimed administration, maintenance and custody	The 22 June 2011 meeting ratified Pamanil for administration and maintenance, including record custody, accounting, certificates and claims. Observable notices, meetings, claims and Community-side payments/services exist. No primary evidence located in the present review proves that Pamanil itself supplied the integrated hotel workforce, utilities, cleaning, pools, gardens and whole-site maintenance attributed to it.	Gil alleges that every proved Pamanil act was undertaken as an instrument of fraud or another economic offence through the relevant natural persons, principals or agents. That is a party allegation, not a criminal finding. Produce the full contract, officers, instructions, invoices, personnel, bank/tax records, work product and—for each act—falsity, knowledge, intent, reliance, effect, benefit/harm and the innocent alternative. Declaration 009.
Pamalexsha, S.L.Replacement or successor administrator	The 26 April 2016 minutes record the move from Pamanil to Pamalexsha while FMMM continued. Later records connect FMMM and persons in the Cogolludo orbit through Pamalexsha/AGM and Orion Rental SOCIMI’s asset-management structure. That later connection does not itself establish earlier coordination or intent.	Replacement resolution and contract, succession of files/personnel, invoices, beneficial ownership, AGM/Orion relationship and services to the Community and Acosta Matos perimeter.
Asunción Aizpurúa and Molina-family ownersPresidency and minority owners	The February 2011 election began the phase; in the recording their lawyer explains the family’s position and the evolution of operation, charges and debt.	Mandates, payments, instructions to FMMM/Pamanil, records obtained, claims and the basis for decisions while the majority owner was denied a vote.
Juan Carlos Prieto PuenteCommunity/Molina-side lawyer in 2016	The later derivative transcript attributes participation throughout the 10 June 2016 meeting to him and attributes discussion of the earlier operating structure, charges, costs, debt and insolvency administrator. Native-audio authentication and exact capacity remain open.	Retainer, exact client, communications with FMMM, the president and insolvency administrator, documents received and action after the economic presentation.
Antonio Cogolludo RojasPresident in 2017–2018	The June 2017 minutes record him as president; he chaired when security of up to €8,500 per month was authorised to control access. Later records describe an economic connection through Pamalexsha; they do not by themselves prove earlier coordination.	Title, appointment, instructions, security contract and payments, authorised access, affected units and later economic relationship.
Shaila Cogolludo RamosTreasurer and administrative work	Described Community functions and work for Pamalexsha; the 2017 minutes record her as treasurer and the located May 2018 copy presents a 0.385% entry as vote-qualified.	The 0.385% is source-recorded, not independently verified title/denominator arithmetic. Produce title, appointment, employment terms, functions, voting lists, banking, certificates, access and later business links.
José Daniel Acosta Matos / CAM companiesPartial owner, promoter and 2022 presidency	CAM companies voted in February 2022; JDAM chaired and the CAM project was approved while most attributed debt and levy remained allocated to LPB/Matkator.	Effective title on the voting date, conflicts and abstentions, allocation of cost, unit-by-unit authority, FMMM/Pamalexsha relationship and later use of the resolutions.
LPB insolvency administratorLPB representative and recipient of the controversy	The 2018 file records a request for a Community resolution in LPB’s name as majority holder; PwC says it spoke with him in 2016 but produced no report or email of that call.	What he received on cost, debt and operation; the approximately €611,000 calculation; Community instructions; protection of extra-insolvency units and his response to PwC’s analysis.

Professional engagement · 2015–2017

PwC knew the structural, cost and debt problem in 2016.

The archive evidences professional work for LPB, not a casual introduction. A key limit remains: the complete engagement letter defining client, scope, duties and closure has not yet been located.

Two separate meetings — they must not be conflated 26 April 2016 · Hotel Princesa Yaiza, Playa Blanca: the Community’s formal General Meeting; this produced the minutes, attendee list, proxies, recorded properties and voting result. 10 June 2016 · Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: a recorded working meeting. The derivative transcript attributes voices or participation to Carlos Saavedra and Miguel Hernández for PwC, one of Gil Marer’s legal advisers at the relevant time, Jonathan Simó, FMMM and Juan Carlos Prieto; authentication, attendance and exact capacity remain open. The Las Palmas recording is not the audio of the Princesa Yaiza General Meeting, and the two participant lists must not be merged. The later 11JUN2016 derivative label remains preserved as version history.

Documentary indication relevant to the alleged extra-insolvency criminal-law theory · minutes of 26 April 2016

The minutes connect named private owners, property outside the insolvency estate and three PwC professionals inside the same representation and voting mechanism.

The central evidence is personal and proprietary. The minutes record named holders of privately held apartments or units, identify each property and state who appeared for each person. That list must be read with the deeds and Land Registry records in the Matkator title chain: the minutes made fragmented ownership visible within the file and required any later representation of the complex as one LPB property to be checked.

MATKATOR 1–3 + THOMPSON UNIT — recorded holder, property and representative

MATKATOR 1 · bungalow 511 · Palacios chainMARIANO PALACIOS FERNÁNDEZREPRESENTED BY PATRICIA DOMÍNGUEZ, who also represented LPB
MATKATOR 2 · bungalow 507 · Juan Carlos Fernández Cox chainJUAN CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ COXREPRESENTED BY MIGUEL HERNÁNDEZ LORENZO · PwC
MATKATOR 3 · Local 1 · Víctor Fernández Cox chainVÍCTOR FERNÁNDEZ COXREPRESENTED BY ELENA SANTOS RAMOS · PwC
THOMPSON UNIT · bungalow 708 · registered property 8,557SIMON PETER THOMPSONREPRESENTED BY CARLOS SAAVEDRA RODRÍGUEZ · PwC

Label control: “Matkator 1–3” are editorial tracing labels for the three title-holder chains that the record connects to Matkator; they are not terms used in the minutes. The minutes themselves record the names, bungalow/local designations and representatives above. The later documentary record distinguishes Matkator acquisitions already formalised or paid for from the Thompson unit, whose purchase remained described as awaiting formalisation in the 9 July 2019 email. The Thompson unit is therefore displayed separately.

LPB represented, outside voting pool · 22 Jun 201175.671%Repository arithmetic from listed coefficient rows: seven vote-eligible entries total approximately 6.930%; neither figure is an express certified total.

Recorded eligible share · 26 Apr 201611.039%The 2016 minutes record this separate payment-current voting pool; it is not the 22-Jun-2011 figure.

Gil Marer’s public conclusion

Gil Marer relies on this named representation as an indication supporting his extra-insolvency criminal-law theory.

The continuity of named actors materially weakens an innocent-confusion explanation for those specific acts. The minutes evidence that separate ownership was presented within the team; each person’s actual knowledge and use must be established individually. The alleged later documentary, possessory, registry, hotel or financing integration of those units into an appearance of CAM ownership is the extra-insolvency property core Gil Marer asks authorities to investigate.

Criminal-law characterisation advanced by Gil Marer — an express theory, not a conviction

Section 15.2 of Spain’s Horizontal Property Act governs debt and voting; it transfers no private title. Named ownership, production of Community authority, transport of that authority into the insolvency and later exploitation of an appearance of ownership are advanced as a unitary patrimonial theory of possible criminal-law significance, pending judicial determination.

Possible fraud and procedural fraud: only if sufficient deception, error, a causal disposition or order, loss, benefit and intent are proved (Criminal Code art. 248 and art. 250.1.7).
Possible disloyal administration: requires identification of administered property, authority, knowing excess, causal loss and intent (art. 252).
Possible document offence, knowing use or participation: requires a specific record, statutory mode, authorship, knowledge and use. A disputed minute or invalid resolution is not enough by itself.
Alleged extra-insolvency dimension: every act of assertion, disposal, possession or operation without title must be proved property by property.

Criminal-law language applied: the dossier describes the alleged conduct as assertion, disposition or operation without title over property outside the insolvency estate. It forms part of the procedural-fraud, document-offence, disloyal-administration and participation theory Gil Marer asks authorities to investigate.

PwC · legal lead

Carlos Saavedra Rodríguez de Palacio

The recording identifies him as PwC Tenerife acting for LPB. He describes the task as checking what was paid, by whom and for whose account; questions why owner charges arose if the relevant costs were not then theirs; and identifies approximately €611,000 treated by the insolvency administrator as Community charges when the reviewed structure indicated that the operation had borne them.

PwC · team

Miguel Hernández Lorenzo

Coordinated analysis, meetings and the later call with the insolvency administrator. In September 2016 he confirmed in writing that PwC discussed the tour-operator/new-operation proposal with the administrator but created no detailed report and exchanged no emails with him.

PwC · legal team

Elena Santos Ramos and Alejandro Perera González

Were copied into the Community work, meeting with its lawyer/administrator, internal rules, challenge to the April 2016 resolutions and the Pamanil tax notice. Each person’s exact work must be delimited.

Economic adviser

Jonathan Simó Morales / CLS Consultoría

Prepared the 2008–2015 balance, invoice and payment analysis. He separated hotel costs from integrated maintenance and asked whether the Community had real debt where electricity, water and other costs had been paid by the operator.

Lawyer for Gil and Monterecco’s representative

Legal adviser at the relevant time

Attended and represented Gil Marer and Monterecco’s then representative. The adviser’s identity remains in the private evidence corpus; the role should be tested against the contemporaneous correspondence and any later action.

Control document

What was retained and how did it end?

Emails, meetings, legal work, a PwC invoice and the economic analysis evidence an engagement. The retainer, deliverables, final advice, closure, transferred file and conflict review remain to be identified.

10 June 2016 recording: what it records and what remains open.

The stated duration is 144 minutes; the 149-page derivative transcript was produced on 17 March 2021 and later labelled 11JUN2016. Contemporary scheduling, the same-night “today’s meeting” email and original AMR filenames control the occurrence date as 10 June. The transcript must be compared with the native audio; authentication, voices, attendance and capacity remain open, and later editorial comments are not participants’ words.

00:03–00:05Saavedra defines the documentary task; Simó explains the analysis beginning in 2008.
00:04–00:15The Operating Community’s maintenance/supply responsibility and the separation of hotel from common costs are explained.
00:15–00:16Participants ask whether real Community debt existed and why charges arose where the operation had borne costs.
00:56–00:58FMMM discusses the move from €171 to €22, administrator/lawyer cost and his view that the earlier amount was excessive.
01:00Saavedra identifies approximately €611,000 entered by the insolvency administrator as Community charges despite the cost structure just discussed.
01:21–01:32The exchange links operation, the administrator, insolvency, confused title, documents and proceedings that the speakers themselves say they do not fully know.

Later public chronology · proximity is not representation

From acting for LPB in 2016 to later sharing a public PwC forum with the Acosta Matos business successor.

The recording identifies Carlos Saavedra as a PwC professional acting for LPB. At the PwC Second Economic and Tax Forum reported in 2024, Saavedra gave the welcome as PwC Tax & Legal lead in the Canaries and José Acosta—presented as Acosta Matos CEO and Canarian Hospitality president—spoke about tourism.

Gil Marer’s reading: the sequence symbolises movement from the side questioning the Community mechanism in 2016 towards public normalisation of the business perimeter that later benefited from the project. Limit: sharing a public forum does not prove that Saavedra or PwC changed clients, advised Acosta Matos on Sun Park, knew later facts or adopted its position. A professional “switch of sides” requires a retainer, conflict record, invoice, communication or identifiable work. The clickable chronology requests that explanation; it does not invent it.

Public links: PwC Las Palmas, PwC Tenerife and Carlos Saavedra’s official profile. Preserved private sources: 2015–2017 emails, invoice and engagement chain, expense analysis, 2016 notice/minutes, original AMR files dated 10 June and the later transcript labelled 11JUN2016.

From internal body to external passport

How unverified authority propagates.

The thesis does not rest on one meeting. It concerns re-use of the same documentary output in different decisions without rechecking its provenance.

Effect chain

Every recipient has an independent verification duty.

A later order or licence cannot automatically cure an earlier defect.

01Charge and debtBudget, service, invoice, payer and unit allocation.
02Vote and officeWho could vote, appoint, certify, litigate and bank.
03InsolvencyWhat the administrator/court accepted about LPB, third parties and assets.
04Possession and worksWhich units could be entered, closed, demolished or refurbished.
05Tourism and licencesWhat Community, title or consent was shown to Yaiza/Cabildo.
06Private/public capitalWhat reached RIC, investors, AEAT, FEDER and incentive files.

Documentary factMinutes and emails establish roles, figures, votes, requests and document circulation. The recording establishes what participants said if authenticated against the original.

Allegation awaiting determinationGil Marer alleges deliberate instrumentalisation to displace property and construct legitimacy for the Acosta Matos perimeter. No final criminal judgment has yet found that concert.

Closing evidence

Documents that can confirm, correct or refute the thesis.

The page is designed for verifiable contradiction; a substantive response will receive equal visual prominence.

Package	Required contents	Question answered
Community records 2008–present	Originals, notices, attendance, proxies, audio, annexes, signatures and corrections.	What was actually decided and who could decide.
Pamanil / Pamalexsha	Contracts, invoices, payroll, officers, accounts, files, tax and succession.	Who produced and held debt, votes, certificates and claims—and who was paid.
PwC / Carlos Saavedra	Retainer, scope, analysis, notes, final advice, AC call, closure, conflict and archive.	What they verified and communicated and why the AC conversation has no report.
Native 2016 audio	Native file, metadata, chain of custody and clean forensic transcript.	Authenticity, speakers, exact wording and separation from later annotations.
2008/2011 transfers	Deeds, LPB share SPA, financing, shareholder register and 220-unit map.	Whether fragmentation was deliberate, who designed it and which obligations remained.
Later propagation	Community documents used before the insolvency, Registry, Cadastre, Yaiza, Cabildo, RIC, AEAT, funds and investors.	Who relied on which representation and what independent check was performed.

Submit a correction or document Return to the unitary record

SEPARATE 2014 CRIMINAL FILE · CLAIMED-OFFICE / ACCESS TEST

3205/2014^ documents a method-and-continuity lead, not lawful Community authority.

The complaint records source-reported/claimed president and administrator titles, unspecified work, entry, unit inspection and a key dispute. Gil directly alleges that Aizpurúa and FMMM had no legitimate office or mandate and that the titles were part of criminal Community-organ hijacking/holding out from 2011. A 7-Oct-2014 email proves that counter-allegation was preserved contemporaneously; it does not prove it true. The event can be tested as a seed/mid-chain lead toward 7 June 2018, but does not prove a common plan, false complaint, shadow administration, guilt or outcome.

Procedural perimeter: FMMM is one of the five named in NEXUS 36 / DP 1901. Aizpurúa is not one of those five; Gil presently treats her as a material historical witness and possible future additional party, subject to objective indications and full defence rights.

Open the full bilingual record →Declaration 019 →

Sun Park / MYND Yaiza — site and canonical record

Hotel / physical site: Sun Park · MYND Yaiza — PD-SP-O-0042.
Calle Janubio 3, Playa Blanca, Lanzarote 35580, Spain. This identifies the establishment and site, not a corporate owner or determination of title. Canonical address and source variants · Actors, proceedings and evidence.

MASTER MYND · photographs, attributed accounts and chronology