NIG 3802343220260002351
TF-CRI-003 / PD-SP-R-0003CANONICAL PROCEEDING · TF-CRI-003 · CAEPR PD-SP-R-0003
DP 748/2026 · filing record, subsidiary appeal processing and current status
A unitary, non-fragmented digest of the complaint against Cuatrecasas, its enlargements, reform and subsidiary appeal, the eight new documents, the June synthesis, the Fiscal report, the order served on 1 September 2026 and its controlled—non-merging—relationship with Cambiario 1048/2019 and ETJ 163/2020.
Provisional dismissal · subsidiary appeal processing verified 16 Sep · Fiscal five-day submissions · Audiencia roll unverified
Anti-conflation control. “748/2026” alone does not identify the matter. This record is locked by number + NIG + court + jurisdiction. It is not a Madrid proceeding.
18 September procedural update
The subsidiary appeal is now being processed at the origin court.
Appellate boundary. Article 766.4 processing is verified at the origin court. Remittal to the Audiencia Provincial, a separate roll, panel and outcome remain unverified.
Read the source-safe 16 September court text · Open the joint 16–18 September update
Executive digest
The clearest 90-second reading
The 4 February complaint advanced two central propositions: ETJ 163/2020 was said to have been pursued against Matkator even though Aweswell was alleged to be the true professional-services client/debtor, and enforcement was said to have continued over a registered unit after substantial physical transformation within MYND Yaiza. The 16 March enlargement expanded that theory through evidence concerning the hotel refurbishment, functional integration, physical/registry/cadastral divergence, a corporate transfer and public financing. After the 24 March provisional dismissal, the 17 April reform and subsidiary appeal added eight documents and identified dated notice and later enforcement acts. The Fiscal asked for partial allowance because the first order lacked reasons, but criticised the presentation as complex and demanded clearer facts. The 25 June filing responded with eight factual blocks and eight finite enquiries. The 16 July order accepted the original reasoning defect but maintained dismissal, saying the exact act, concrete properties and minimum criminal indicium were not sufficiently specified and treating much of the dispute as belonging in civil enforcement. The order is not final, expressly provides a five-day appeal from the last notification, and preserves reopening with further indicia.
Controlled procedural lineage
The relationship is documentary and functional, not a merger of jurisdictions. Cambiario 1048/2019 is the civil origin; ETJ 163/2020 contains the enforcement acts; DP 748/2026 asks whether independently investigable criminal conduct occurred in connection with that enforcement.
Source-controlled chronology ^
- 4 February 2026 · PD-DP748-FIL-001. Direct complaint against Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira, S.L.P. and any persons shown to be responsible. It identified ETJ 163/2020, a roughly 48 m² unit, alleged conversion into two hotel rooms, the Matkator/Aweswell issue, the 23 June 2025 MASC and specific requested enquiries.
- 11 February 2026 · PD-DP748-FIL-002. Urgent impulse filing later identified in the enlargement; complete public incorporation remains controlled.
- 16 March 2026 · PD-DP748-FIL-003. Enlargement: hotel integration, refurbishment from about 220 to 330 accommodation units, 2018–2022 transformation, official/corporate/commercial records, Intervención General, Concurso 36/2012, ETJ and passive-standing allegations.
- 24 March 2026 · PD-DP748-ACT-001. Auto 454/2026 ordered provisional dismissal and archive.
- 17 April 2026 · PD-DP748-FIL-004. Reform and subsidiary appeal filed through LexNET, relying on eight new documents and finite documentary/pericial enquiries.
- 20 May 2026 · PD-DP748-ACT-002. Providencia recorded the reform/subsidiary-appeal route and transferred the matter.
- 8 June 2026 · PD-DP748-MF-001. Fiscal report sought partial allowance for lack of concrete reasons while requiring clearer facts separated from disagreement with other proceedings.
- 15 June 2026 · PD-DP748-ACT-003. Diligencia de Ordenación joined the report and sent the file for decision.
- 25 June 2026 · PD-DP748-FIL-005. Synthesis: eight factual blocks, eight finite enquiries and express exclusion of any request for a third civil instance or substitution of administrative bodies.
- 26 June 2026 · PD-ETJ163-FIL-20260626. A civil reconsideration filing in ETJ 163/2020 sought suspension for criminal prejudiciality. It is not a DP 748 filing but is a documented cross-proceeding link.
- 16 July 2026 · PD-DP748-ACT-004. Reform partly allowed only as to lack of reasons; provisional dismissal and archive ratified.
- 1 September 2026 · PD-DP748-NOT-001. Signed order transmitted. It states the decision is not final and allows appeal within five days from the day after the last notification.
- 9 September 2026 · DP748-2026-GIL-20260909-IMPULSO-APELACION. The appellant filed an impulse of the already-lodged subsidiary appeal, Article 766.4 allegations ad cautelam and the 3 September ETJ opposition as a supervening document.
- 16 September 2026 · DP748-SRC-DIOR-APELACION-20260916. The LAJ joined the new filings and gave the Ministerio Fiscal five days for submissions on the subsidiary appeal. This verifies origin-court processing, not Audiencia remittal or a separate appellate roll.
What was filed and what it was intended to prove
| Control | Filing/source | Objective proposition invoked | Alleged act | Asset | Requested enquiry | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FIL-001 | Complaint · 4 Feb | Matkator/Aweswell client-debtor divergence; transformed registered unit; continued enforcement. | Cuatrecasas was alleged to have pursued enforcement/adjudication on a materially incomplete premise. | Matkator registered unit, described as an approximately 48 m² apartment and exploitation participation. | Complete ETJ record; Yaiza records; beneficiary identification; necessary checks. | SOURCE READ |
| FIL-003 | Enlargement · 16 Mar | Comprehensive refurbishment, MYND integration, registry/cadastral/physical divergence, corporate transfer and public financing. | Transformation/use by the CAM–HNT–Canarian Hospitality perimeter and alleged knowing later use in ETJ, all framed as matters to verify. | Matkator units within Sun Park/MYND Yaiza and the hotel as functional context. | Expert evidence and requests to municipal, cadastral, registry, tourism, financing and corporate sources. | SOURCE READ |
| FIL-004 | Reform + subsidiary appeal · 17 Apr | Lack of reasons, new indicia and dated notice/later-adjudication sequence. | Warnings dated 20 Sep and 8 Oct 2024 followed by a 21 Feb 2025 adjudication request, as alleged in the filing. | Properties/units auctioned; refurbishment, Catastro, tourism and economic-unit documents. | ETJ testimony, Yaiza requests and representative evidence if appropriate. | LEXNET VERIFIED |
| FIL-005 | Synthesis · 25 Jun | Eight factual blocks and explicit separation of criminal questions from civil/administrative review. | Debtor identity; physical divergence; transformation; Catastro; transfer; financing; prior knowledge; individualised reasons. | Matkator properties and their correspondence to physical hotel units. | Eight proportionate documentary enquiries, followed only if warranted by representative evidence. | SOURCE READ |
| MF-001 | Fiscal report · 8 Jun | Original order lacked reasons; presentation was complex and unclear. | No finding of liability and no endorsement of the allegations. | General reference to Las Palmas/Lanzarote assets. | Partial allowance as to reasons. | JUDICIAL SOURCE |
| ACT-004 | Order · 16 Jul | Provisional dismissal maintained; criminal route not a general ETJ review. | Exact act, concrete properties and minimum criminal indicium held insufficiently particularised. | No property-by-property adjudication. | Appeal and potential reopening preserved. | SIGNED PRIMARY |
The eight new documents filed with the 17 April appeal
Evidential boundary. Refurbishment, financing, tourism registration or administrative records do not by themselves prove deception, knowledge or criminal intent. Their stated purpose was to enable objective verification of the properties’ physical and formal correspondence.
What the 16 July order actually decided
The decision does not make a final finding that no offence could exist; it holds that the presentation before it did not sufficiently justify continuing the investigation.
Critical cross-check: stated deficiencies versus the filed record
| Judicial deficiency | Material already pointing the other way | What remained genuinely incomplete | Appeal question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exact act | The appeal identified 20/09/2024 and 08/10/2024 notices and a later 21/02/2025 adjudication request; the synthesis made prior knowledge/later conduct factual block 7. | No single primary-source chart tied every signed filing, exact proposition, signatory/capacity and judicial treatment together. | Whether that chronology already crossed the minimum threshold or whether more particularisation could properly be required before even documentary enquiries. |
| Concrete property | The complaint/enlargement identified Matkator units within Sun Park/MYND; the annexes included Catastro, project and tourism records. The related register identifies fincas 8584 and 8588, with the auction focused on 8584. | No single certified expert overlay connected each registry finca to the original apartment and present hotel room(s). | Whether ETJ testimony and registry/expert certification should have been obtained before holding that properties were not identified. |
| Minimum indicium | MASC, procedural notices, official refurbishment records, Catastro, corporate transfer, public financing and the notice→later-request chronology were filed. | Contextual records did not all prove personal knowledge, a precise false representation, fraudulent intent, judicial error and benefit. | Whether the combined material warranted narrow enquiries even though it did not yet prove an offence. |
| Autonomous criminal act | The filings repeatedly denied seeking civil review and framed the issue as knowing procedural use of an allegedly inaccurate asset/debtor appearance. | The narrative still mixed ETJ validity, standing, urban matters, insolvency, financing and hotel transformation, enabling a global-review reading. | Whether the June synthesis sufficiently cured that presentation problem or required a further opportunity to particularise. |
Analytical conclusion, not a judicial finding. There is an arguable appellate tension between the non-particularisation finding and the April/June filings. There is also a real remaining weakness: the record needs one primary-source map—actor → filing → precise statement/omission → property → knowledge → later act → judicial effect.
What the order did not decide
- It did not order a sobreseimiento libre or enter an acquittal.
- It did not declare every representation in ETJ 163/2020 true.
- It did not certify the physical/cadastral/registry correspondence of fincas 8584/8588.
- It did not determine who carried out each physical alteration or personally knew each record.
- It did not decide Cuatrecasas civil/professional liability or bar proceedings.
- It did not decide Cambiario 1048/2019 or ETJ 163/2020 as a civil appellate court.
- It did not permanently close the criminal route: appeal and reopening remain expressly relevant.
Boundary. Recording unresolved questions is not a finding that the complainant’s theory is true; it only defines the scope of a provisional order.
Appeal and reopening are different routes
A · Subsidiary appeal now in origin-court processing
The 17 April subsidiary appeal is verified. The appellant filed an impulse/ad cautelam submission on 9 September, and the 16 September LAJ order now verifies Article 766.4 processing at the origin court with a five-day transfer to the Ministerio Fiscal.
Current task: obtain the Fiscal submission and subsequent transfer/remittal record; preserve the 17 September ETJ order as possible supervening material; do not promote a separate Audiencia roll until a primary appellate source exists.
Boundary: origin-court processing is not evidence of remittal, docketing or an appellate outcome.
B · Potential reopening
If dismissal becomes final, the safer route is not repetition of the same corpus but genuinely new or distinct indicia closing the links identified by the order.
Minimum package: certified ETJ record; updated deeds/registry notes; expert finca-to-room overlay; signed filings and dates; proof of receipt/knowledge; later act; judicial effect; adjudicatee/assignee identity.
A “new” document must be material and legally usable, not only a rhetorical restatement.
Required incident matrix
| Actor/capacity | Exact act/date | Exact statement/omission | Property | Knowledge source | Later conduct | Judicial act/error | Loss/benefit | New source/enquiry |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Only ^ identity or primary signature | Specific filing/request/appearance | Material proposition alleged false or incomplete | Finca 8584/8588 and physical correspondence | Receipt, transfer, earlier filing, registry or communication | What followed the alleged knowledge | Order, auction, remate, adjudication, registration | Exact asset, amount, effect or recipient | Primary document or finite verification |
Publication rule. An incomplete row remains “open” or “party allegation”; it is never published as a definitive attribution of crime or intent.
Source and incorporation boundaries
Privacy. Public copies must not disclose identification numbers, addresses, phone numbers, digital signatures, validation codes, service metadata or unnecessary personal data. This page publishes a controlled digest, not an unredacted case file.
Controlled reciprocal links
ETJ 163/2020 · TF-CIV-002Direct context: title, debtor, fincas, notices, auction, adjudication request, criminal-prejudiciality suspension and later effects.
Cambiario 1048/2019 · TF-CIV-001Civil origin; shares its NIG with ETJ, not with DP 748.
Cuatrecasas / Sun ParkBroader professional, contractual, MASC, billing, knowledge, ETJ and civil/bar context.
ETJ 163/2020 and Cambiario 1048/2019 reciprocally link to this page. Other matters, including Concurso 36/2012 and distinct disciplinary or criminal proceedings, remain separate context until linked act by act.
^ status and evidential closures
Legal and evidential warning. This page records judicial acts, filed content, attributed allegations, consistency analysis and open questions. It does not state that Cuatrecasas, Hotel New Trend, Construcciones Acosta Matos, Canarian Hospitality or any person committed an offence. The current order maintains a provisional, non-final dismissal. Appeal calculations and any reopening decision belong to counsel reviewing the complete file.
Cuatrecasas–RAUDA: from mandate to recovery and remate
One connected factual inquiry with distinct criminal, civil, professional-discipline and recovery tests. Includes the 2022 recovery correspondence, 3 September pleading and July provisional dismissal; no assignment, guilt or stay is presumed. Read the sources, countercase and outstanding evidence.