INSTITUTIONAL FIRST READ
Test the finite record before evaluating the wider allegation.
Use the same controlled evidence base to inspect source status, contrary material, procedural scope and open gaps.
Boundary. Navigation does not establish joinder, receipt, admissibility, knowledge, reliance, wrongdoing or merits.
INSOLVENCY 36/2012 · CULPABILITY · INVESTIGATIVE THESIS
Possible criminal misuse of proceedings: five documentary signals, one demanding test.
The current record supports a serious, document-based investigative thesis. Por Derecho calls it the criminal-misuse thesis. It is not a conviction, does not attribute collective guilt and cannot replace investigation by the competent authorities.
CRIMINAL-MISUSE THESIS · DOCUMENT-BASED · NOT A FINDING
The chain must be examined as a whole.
The material point is not one adverse decision in isolation. It is the cumulative sequence: a broad insolvency accusation, exceptionally severe Fiscal adoption, institutional reuse in DI 248, selected judicial adoption, and a possible beneficial effect for the opposing private perimeter.
The question is whether responsibility was inverted and scrutiny diverted.
This is the public position of Gil Marer / Por Derecho. It does not speak collectively for the appellants or their procedural representatives and does not replace, amend or enlarge any filed pleading.
Our position is not that every adverse decision is criminal. Gil's position is that the 2019 opinion was, at minimum, gravely reckless and may already have been criminal; that after the CNMV/AEAT/insolvency-court alert chain the Fiscal had crossed the criminal line before or, at the latest, at the 25 July 2023 hearing; and that the Calificación was actively instrumentalised against LPB, the affected persons and Gil as alertador, furnishing an institutional shield to the Acosta Matos/RICPE perimeter.
For preservation, notice and recovery, the Public Prosecution Service—especially the Canary Islands/Las Palmas offices—is treated as an adverse institutional actor. This posture is not a judicial finding of collective guilt and requires proof of each act, knowledge state, causal mechanism and individual responsibility.
We ask no institution to accept that conclusion in advance. We require each actor and authority to produce the documents capable of proving, narrowing or disproving it.
Controlling hypothesisTRANSFER OF VALUE + INVERSION OF RESPONSIBILITY + DIVERSION OF SCRUTINY
FULL EXPRESS NOTICE · DP 1901/2026
The post-hearing period is continuity and an opportunity to correct.
Gil alleges that the criminal line was not first crossed after the hearing: it was crossed before or, at the latest, during it. Later acts are analysed as renewed notice, opportunities to correct and possible maintenance of the shield. Fiscalía is expressly warned of Gil's allegation that any informed act that suppresses, fragments, reclassifies, neutralises or leaves uninvestigated the actor-specific economic crimes alleged in DP 1901/2026 may actively enable the scheme and contribute to continuing patrimonial harm.
Publication is not formal service, receipt or personal knowledge. The 14 September 2026 order now records that the Public Prosecution Service issued a report on 29 July seeking dismissal and supplies the later judicial disposition. The signed prosecution report, its author, source corpus, reasoning and Control 21 / daily reference no. 24 / DIP 2 routing remain unlocated. The dismissal request is a concrete prosecutorial act; it does not by itself prove capture, prevarication, coordination or guilt.
APPEAL STATUS · CONTROLLED DENOMINATOR
Las Palmas Provincial Court, Section 4 · RPL 2523/2025
This is the culpability-section appeal from Judgment 163/2023. It must not be confused with RPL 3304/2025 or RPL 3319/2025.
The 11 May 2026 decision listed no hearing and scheduled deliberation, vote and decision for 4 June 2026.
No later merits judgment, service record or finality record has been located in the accessible corpus. Absence from the corpus does not establish nonexistence.
Obtain current certification, the signed decision, service records, finality/pending-remedy status and the index of the transmitted appellate record.
Independence and scope rule.
RPL 2523/2025 must be decided on its procedurally usable record, pleaded grounds, adversarial process and applicable law. The public criminal-misuse thesis is not extra-record evidence and seeks no predetermined outcome.
THE CONTROLLED RECORD
What is documented and what remains to be proved
Documented
- The Administrator's 47-page culpability report is located and its first-level annex set identified, subject to a certified court index.
- The two-page Fiscal opinion dated 12 March 2019 and its request for 15 years, damages and deficit liability are located.
- The January 2019 DI 248 expansion and 7 May 2019 archive decree are located.
- Judgment 163/2023 records Ministerio Fiscal attendance; Declaration 015 records Gil's direct identification of Ricardo de Mosteyrín throughout the hearing.
- Judgment 163/2023 dated 28 September 2023, including its adverse findings and its rejected or narrowed branches, is located.
- The located appeals of Gil Marer and Pink Canary/Patricia, and RPL 2523/2025 as the culpability appeal, are identified.
Not yet proved
- The official individual identity of the hearing prosecutor, his personal access to register 918/2021 and his exact oral position; Gil's eyewitness identification does not replace those records.
- A common design or personal coordination among the Administrator, members of Fiscalía, the Judge and persons in the Acosta Matos perimeter.
- Global knowing falsity in the Administrator's report or Fiscal opinion beyond contradictions tied to exact documents and knowledge.
- Individual criminal intent, prevaricación, corruption, retaliation or motive.
- The complete causal link between each act or omission, each decision, the alleged harm and a specific private benefit.
- The judgment and final status of RPL 2523/2025; “not located” does not mean “nonexistent”.
SEQUENCE, NOT ACTOR MERGER
The DI 248 circularity must be capable of being broken by documents
The direction of complaint reverses
Gil Marer and Aweswell file the originating complaint concerning conduct attributed to the AC/CAM perimeter and later expand DI 248, including an alleged financed exit. The Administrator's 17 October testimony request is a separate event. None of this establishes that Fiscalía accepted the account or had to perform every requested step.
Fiscal culpability opinion
Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo takes a severely adverse position. The textual defect may be an error and must be clarified; its meaning and production process require the underlying source file.
The adverse position reappears
Elena Herrera Rodríguez invokes the Ministerio Fiscal's culpability position when archiving DI 248. This is an objective institutional connection; it does not prove personal coordination between prosecutors.
Prosecutor identified by Gil · threshold already crossed · appeal
The Judgment confirms Ministerio Fiscal attendance and Gil identifies Ricardo throughout the hearing. Gil alleges that the criminal threshold had been crossed before or, at the latest, through the hearing conduct; the minutes, official identity, personal knowledge and exact oral position remain open. The Court adopts selected adverse findings and rejects others.
ACTOR-BY-ACTOR TEST
The thesis advances only if it passes this matrix
| Element | Verifiable question | What it prevents |
|---|---|---|
| Act or omission | What exactly did each person do, sign, decide, reproduce or fail to do? | Guilt by association. |
| Source and date | Which primary document fixes the proposition, and when? | Unsupported retrospective reconstruction. |
| Knowledge and authority | What did the actor receive or know, and what could or should that actor lawfully do? | Automatic institutional knowledge. |
| Contradiction and response | What contrary evidence existed, reached the actor and was treated in what way? | Turning disagreement into a lie. |
| Causation, harm and benefit | What decision or effect followed, and who obtained what specific benefit? | Inferring agreement from aligned outcomes. |
| Alternative explanation | What error, procedural limit, legal interpretation or reconciling record provides the strongest defence? | An unfalsifiable thesis. |
FIVE PILLARS · FIVE CLOSURE TESTS
Which records could prove, narrow or disprove each hypothesis
| Pillar | State | Current documentary basis | Finite production required |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrator overreach | Documented and contested | Complete 47-page report; DOC1, DOC2 and DOC4–DOC8 identified; Judgment 163/2023 rejected or narrowed several branches. | Certified court index; autonomous DOC3 explanation; proposition–source–knowledge–response matrix. |
| Fiscal opinion + threshold before/at hearing | Document + eyewitness identification + express allegation | 12 March 2019 opinion; Judgment confirming Ministerio Fiscal attendance; Declaration 015 identifying Ricardo throughout the hearing; allegation of grave recklessness—or worse—in 2019 and criminal instrumentalisation no later than the hearing. | Underlying file; appearance and allocation/substitution record; judicial video and speaker transcript; register 918/2021 access/treatment; 2019→2023 comparison; adverse act, causation and independent grounds. |
| DI 248 circularity | Institutional connection | The adverse Fiscal culpability position was invoked in the 7 May 2019 DI 248 archive decree. | Complete DI 248 record and diligence ledger: requested, performed, omitted, assessed and decided. No personal coordination is inferred. |
| Selected judicial adoption | Decision under appeal | Judgment 163/2023 accepted some propositions, rejected others and is under appeal in RPL 2523/2025. | Certified evidence-before-court matrix, complete official hearing record, transmitted record and certified current appeal decision/status. |
| Possible Acosta Matos benefit | Open hypothesis | The sequence permits investigation of possible direct or indirect benefit; it does not prove agreement, agency, purpose or offence. | Asset–decision–flow–beneficiary–harm–counterfactual trace, including title, funding, instructions, strongest innocent explanation and legal-person separation. |
Closure rule: a hypothesis is narrowed or abandoned when primary production contradicts it; silence cannot replace proof and will not be treated as admission.
APPEAL FIREWALL
RPL 2523/2025 is not the forum for deciding this criminal thesis
The Provincial Court should decide the appeal only on the procedurally usable record, pleaded grounds, adversarial process and law. This publication is not addressed to the Court, does not introduce extra-record evidence and does not seek agreement with Por Derecho's thesis. Any criminal, civil, regulatory or disciplinary investigation has a different authority, object and standard.
An adverse appellate decision would not prove offence or capture; a successful appeal would not prove the criminal thesis. What the appeal legitimately requires is independence, real engagement with the grounds and sufficient reasons.
CONTRADICTION, CORRECTION AND REPLY
The contrary record belongs on the page
Judgment 163/2023 contains materially adverse findings and they are not hidden. Fiscalía was entitled to disagree with the DI 248 complaint and was not required to perform every requested step. The Judge could assess evidence differently, reasonably rely on the Administrator or consider steps inadmissible. The 2018 provisional dismissal affirmed on appeal concerning the access/control change remains relevant contrary evidence; it neither closes later new facts nor makes the present thesis true.
Right of reply and correction. Every named person or institution may provide a decision, certified index, file, exculpatory document, alternative explanation or verifiable correction. Silence will not be treated as admission. A substantive correction will receive equivalent visibility with its date, source and scope preserved.