NOTICE → PWC → AUTHORITY → IA REFUSAL → MEETING
On 20 April 2016, Carlos Saavedra confirmed that he, Miguel Hernández and Elena Santos would travel to Lanzarote. On 21 April, Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte refused PwC’s engagement and asked those three professionals not to provide Luchy services without his consent.
Patricia recorded that Pamanil notices and photographs arrived that day; she sent them to Carlos, Miguel and Elena with a Community-debt report. The preserved chain shows internal forwarding from maintenance/reservations, not an earlier direct notice to Gil in the copy reviewed.
Carlos wrote that, following Gil’s request the previous day, he, Elena and Miguel would go to Lanzarote the following Tuesday. Gil also asked about a notary.
Borja said Gil could attend but not vote because of Community debt; refused PwC’s engagement; asked the three professionals not to act without consent; and asserted priority for his own fees.
The meeting and resolutions must be checked against the notice, arrears list, proof of debt, challenges/deposits, attendance, authorities, complete minutes and later treatment in the insolvency case.
Secure finding: PwC work and confirmed attendance existed before the IA’s refusal. Gap: the reviewed corpus does not yet prove the organisers’ subjective intention to conceal the meeting; it does document late and indirect delivery to the complex on 15 April.
The current documents justify a formal criminal-law examination, but the email alone does not establish an offence. In 2016 an Insolvency Administrator could control new estate claims and require justification of need and fees. Article 15.2 of the Horizontal Property Act also removed voting rights for overdue debts unless judicially challenged or deposited. The real question is whether those powers were exercised on true premises, within authority and without deliberate patrimonial harm.
With hindsight, the email becomes more significant if the full evidence proves a consciously false debt; falsified or concealed records; manipulation of evidence in the insolvency case; deliberate excess in administering another’s property causing harm; recognition of fictitious claims; or coordinated use of vote exclusion to produce a patrimonial result. Each bridge still needs a document, actor, knowledge, act, causation and loss.
| Route | Relevant legal element | Status of this evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Fraud / procedural fraud · CP 248 and 250.1.7 | Sufficient deception, error, disposition, loss and profit motive; procedural fraud additionally requires manipulated evidence or analogous fraud causing a harmful ruling. | Not established by the email. Requires falsehood/deception, procedural use, decisive error, benefit and loss. |
| Disloyal administration · CP 252 | Powers over another’s property, excess in breach of those powers and patrimonial loss. | Possible hypothesis, not a conclusion. Identify the IA’s precise power, excess, intent, administered property, act and causal loss. |
| Criminal insolvency · CP 259 | Includes concealing estate property, simulating or recognising fictitious claims, or grossly breaching diligence with patrimonial reduction/concealment. | Only if the wider chain proves it. The debt statement does not prove the claim was fictitious or knowingly so. |
| Document falsehood · CP 392–393 and 395–396 | Alteration/simulation or falsely attributing participation/statements; knowing use in court or to harm. | Not shown by the email. Requires the allegedly false certificate, minutes, accounts or other record plus authorship, knowledge and use. |
Limitation: because the conduct dates to 2016, Spanish criminal counsel must first determine CP 131–132: maximum penalty, completion date, any continuing/permanent/connected offence and judicial acts that interrupted or suspended time. Neither timeliness nor expiry should be assumed.
The former Insolvency Act separated the debtor’s estate from the right to recover third-party property held by the debtor. The later removal applications and third-party-property allegations therefore provide relevant context, but do not automatically convert this 2016 email into a crime. The test remains what the IA knew, verified, reported and caused, asset by asset.
Horizontal Property Act (BOE)Criminal Code (BOE)Insolvency Act 22/2003 (BOE)PwC record
The Gmail copy forwarded in 2026 preserves the 2016 body and three signature/rendering images. Its 2026 transport checks do not cryptographically authenticate the original 2016 headers. Forensic preservation should include the original export, hashes, notice attachments, photographs, minutes, authorities and certified court file.