Project Sun RockRecovery record

Chronological dossier · updated 31 August 2026

Minutes 2011–2022: how authority was produced and circulated

Sun Park functioned physically as a hotel across divided properties; the operator’s identity, title and perimeter changed or were disputed over time. This page reconstructs how debt, removal of voting rights, offices, custody, certificates, litigation, security and works appear connected in the records—and how those records reached Insolvency 36/2012, other courts and the Acosta Matos project.

Understand it in 90 secondsOpen texts, editions and source-image statusOpen the chronologySee the criminal / investigative element testBack to the Community dossier7 June 20186 April 2022 AEAT diligence

Executive summary · approximate reading time: 90 seconds

The question is not only whether meetings were irregular, but whether apparent authority was knowingly used to shift control and value.

Order of analysis: conduct, actor, knowledge, document, use, effect and benefit/harm first; then, in parallel, horizontal-property law, insolvency law, title, operation and the other rules that determine whether authority existed.

The documented sequence requiring investigationIn 2011 the debt → vote → administration/document mechanism appears. In 2016 the record shows incomplete accounts, a retrospective fee reduction, recalculated balances and the Insolvency Administrator’s actual knowledge of the authority, debt, voting and possible criminal-law allegation. The 18 May 2018 minutes list a single 0.385% entry as vote-eligible under their filter; on 7 June the record describes a broken lock, chains, changed cylinders and exclusion of the on-site caretaker/manager, with no located order delivering the whole hotel to CAM. On 4 February 2022, 20.993% present approved the Acosta Matos project, unitary operation and more than €4.46m attributed to LPB as debt and levy, 17 days before the 21 February deed documented in the insolvency chain.
The funded exit and the boundary of the conclusionIn parallel, a developed exit architecture existed around ONA Hotels, with an operator, advisers, external financing and staged security. Gil Marer/Aweswell attribute its failure entirely to the 7 June material-control event and the later absence of effective judicial protection. The documents support that the route was developed, while the condition-by-condition file, final facility and drawdown still require closure. The prosecutorial question is whether debt, minutes, access, insolvency decisions, later title and finance were knowingly connected to transfer control, cost or value; who performed each act; and what decision caused what result. No criminal judgment establishing that plan or these actors’ guilt has been located.

Alleged documentary engine

The unitary chain to prove or disprove.

A chronological arrow does not by itself establish dependency, knowledge or concert.

  1. 01Disputed debtWho calculated it, from which accounts and against whom.
  2. 02Voting exclusionWhether LPB’s exclusion was lawful and decisive.
  3. 03Office and recordsOffices, books, bank, certificates and litigation.
  4. 04Insolvency useWhat each professional or authority received and verified.
  5. 05Access and controlSecurity, keys, possession, operation and exact perimeter.
  6. 06Title, works and valueAdjudication, levies, finance and later benefit.
Insolvency Administrator · separate lane

Knowledge is not participation

The 2016 notice and knowledge of the 7 June allegations by 8 June are documented. What he then verified, protected, instructed, filed, accounted for and communicated must be reconstructed. No takeover-specific insolvency filing authored by him has been located in the controlled corpus; “not located” does not mean “did not exist”. Open the Administrator file →

Judge · order by order

Separate supervision and visible counterweights

Magistrate Alberto López Villarrubia’s conduct is tested through each signed act, competence, knowledge, legal basis, effect and subjective element. The 26 June 2018 suspension, 24 October 2019 non-validation and reasoned 24 February 2021 decision are counterweights inconsistent with a theory of uniform collaboration; they do not by themselves close every other link. Open the judicial matrix →

Two decisive insolvency controls

Authority before arithmetic

20 January 2017 demonstrates that formal machinery existed to modify definitive texts. On 8 February 2018 the creditor changed, not the €9,052,251.69 recognised credit. On 4 June, €13,165,832.36 was accepted for liquidation/payment calculation, but the order has not been demonstrated to be a formal definitive-text amendment; the later amount-increase bridge remains unlocated.

Counter-record that travels with the allegationThe incoming 2012 team accepts that its own early Community/maintenance-type charging method was incorrect; the 1 February 2012 CEXP–Monterecco communication, AP 89/2014 and AP 804/2018 are adverse to absolute theories about cession, operation and possession; later title and financing do not by themselves prove an earlier offence or the complicity of a later actor.
Arrecife ↔ Mercantile responseWE KNOW A RESPONSE EXISTED. WE DO NOT YET HAVE ITS CONTENT. On 11 June 2018 Arrecife received Commercial Court No. 1’s response to its pre-7-June request and joined it on 13 June. It cannot be inferred that the response addressed the later takeover, and its annexes must not be invented.
Verify against the minutesUnitary criminal mapACTA document room7 June 2018ONA exitTitle and financeDecisive evidence still missing

The issue in this case—not a residential abstraction

A Community office was not title to the hotel.

Horizontal division did not turn Sun Park into a residential complex or erase its hotel reality. At the same time, the hotel’s economic unity did not erase private titles or merge the Owners’ Community, the Comunidad de Explotación del Complejo Sun Park (CEXP), LPB and the insolvency estate.

PlanePossible authorityBoundary requiring another title
Privately owned unitThe registered owner could decide within the law, constitutive title and statutes.That title did not expand to LPB, Matkator or third-party properties.
Owners’ CommunityOrgans and valid resolutions concerning common elements, services, budgets and common affairs.Community minutes did not by themselves confer possession, hotel operation, disposal or universal representation.
CEXPThe organisational, contractual and business layer of operation under its own instruments and owner participation.The 2011 termination concerned maintenance and did not itself decide tourism title. The 1 February 2012 CEXP–Monterecco cession exists; authority and scope remain to be proved.
LPB / insolvency estateThe insolvency reached LPB’s property and rights and subjected its patrimonial powers to the applicable insolvency regime.It did not sweep in non-estate properties or any surviving rights of CEXP or third parties merely by association.
Court and insolvency administratorJudicial supervision and patrimonial administration/representation of LPB within their competences.Authority over LPB assets was not a CAM possession order or authority over all Sun Park.
Adverse evidence disclosedThe 2008 records show voluntary participation; the 1 February 2012 notice names Monterecco as new operator; Monterecco/Pink obtained registration for 159 units and genuinely operated; AP 89/2014 found possession/operation over claimant properties, receipt of keys from CEXP and applied veil-piercing; and AP 804/2018 was adverse to CEXP’s asserted possession in 2018. The 2011 resolutions were not set aside then.
Why it does not resolve the authority jumpThose facts defeat “no cession,” “Pink never operated” and “CEXP indisputably remained operator.” They do not establish competent CEXP-body authority or scope across every owner, third-party property or common element.

Reading framework: Articles 3, 13–15, 18 and 24 of the Horizontal Property Act separate private property, common elements, organs, voting and Community scope. Articles 38–39 of Canary Islands Law 7/1995, as amended by Law 5/1999, require a single operator and a documentary enabling title granted by the owners; operational unity does not manufacture that title.

Community book, notices and linked meetings

Chronology 2011–2022, with absences and contradictions visible.

“Minutes” is reserved for a record attributed to a meeting. A notice does not prove that a meeting occurred; an email or court order does not become minutes; and CEXP remains separate from the Owners’ Community.

Date and sourceActors and recorded decisionEvidential reading and limit
Primary minutes2 February 2011 · Owners’ CommunityAsunción Aizpurúa Sánchez—administrator of owner Roque Prieto, S.L.—is elected president; Ana Jiménez Lort, secretary; Cristina Molina Petit, treasurer. Hiring an administrator and granting powers are authorised. The minutes themselves decline to decide closure/continuation of operation and the tourism licence because they fall outside the Community.Threshold document. It contemporaneously recognises the boundary between common governance and hotel operation. Francisco Mario Matos Matas is not yet named in these minutes.
Matrix minutes22 June 2011 · Owners’ CommunityFrancisco Mario Matos Matas (“FMMM”) acts as administrator; Aizpurúa chairs. Repository arithmetic from the located 16-page copy totals approximately 75.671% for LPB and 6.930% for the seven listed vote-eligible entries; those are not certified totals expressly stated in the minutes. Those allowed to vote ratify debt, claims and lawyers, termination of CEXP maintenance, and Pamanil for maintenance/administration.The earliest located joining of debt → voting exclusion → administrator/record control → litigation. LPB recorded objections. The control copy is digitised with page-sequenced OCR, text-edition PDF, redacted source facsimile and source images; manual line certification, official book and variant reconciliation remain open. Open package →
Bilateral notice1 February 2012 · CEXP–MontereccoA document signed and stamped by representatives of CEXP and Monterecco says Monterecco acquired title to the activity, CEXP’s activity was subrogated from that date and counterparties should transfer contracts and payments to the new operator.Proves a purported cession and defeats any non-existence theory. No competent CEXP-body resolution or complete chain has been located establishing scope across all owners or common elements. Later tourism registration covered 159 units/477 beds.
ACTA located and digitised10 August 2012A native four-page DOCX ACTA was located in three email chains, together with notice, proxy, communications and a related statement/speech. The ACTA records that no resolution was put to a vote.The statement and proxy are separate records. The president statement and objection announced as annexes remain unlocated; the copy is not presented as the official book or certified transcription. Open package →
No meeting minutes located2013Notarial demands for the Community books and records exist.They prove a custody/access dispute, not a 2013 meeting or resolution.
Contested notarial minutes10 April 2014 · Owners’ CommunityLPB/Gil convenes a competing governance meeting with 75.991% attendance and 73.361% vote-qualified share after several attendees leave. Accounts, budget, offices and recovery actions are approved.The notary’s public faith did not extend to the intrinsic truth of statements. Gil’s appointment was later suspended on an interim basis in P.O. 562/2014; this is not presented as finally validated authority.
Two separate records28 August 2014 · Community and CEXPThe LPB-controlled owners’ meeting approves tourism use, enabling instruments, a refurbishment study and claims. In a separate record, attending members appoint Gil president of CEXP.The documentary separation matters. The CEXP minutes do not prove rescission or reversal of the 2012 cession, return of contracts/guests/revenue, or effective CEXP operation or possession.
Primary minutes19 November 2015 · Owners’ CommunityApproximately 89.02% is recorded present/represented, but only Roque Prieto and Cristina Molina Petit—0.770%—are listed with votes. Aizpurúa chairs; FMMM administers; Antonio Cogolludo represents Cristina Molina. Total alleged debt of €3,641,456.50 is reported and a retroactive fee reduction is proposed.Attendance and voting power are radically separated. The exact attendance hundredth must be checked against the signed original. The acknowledgement that the former fee was excessive requires reconstruction of every balance before using it to remove voting rights or certify debt.
Primary minutes26 April 2016 · Owners’ Community89.727% is present/represented and only 11.039% is listed with a vote. Aizpurúa remains president; FMMM administers; Cristina Molina is treasurer; Antonio Cogolludo represents Inversiones Salinetas. The 2010–2015 accounts are not approved because the complete records are unavailable; even so, the fee is retrospectively reduced from €171.89 to €22.26, balances are recalculated and certificates/claims authorised. Pamalexsha succeeds or replaces Pamanil while FMMM continues.Central tension: incomplete archive and reconstructed property/voting effects at the same time. The located 24-page source/text set is not yet reconciled with a separately recorded 77-page master. Open package status →
NOT AN ACTA · separate working meeting11 June 2016 · Las PalmasRecorded working meeting with PwC professionals, LPB advisers, FMMM and Community counsel. It addresses operation, expenses, fees, debt, records and the amount placed in the insolvency.It is not an Owners’ Community or CEXP ACTA and it is not the audio of the 26 April meeting. Its relevance is knowledge and technical testing; the transcript must be checked against the native audio. Open the separate meeting index →
CEXP minutes7 April 2017 · CEXPLPB, Matkator and Thompson attend through Gil and renew his CEXP presidency until April 2020.Supports documentary organisational continuity, not by itself recovery of the ceded activity, effective operation, possession, reservations, common-area authority or rights against non-participants.
Primary minutes located12 June 2017 · Owners’ Community87.098% present/represented; only 6.545% listed with voting rights. Antonio Cogolludo Rojas is elected president, Shaila Cogolludo Ramos treasurer and FMMM secretary-administrator; Pamalexsha/FMMM continues. Budget, fees, certificates, claims and bank powers are approved. Total stated balance is €1,232,506.07; LPB is attributed €973,569.24.Completes the named relay before 2018. A later professional email said the arrears report had not been voted as such; final minutes, audio, annexes and certificates must be reconciled.
Primary minutes located18 May 2018 · Owners’ CommunityAntonio Cogolludo chairs; FMMM is secretary-administrator; Shaila Cogolludo, treasurer. The located copy records 86.715% represented, including LPB 72.976% and CAM 13.034%, and presents 0.385% as vote-qualified. At the administrator’s request on LPB’s behalf, the president is authorised to hire security up to €8,500/month to control access and preserve common/private areas.The 0.385% is reported as a source-recorded figure, not independently verified ownership arithmetic; title, proxies and denominator still require finca-by-finca reconciliation. On its face the minute does not transfer possession to CAM, order removal of guests/staff or authorise works in another owner’s property. Open package status →
Minutes digitised5 July 2018 · Owners’ CommunityThe located nine-page control copy is digitised with page-sequenced OCR, text-edition PDF, redacted source facsimile and source images. It concerns access incidents, supplies, common areas/pools, DP 1132/2018 and voting exclusion.A distinct binary variant is visually equivalent. Manual line certification, official book/audio, annexes and implementation remain open; OCR is not used to assert a different resolution without comparison.
Later recital only20 November 2018The 4 February 2022 minutes say that a November 2018 meeting agreed to continue studying comprehensive refurbishment and budgets.The alleged 2018 minutes have not been isolated. The 2022 recital proves that history was invoked then, not the original content, attendees or vote.
No Community minutes located2019No 2019 meeting notice or minutes were found. The Court did, on 24 October, refuse to validate the 28 November 2018 deed separating and selling 31 LPB properties without prior judicial authority.The order is a judicial act, not Community minutes, and is contrary evidence to a theory of complete judicial validation. Registry, restitution, fruits and credit treatment remain to be reconciled.
No Community minutes located2020–2021No meeting minutes were located. Works/investment plans, public CAM/RIC representations, insolvency warnings and the 24 February 2021 order—which left estate preservation to the administrator and refused inspection/expert evidence in that procedural setting—do exist.Those events belong in corporate, investor and judicial lanes. They cannot be used as retrospective minutes or evidence of Community consent.
Primary minutes4 February 2022 · Owners’ Community20.993% attends: Construcciones Acos-Matos, S.L.; Proyectos Acosta Matos, S.L.; Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A.; Greenwood; and Manuel Molina. José Daniel Acosta Matos chairs; Laura Patricia Acosta Matos represents Construcciones Acosta Matos; FMMM/Pamalexsha acts as secretary-administrator and shares bank authority. The sole CAM/JDAM project, licences, unified operation and an approximately €4.468m levy are approved; LPB is attributed €1,199,729.12 debt and €3,260,416.81 levy.Concentrates chair, design, contractor/developer, bank, debt and the interests of the project’s potential beneficiary side. The exact project budget differs across minute/annex extractions and requires reconciliation; any realised benefit requires accounting proof. Concentration is a conflict/authority alarm, not a conviction by itself.
End of located recordAfter 4 February 2022No later primary minutes have been located. The LPB award, segregation into HNT, RIC financing, incentive and MYND operation belong to other instruments.Absence from the reviewed record does not prove non-existence. The complete book, audio, notices, proxies, annexes and corrections through the present are requested.

Publication control: located filenames and repository hashes identify copies received; they do not establish an official certified original or an uninterrupted forensic chain of custody. The ACTA document room reports text, PDF, page-image and variant status record by record. A package remains partial whenever the diligenced book, a recorded source variant, annexes or service cannot be reconciled.

Named and functional continuity

Who occupied each point in the chain.

Continuity may be relevant when assessing an innocent-confusion explanation, but only for facts each person is proved to have known; it does not replace individual proof of instruction, benefit and intent.

ActorRecorded functionClosing records required
Francisco Mario Matos Matas—FMMMAdministrator / secretary-administratorAdministrator by June 2011; reads debt and voting lists; custody/document production through 2015–2018; continuity through Pamanil/Pamalexsha; secretary-administrator and bank authority in 2022.Appointments, contracts, remuneration, archives, accounts, certificates, instructions, banking, security, Pamanil→Pamalexsha relationship and third-party services.
Asunción Aizpurúa / Cristina Molina PetitInitial presidency and treasuryThe phase starts in 2011; Cristina is represented by Antonio Cogolludo in later meetings. The presidency terminates CEXP maintenance and advances the first claims.Powers, title, instructions, books, payments, decisions taken while LPB could not vote, and communications with the administrator, lawyers and insolvency administrator.
Antonio Cogolludo RojasRepresentative; president 2017–2018Represents property interests in earlier minutes; elected president in June 2017; chairs the May 2018 security authority and the July notice.Current title and power, security contract/instructions, access, payments, communications and property-by-property scope.
Shaila Cogolludo RamosTreasurer; linked administrative workRecorded in 2017–2018 as an owner/representative with voting rights and treasurer; preserved statements link her employment to Pamalexsha.Title, powers, employment, accounting/bank functions, voting, certificates and access.
José Daniel Acosta Matos—JDAMChair, architect and 2022 projectChairs the 4 February 2022 meeting and appears as author of the project presented and approved by entities in the Acosta Matos perimeter.Title at notice/vote date, conflict and abstention, retainer/fees, permits, affected units, finance and benefit.
Laura Patricia Acosta MatosCAM representativeRepresents Construcciones Acosta Matos in the relevant minutes; appears in the June 2018 physical-control record and at the 2022 meeting.Power, instructions, units, relationship with security/contractors, communications and actual scope of intervention.
Pamanil / PamalexshaMaintenance, administration and custodyPamanil is ratified in 2011; in 2016 the structure shifts to Pamalexsha while FMMM continues; Pamalexsha remains through the 2022 convergence.Contractual/corporate succession, staff, invoices, banking, tax, books and beneficial owners.
LPB insolvency administratorPatrimonial representative of LPBReceived notice of the threat to hotel operation in 2015 and the authority/debt controversy in 2016; analysed a package in July 2016; requested the 2018 security meeting and acknowledged access authority.Complete receipt/analysis file, credit calculation, instructions, voting checks, inventory, preservation and communications to the Court.
Alberto López VillarrubiaMagistrate-Judge of the then Commercial Court No. 1 of Las Palmas de Gran CanariaSigned supervision, protection, liquidation, non-validation, works/condition and adjudication acts that remain distinct from the Insolvency Administrator’s and private actors’ conduct.Certified docket, material actually received before each decision, reasoning, contradiction/review, finality, implementation, counterweights and the specific subjective element if a criminal hypothesis is advanced.

Name precision: the minutes use Antonio Cogolludo Rojas and Shaila Cogolludo Ramos. Family or personal relationships described in party emails are not used here as a substitute for civil or corporate proof. Acosta Matos company names vary between the minutes and annexes and should remain as recorded in each instrument.

Actual knowledge of the insolvency administrator

By 2016 the dispute could no longer be treated as unknown.

The evidence supports receipt and discussion of the allegation’s core. It does not automatically turn notice into acceptance of its legal correctness or criminal intent.

  • 12 July · version described as a burofaxGil Marer states that he sent it personally after LPB’s then insolvency counsel declined to adopt it. No independent Correos acceptance or delivery certificate for that exact version has been located.
  • 21–27 July · package receivedCounsel sent four files to the administrator. On 27 July he replied “after analysing the documents received”, rejected the Community criminal-law theory and addressed a possible civil challenge.
  • 11 August · direct personal noticeGil emailed a signed letter and the 26 April minutes to the administrator’s professional address. It alleged absent authority, manufactured debt, indications of crime and requested insolvency-administration action.
  • 15 September · receipt confirmedThe administrator quoted the message, referred to “what was discussed at today’s meeting”, proposed awaiting a possible agreement with the board, and requested updates on the personal complaint.
Documented bottleneckThe first lawyer declined to send as his own a client-prepared draft; exercising LPB claims also depended on the insolvency allocation of powers and the administrator’s authority/action. Gil Marer interprets that sequence and later delay as functional blockage of LPB’s voice.
Limit of the inferenceProfessional refusal, insolvency dependence and a convergent outcome do not by themselves prove a secret instruction or improper influence by the administrator over that lawyer. Communications, mandate, conflict or direct benefit would be required.

Three lanes that must not be collapsed

Community, insolvency administrator and judge: distinct acts, connected outcome.

A unitary theory still requires individual attribution. The administrator administered or represented LPB’s estate; the judge supervised the insolvency. Neither thereby becomes a participant in every private act—or falls outside scrutiny of their own acts and omissions.

Administrator · documented affirmative contribution

Notice, voting and access

The administrator received the dispute in 2016. In 2018 he acted for LPB to request security and later testified that he authorised access to LPB premises for maintenance, accepting lock-breaking when required within that mandate. The question is whether he verified the voting basis, identified each unit and prevented that authority becoming broader hotel control.

AP 804/2018 · adverse evidence

Provisional coercion dismissal

The Provincial Court affirmed dismissal, treated the dispute as predominantly civil and relied on the administrator’s account/authority. It treated Pink’s formal possession as delivered on 22 May 2017 and was adverse to the criminally protectable possession asserted by CEXP. Its conditional wording that Pink “would already have abandoned” compressed an email whose original distinguishes the end of new commercialisation from services, supplies, maintenance, preservation and transition. The Order contains 2017/2018 and 2012/2013 inconsistencies. It did not adjudicate civil/tourism title or give CAM all Sun Park, but neither did it recognise CEXP as operator in 2018.

24 October 2019 · judicial control

Non-validation

The Court described its 26 June 2018 pronouncements as erroneous, recorded the absence of prior judicial authority and refused to validate the separation/sale of 31 LPB properties. This is contrary evidence to a theory of uniform judicial cooperation and requires following the operation through Registry, restitution and accounts.

24 February 2021 · supervisory decision

Knowledge and no inspection

The order recorded the positions on works and units, rejected inspection/expert evidence in that procedural setting and left estate preservation to the administrator, noting a potential liability route. It proves knowledge and a reasoned decision; it does not prove clandestine agreement or criminal intent.

Production-and-propagation theory

Not a pile of anomalies—a testable chain.

Every arrow requires an author, record, date, knowledge, competence, effect and benefit.

  1. 01DebtFees, services and balances produced inside the structure.
  2. 02VotingLPB attends but is excluded from decision-making.
  3. 03Organs and archiveThe remaining voters ratify office, custody, banking and litigation.
  4. 04CertificateThe resulting record circulates as authority of “the Community”.
  5. 05Access and controlLimited authority is invoked in material control of the hotel.
  6. 06Works and valueThe later project combines cost, title, finance and operation.

Functional law: during the relevant period the 2003 Insolvency Act governed diligence, supervision, liability, removal, patrimonial powers, preservation and continuation in Articles 35–37, 40, 43–44 and 54. From September 2020 the Consolidated Insolvency Act maintains duties of diligence, independence, supervision, liability and removal. Those provisions define duties and competence; they do not themselves prove agreement or intent.

Attributed investigative hypothesis · no competent criminal finding

Facts, actor, knowledge, use and reliance come before offence labels.

The records justify an investigative test, not an offence-first conclusion. For each event the page must identify the actor, authority, contemporaneous knowledge, contrary notice, document or omission, recipient, reliance, benefit/harm and strongest lawful explanation before considering any possible criminal characterisation.

Event / conversionWhat the current record establishesKnowledge / use / reliance to testStrongest lawful alternativeStatus
22 Jun 2011 · debt → voting → office/custodyLPB appeared with a large percentage but was recorded without a vote because of attributed debt; administration, custody, claims and maintenance were concentrated within the same documentary architecture.Who calculated/certified the debt, who knew the title/vote basis, which later recipient relied on the resulting authority and what consequence followed.Valid Community debt, lawful voting restriction and properly appointed office-holders.Investigative / native package incomplete
26 Apr / 11 Jun 2016 · professional knowledge anchorThe controlled PwC source family records detailed discussion of private units, Community/exploitation distinctions, accounts, debt/voting, access and the insolvency, including direct interaction with FMMM.Any later mandate, actual file access, conflict/KYC checks, information barriers, work product, use or transmission involving the same Sun Park asset.Different later team/entity, no access or use, adequate information barriers, no causal role.Prior knowledge documented; later bridge open
18 May / 7 Jun 2018 · authority → security/access → material controlCommunity/security and AC-authorisation material supports a material access/control transition; AP 804/2018 upheld provisional dismissal and supplied an adverse civil/lawful explanation.Who instructed each lock/key/security act, exact finca/common-element perimeter, whether authority was exceeded and what later project benefit depended on the access.Lawful preservation, maintenance or security within LPB/common-element authority.Material control supported; criminal characterisation open
2020 · project representationSun Park was presented to investors before later formal LPB title events.Exact speaker/document, contemporaneous title knowledge, qualifications, recipient reliance and any corrective communication.Preliminary/project-stage language adequately qualified and later conditions properly satisfied.Documentary contradiction test
20/21 Jul 2021 · internal position → court useRICPE documented 54 CAM / 190 LPB / 18 third-party properties, conditional acquisition, unsigned LOI and incomplete DD; CAM filed that certification in Insolvency 36/2012 the next day.Who requested/approved external use, its procedural purpose, whether the IA/Court relied on it, and how the narrower position was reconciled before later re-entry.Accurate cautionary certification used for a legitimate procedural purpose and later superseded by independently verified facts.Two events verified; reliance/bridge open
2022–2023 · title/re-entry → Series F/G → public support → MYNDLater title, HNT/RICPE finance, a Regional Incentives award and ERDF identification are distinct later layers.Which asset/cost/invoice/job each layer used; whether Series F/G and administrative suitability covered the same or distinct phases; who independently verified title and use of funds.Lawful later title, distinct eligible costs, authorised finance and non-overlapping employment/support.Reconciliation required

Only after this matrix: possible offence categories are tested against event-specific elements and the law applicable at the date. Invalidity, inconsistency, institutional repetition or later benefit do not themselves establish falsity, deception, intent, participation or a concerted plan.

Candidate offence under examinationFacts supporting investigationProof still required
Fraud / procedural fraudArticles 248 and 250.1.7Alleged use of incomplete/false debt, voting, minutes, certificates, authority or title to produce patrimonial or judicial decisions.Exact false/concealed fact; author and knowledge; deceived recipient; error; causal disposition/order; loss and benefit. If the judge was deceived, the same inference cannot simultaneously call the judge a knowing participant without independent proof.
Disposition under non-existent authorityArticle 251.1Specific acts presenting as available an asset, use or right belonging to LPB, CEXP, Matkator or another owner.Exact asset/right, disposition, asserted authority, known absence of power, acquirer, consideration and damage.
Disloyal administrationArticle 252 from July 2015Possible knowing excess by persons administering Community or estate property, causing measurable loss and another’s advantage.Administered property, source/limit of power, intentional excess, act/omission, causal loss and benefit. Earlier acts are governed by the historical offence, not automatic retroactive application of Article 252.
Document offences and knowing useArticles 390, 392–396A specific minute, proxy, attendance, vote, debt, certificate or intervention alleged to be altered, simulated or falsely attributed, and its later circulation.Individual record; public/mercantile/private nature; statutory alteration; author; intent and knowing use. An invalid, partial or legally mistaken resolution is not thereby criminal falsification.
Coercion / arbitrary self-helpArticles 172 and 455Chains, locks, security and exclusion on 7 June 2018 if authority was exceeded and people or property outside the mandate were affected.Order and actor; victim; exact space/unit; force or intimidation; right actually held; excess; intent and damage. AP 804/2018 and the administrator’s authority are adverse evidence that must be confronted.
Insolvency offencesArticles 257 and 259–261, as datedUnjustified deterioration or disposition of estate/business value, undervalue sale, fictitious credit, materially false accounts or acts aimed at defeating creditors, if proved.Numbered statutory conduct, required subject, insolvency, date, value, economic justification, causation and intent/gross negligence. Article 261 is narrow and does not cover every later statement inside an insolvency.
Participation or commission by omissionArticles 11, 28 and 29Affirmative contribution or failure to act by a person with a specific duty and real ability to prevent the result.Principal offence, guarantor position, knowledge, intentional contribution, ability to prevent, causal equivalence and result. Notice, proximity or passivity alone is insufficient.
Judicial conductArticles 446–449Must be examined order by order only where knowing injustice, gross/inexcusable negligence, refusal or malicious delay is alleged.A text outside every reasonable legal interpretation, competence, subjective knowledge and causation. Error, insufficient supervision or a reversed order does not alone equal judicial misconduct.

Legal text: Spanish Criminal Code, current and historical versions. The date of each act determines the applicable offence and limitation period; a global label of “insolvency fraud” is no substitute for that analysis.

Later professional review · 2026

ICALPA 79 and 80 concern two distinct professional lanes.

Their existence proves registration and preliminary procedural activity—not the truth of the complaint, invalidity of resolutions, crime or a professional-breach finding.

  • DIP 79/2026 · 27 MayPreliminary information concerning the complaint about CAM-side professional presentation of acquisition, Community authority, creditor status and the known 2016/2018 dispute. The 10 June expansion is the complainant’s submission, not an ICALPA determination.
  • DIP 80/2026 · 27 MayPreliminary information concerning the complaint about the insolvency-administrator-side professional handling of verification, disclosure, action or omission in response to an allegedly fragmented account. The 10 June expansion is likewise not a College finding.

Evidence that can confirm, correct or refute

What must now be produced.

The publication is open to documentary contradiction. A verifiable response will receive the same visual prominence as the allegation.

PackageMinimum contentsQuestion resolved
Minutes book 2011–2022Diligenced original, notices, audio, attendees, titles, proxies, annexes, signatures, corrections and service.What was decided, who could vote and which text circulated.
Debt and accountsBudgets, invoices, statements, allocation, payments, duplication, challenges, deposits and property-by-property certificates.Whether the debt removing voting rights and conditioning the insolvency existed and was correctly calculated.
Pamanil/Pamalexsha and officesContracts, appointments, billing, payroll, banks, custody, succession and beneficial owners.Who produced, kept and used the records; who was paid.
Security and access 2018Contract, instructions, invoices, rota, reports, keys, locksmith, properties and administrator–Community–CAM communications.Whether an LPB preservation mandate was exceeded and by whom.
Insolvency 36/2012Certified docket, receipt of warnings, administrator reports, inventory, authorities, orders, appeals, deed, Registry and final accounts.What actually entered the estate, what each decision-maker knew and what effect followed.
2022 project and benefitMinutes/audio/annexes, title at date, permits, retainer, budgets, levy, payments, RIC, incentives, income and related-party dealings.Who bore cost, who received works/value and under what authority.
ICALPA 79/80Complete official College file and determination.Actual status, adversarial record and any real professional decision.
Open the ACTA document roomSubmit a correction or document2016 working-meeting indexSee the RIC dossier summary

Convener and perimeter map

Every meeting and ACTA has its own page.

Colour distinguishes the documentary phase, while each page separates convener, body, attribution, source, OCR, facsimile and interlinks. An adverse classification is Gil’s attributed position, not a finding of guilt.

B 2008-07-25 · 25 July 2008 · costs and operationProject · Multimatrix/LPB → Aweswell/LPB–Gil · open complete record →
B 2009-05-28 · 28 May 2009 · Owners' CommunityProject · Multimatrix/LPB → Aweswell/LPB–Gil · open complete record →
C1 2011-02-02 · 2 February 2011 · Community office changesAlleged adverse · AAS → FMMM/Cogolludo/Pamanil · open complete record →
C1 2011-06-22 · 22 June 2011 · debt, vote and administrationAlleged adverse · AAS → FMMM/Cogolludo/Pamanil · open complete record →
B 2012-08-10 · 10 August 2012 · contested LPB/Gil meetingProject · Multimatrix/LPB → Aweswell/LPB–Gil · open complete record →
B 2014-04-10 · 10 April 2014 · competing LPB/Gil meetingProject · Multimatrix/LPB → Aweswell/LPB–Gil · open complete record →
B 2014-08-28 · 28 August 2014 · Community under LPB chairProject · Multimatrix/LPB → Aweswell/LPB–Gil · open complete record →
B 2014-08-28 · 28 August 2014 · CEXP minutesProject · Multimatrix/LPB → Aweswell/LPB–Gil · open complete record →
C1 2015-11-19 · 19 November 2015 · Community/PamanilAlleged adverse · AAS → FMMM/Cogolludo/Pamanil · open complete record →
C1 2016-04-26 · 26 April 2016 · Community/PamanilAlleged adverse · AAS → FMMM/Cogolludo/Pamanil · open complete record →
B 2017-04-07 · 7 April 2017 · CEXP minutesProject · Multimatrix/LPB → Aweswell/LPB–Gil · open complete record →
C1 2017-06-12 · 12 June 2017 · Community/PamanilAlleged adverse · AAS → FMMM/Cogolludo/Pamanil · open complete record →
C2 2018-07-05 · 5 July 2018 · material control and litigationAlleged adverse · Acosta Matos/CAM · open complete record →
D-OPEN 2021-12-29 · 29 December 2021 · later-recited RICPE shareholders' meetingUnresolved · open complete record →
C2 2022-02-04 · 4 February 2022 · project and unitary operationAlleged adverse · Acosta Matos/CAM · open complete record →
D-MIXED 2022-03-11–2022-03-12 · 11/12 March 2022 · scheduled RICPE extraordinary shareholders' meetingMixed or contested · open complete record →