Francisco Borja Rodríguez-Batllori
Insolvency Administrator
Ordinary Insolvency 36/2012 · Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U.
INSOLVENCY 36/2012 · CLASSIFICATION SECTION · DI 248/2018 · JUDGMENT 163/2023
The culpable insolvency classification of Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U.
A materially adverse first-instance judgment under appeal. A direct documentary link to DI 248/2018. And a record showing that important allegations against Gil Marer were rejected, narrowed or remain specifically disputed rather than having been validated as one undifferentiated accusation package.
Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo
Public Prosecutor
Signatory of the 12 March 2019 opinion. Gil Marer directly identifies him as the prosecutor present throughout the 25 July 2023 hearing; individual official corroboration remains pending. Open actor-specific record →
Alberto López Villarrubia
Judge · Mercantile Court No. 1, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Judgment 163/2023 · 28 September 2023.
Three different functions. Three different institutional responsibilities.
Por Derecho does not collapse them into a collective actor. It tests what each person alleged or decided, what contrary material was available to that actor, what the judgment itself rejected, and what remains contested on appeal.
CRIMINAL-MISUSE THESIS · DOCUMENT-BASED · NOT A FINDING
Five signals require a separate investigation.
The current record supports a serious investigative thesis: materially excessive Administrator allegations; an exceptionally severe two-page Fiscal opinion and its internal defects; institutional circularity in DI 248; judicial adoption of selected adverse propositions; and the need to examine possible benefit to the Acosta Matos perimeter.
CRIMINAL FIRST · CIVIL PROTECTION IN PARALLEL
Allegation, evidence, adjudication and open elements are not the same thing.
Gil Marer/Por Derecho alleges that specified acts by the Administrator, Fiscal and Judge should be investigated as possible criminal instrumentalisation of the proceeding, with possible benefit to the Acosta Matos perimeter.
The AC report, Fiscal opinion, DI 248, CNMV/AEAT alerts, registry 918/2021, hearing, Judgment 163/2023, oppositions and appeals permit actor-specific testing of contradiction, knowledge and effect.
There is no criminal conviction on this thesis. The insolvency judgment is materially adverse and appealed; DP 1956/2026 was provisionally dismissed and DP 913/2025 narrowed the secrecy route.
Personal knowledge, intent, a statutory act, causation, harm, benefit and any coordination must be proved. Error, overreach, institutional silence and criminal responsibility remain separate.
Operating rule: facts and criminal elements are examined first without allowing appeal, preservation, restitution, accounting, damages or other civil/insolvency protections to lapse.
THE STARTING POINT
What is a culpable insolvency classification?
The Spanish concept is the classification of the insolvency proceeding as culpable (calificación culpable). It is not, by itself, a criminal conviction and it does not mean that a person has been found guilty of a crime.
In an ordinary insolvency, this track asks whether the insolvency of the debtor company was fortuitous or whether legally relevant intentional or grossly negligent conduct generated or aggravated it. It may identify affected persons or accomplices and carry serious personal and patrimonial consequences.
In simple terms, the central question is:
“Was this company's insolvency fortuitous, or did legally relevant conduct by particular persons generate or aggravate it?”
Its normal purpose is not automatically to determine ownership of third-party assets, physical control of an entire mixed-ownership complex, authority to market that complex, what title was represented to operators or investors, or what later checks were required for RIC, regional incentives or ERDF/FEDER funding.
Temporal regime: Judgment 163/2023 states that former Insolvency Act Article 164.1 applies because of the date on which the classification section was opened. Insolvency Act 22/2003 (BOE).
THE MISSING BRIDGE
DI 248/2018 and the classification were directly connected by Fiscalía itself
This is no longer a contextual theory. The primary documents show the sequence.
Gil/Aweswell complain against AC/CAM
The originating DI 248/2018 complaint reverses the earlier procedural roles: Gil and Aweswell are complainants asking Fiscalía to investigate conduct attributed to the insolvency administrator and CAM. The Administrator's 17 October testimony request is a distinct later event.
DI 248 is expanded
The expansion seeks investigation of the AC and statements from José Daniel Acosta Matos and Laura Acosta Matos. It also states that measures were being taken to conclude LPB's insolvency under former Article 176 LC and that the necessary financing had been obtained.
Fiscal classification opinion
Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo signs a two-page opinion asking that LPB's insolvency be classified as culpable and seeking severe personal and patrimonial consequences.
DI 248 archive cites the classification against the complainant
Fiscal Elena Herrera Rodríguez expressly invokes the fact that “este Ministerio” had already reported the insolvency as culpable and Gil responsible, including for alleged failure to collaborate with the AC.
The documentary point.
The Ministerio Fiscal used its own adverse classification position about Gil as part of the reasoning in the decision on Gil/Aweswell's complaint against the AC/CAM perimeter. That is an objective institutional connection.
What it raises: a serious question of institutional circularity, anchoring and asymmetric credibility allocation — allegations arising in the insolvency lane helped form an adverse prosecutorial frame, and that frame was then invoked when the same complainant asked Fiscalía to investigate the AC/CAM side.
Actor separation: Ricardo de Mosteyrín signed the 12 March classification opinion. Elena Herrera signed the 7 May DI 248 archive decree. This page does not claim that Ricardo personally decided DI 248 or that the two prosecutors personally coordinated.
A facial contradiction in the Fiscal opinion.
The 12 March 2019 opinion literally lists as a ground a “situación de insolvencia agravada por dolo o culpa del administrador concursal” — fault or intent of the insolvency administrator — and then identifies Gil Marer and Uri Omid, the social administrators, as responsible. It may be a drafting error. What is objective is that the text says it. Por Derecho reproduces the contradiction rather than silently repairing it.
Primary documents: 9. P248-2018 Ampliacion fiscaliala AC 14ENE19.pdf; Fiscalía-Mercantil Sección Calificación - 12MAR2019.pdf; 1.Decreto Archivo Fiscalia 248-2018 07MAY2019.pdf.
READING RULE
An adverse judgment should not be hidden. Nor should rejected allegations be presented as if the Court accepted them.
DocumentedJudgment 163/2023 partially grants the application and classifies LPB's insolvency as culpable.
Procedural statusAppeals were filed against the judgment; first instance and finality are kept separate.
Essential boundaryThe debtor was LPB. Sun Park as a mixed-ownership complex was not one insolvency estate.
Por Derecho's position is not that the judgment does not exist. It is that the reader must see exactly what was alleged, exactly what the Court rejected or narrowed, exactly what remained adverse, and exactly how those adverse findings are challenged.
SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS · SEPARATE PARTIES
Who opposed and who appealed: there was no single “opposition” or single Gil/PINK appeal.
| Party / instrument | Date and controlled status | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| LPB · opposition | Pleading dated 23 April 2019; complete source set and nine annexes located, alongside the 24 April LexNET receipt and first page. | Certified reconciliation linking the complete located set to the exact filed instrument and court index remains open. |
| Gil Marer · opposition | Pleading dated 6 June 2019; located final 64-page copy digitally signed on 10 June by Joaquín Ruiz de Infante Abella. Alas Legal/Betancor preparation and later final-copy transmission are separately documented. | Authorship, preparation, signature and filing are not conflated. |
| PINK + Patricia · joint opposition | Joint pleading dated 23 March 2021 and filed on 24 March with a LexNET receipt. | Two separate oppositions are not invented. |
| Gil · appeal | Separate instrument filed on 30 October 2023. | Its grounds are not automatically attributed to LPB or PINK. |
| PINK + Patricia · joint appeal | Separate 17-page instrument filed on 30 October 2023. | Patricia appealed jointly with PINK; no separate appeal is established. |
| LPB · appeal | Counsel reported filing on 2 November 2023; the later deposit requirement and cure/payment are located. | The filed appeal and complete receipt are missing; its grounds are not reconstructed from another party's appeal. |
| Aweswell | It appears in other insolvency acts, including the filing that became registry 918/2021 and earlier clarification requests. | The canonical source does not establish a separate Aweswell opposition to classification or appeal from Judgment 163/2023. The exact instrument must be located before adding it as a party to those acts. |
Exact public coverage: all seven rows are described; five of the six asserted instruments now have a complete located source copy. None of the six is published here as a complete redacted full text. Publication of a complete copy requires review of source authority, filing state, privilege, privacy, necessity and redactions. Open the court and party corpus currently published →
ACCUSATION → TEST
What happened to the accusation package when the Court itself tested it?
Several material allegations advanced in the classification lane did not survive in the form in which they were advanced. Others were narrowed. Two important adverse findings remain under specific appellate attack.
| Proposition | What Judgment 163/2023 says | Status |
|---|---|---|
| General failure to pursue CEXP / third-party credits aggravated insolvency | The Court rejects culpability on this branch, citing difficulty of recovery and insufficient causal justification in the AC report. | Rejected |
| The €737,338.85 entry meant LPB effectively owed money to itself | The Court accepts the contrary expert explanation that it represented a valid LPB credit. | Rejected / corrected |
| Concealment / alzamiento / connivance constructions | Material parts are rejected; the judgment describes one alleged connivance as lacking evidential corroboration. | Rejected |
| Gil failed to request insolvency in time | The Court expressly says the delay was not imputable to Gil after his January 2012 appointment and subsequent Article 5 bis / insolvency sequence. | Rejected as to Gil |
| Gil/LPB simply failed to supply accounting material | The judgment expressly records that LPB delivered the accounting documentation it had. The adverse dispute is narrower: whether the accounting legally satisfied the statutory duty, particularly the Libro Diario. | Narrowed |
| General non-collaboration with the AC | The accepted finding is narrowed to supporting material for specified CEXP credits. The judgment says it is unknown whether the underlying actions would have succeeded, yet says the omission aggravated insolvency. | Adverse / disputed |
| Deficit liability sought by AC and Ministerio Fiscal | Rejected because the request was not justified; the Court says it could not supply the missing case itself without affecting defence rights. | Rejected |
| Failure to collect rent from Pink Canary aggravated insolvency | Accepted as an adverse finding. The appeal attacks the reasoning, including the Court's presumption about operating profitability rather than a proved income calculation. | Adverse / appealed |
The strongest truthful formulation is not “every allegation was judicially found false.”
That would itself be inaccurate. The judgment accepted some serious allegations. But it is equally inaccurate to say the AC/Fiscal accusation package was validated. The judgment itself rejects or narrows important branches, while the remaining adverse findings are challenged proposition by proposition on appeal.
GIL MARER'S ALLEGATION
“They lied about what I did and did not do.” How Por Derecho tests that allegation
Gil Marer alleges that material accusations made about his conduct were false and, where the relevant actor demonstrably held the contrary documents or had themselves participated in the contrary event, knowingly false.
This page does not ask the reader to accept that conclusion on assertion. It places each accusation beside the contemporaneous document, the later judicial rejection or narrowing, the appeal ground and the actor-specific knowledge record.
The evidential threshold is simple: contradiction + knowledge. A false statement can be shown from documents. A knowingly false statement additionally requires evidence that the speaker knew the contrary fact when making it.
THE COUNTER-RECORD
Efforts to preserve, operate and save LPB and the hotel perimeter, 2012–2026
FEB 2012
Viability and revenue planning. The primary viability plan already records direct-to-market channels including Summers Villages, Sun Park Living and a proposed tour-operator lane.
APR–JUN 2012
Protective insolvency sequence. The Article 5 bis route and later voluntary insolvency filing followed Gil's January appointment. Sentencia 163/2023 itself says the filing delay was not attributable to Gil.
2012–2016
Operation, maintenance and accounting material. The record contains continued hotel-operation/maintenance expenditure and delivery of company accounting material. The judgment disputes legal sufficiency but does not support the simple proposition that nothing was supplied.
2017–2018
Protection of control, value and perimeter. Gil/Aweswell challenged access/control and CAM-related liquidation consequences; the 26 June 2018 suspension became a formal judicial checkpoint.
JAN 2019
Financed exit effort inside the material classification period. The DI 248 expansion expressly states that measures were being taken to conclude the insolvency under former Article 176 LC and that the necessary financing had been obtained.
2019–2021
Separate oppositions to culpable classification. LPB, Gil and jointly PINK/Patricia filed distinct instruments, with the dates and limits shown in the party table.
2020–2022
Debt, value, title and realization challenges. Repeated filings and warnings concerned calculation of the secured debt/interest, value, title/perimeter, bidding and irreversible asset realization. The complete evidence-before-court matrix remains under reconstruction.
OCT–NOV 2023
Appeals. Sentencia 163/2023 was challenged before the January-2025 newsroom episode.
2025–2026
Recovery and preservation continue. Evidence-preservation, court, prosecutorial, regulatory and public-accountability routes continue, with restoration/recovery — not punishment for its own sake — as the controlling Por Derecho objective.
This chronology does not prove that every step taken by Gil/LPB was legally correct or economically successful. It does directly test any categorical portrayal of his conduct as mere abandonment, obstruction or refusal to save the debtor.
THE STRONGEST ACTOR-SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS
What Por Derecho can responsibly allege now
Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori
Strong allegation: the AC advanced a broad culpability narrative that was materially overbroad: the Court itself rejected or narrowed multiple branches of it.
Knowledge issue: where receipt/custody records prove that the AC personally held documents showing accounting delivery, rescue/exit financing, requests for assistance or contrary title/perimeter facts, Por Derecho alleges that categorical contrary portrayals were materially selective and, for those specific propositions, made despite contrary information available to him.
Source closed / limit open: the complete 47-page report and first-level DOC1, DOC2 and DOC4–DOC8 annex set have been located. Before “knowing falsity” is globalised, the certified court index, the absence of an autonomous DOC3 and the proposition → contrary document → personal receipt → later statement matrix remain required.
Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo
Strong 2019 allegation: the two-page Fiscal opinion adopted an exceptionally severe accusation package and requested a 15-year disqualification, damages and deficit liability with limited individualized reasoning visible on the face of that document. Several propositions were later rejected or narrowed, and the deficit request was expressly rejected for lack of justification.
Textual defect: it says the insolvency was aggravated by the intent/fault of the administrador concursal while naming Gil/Uri as responsible.
Institutional bridge: the Ministerio Fiscal's own adverse classification position was then invoked by Elena Herrera when archiving DI 248 — the complaint against the AC/CAM perimeter.
2023 hearing · two layers: Judgment 163/2023 establishes attendance by the Ministerio Fiscal without naming the prosecutor. Gil Marer directly and positively identifies Ricardo as the prosecutor physically present throughout the hearing. The minutes, Fiscalía allocation/substitution record and speaker-attributed transcript remain pending.
Alleged threshold before or, at the latest, at the hearing: Gil maintains that the 2019 opinion was at minimum gravely reckless and may already have been criminal, and that Ricardo had crossed the criminal line before or, at the latest, during the hearing. Any post-knowledge maintenance, adoption, reaffirmation, use or failure to correct must be examined as continuity and possible knowing participation, not the late birth of the accusation. This is an attributed accusation, not established liability; presence alone does not prove reading, adverse act, causation, intent or concert. Open actor-specific record →
Alberto López Villarrubia
Strong allegation: the adverse reasoning contains material internal tensions: a profitability proposition rests on presumption; the non-collaboration finding acknowledges uncertainty about recovery yet attributes aggravation; and that causal reasoning sits uneasily beside the earlier rejection of general CEXP-credit culpability.
Procedural issue on appeal: the judgment records the July 2023 hearing with AC, Fiscal and LPB representation present; Gil's appeal alleges he, Patricia and Pink were left without their own counsel after a last-minute withdrawal and a refused suspension request.
Knowing-falsehood threshold: Por Derecho does not yet state as an adjudicated fact that the Judge knowingly lied. That allegation must be tied to certified proof that the precise contrary material was actually before him for the precise finding challenged.
WHY?
Motive: what the documents permit us to investigate — not what they permit us to declare as fact
AC · defence of the administration/liquidation path
A plausible non-exclusive motive is defence of the AC's own prior administration and of the liquidation/disposition route already being pursued, including matters Gil/Aweswell were challenging in DI 248. This is an inference, not proof of corruption or private coordination.
Fiscalía · institutional anchoring
The DI 248 sequence supports investigation of institutional anchoring: once an adverse AC/classification frame existed, the same institution later invoked that frame against the complainant when deciding his complaint against the opposite perimeter. It does not prove personal malice by either prosecutor.
Court · institutional path dependence
A legitimate hypothesis is path dependence: preserving coherence with an existing insolvency/liquidation trajectory and earlier judicial acts. That is not, without more, evidence of bias, retaliation, prevaricación or an agreement with CAM.
EARLIER REPORTING · PROCEDURAL NOTICE · POSSIBLE RETALIATION
The hearing came after the alerts and after the same asset problem entered the insolvency record.
Gil Marer's position: the 25 July 2023 hearing and the later punitive treatment should be examined as possible retaliation within Articles 35, 36 and 38 of Spain's Law 2/2023. Before those acts, the same hotel and a materially overlapping asset perimeter had acquired parallel lives of material control, commercialisation, RICPE investment, finance and later operation, while property attributed to LPB remained inside the insolvency proceeding and had been subject to express judicial protection at earlier stages.
Earlier investor life
Sun Park appears in the public RICPE/CAM presentation before later consolidated title.
CNMV + AEAT
Entries 2021002141 and ZZ061/ZZ06: notice concerning RICPE, RIC, title and third-party property.
Insolvency 36/2012
The challenge incorporating the external CAM/RICPE presentation is recorded as 918/2021.
190 LPB properties
RICPE internal certification and later CAM use in the insolvency; final treatment of 918/2021 remains incomplete.
Hearing + Judgment
The challenged hearing and Judgment 163/2023 post-date the whole reporting sequence. The Judgment confirms Ministerio Fiscal attendance; Gil identifies Ricardo de Mosteyrín throughout the hearing.
Identity of the hearing prosecutor: direct evidence + partial institutional corroboration.
Declaration 015 preserves Gil Marer's positive first-hand identification: Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo was physically present throughout the hearing. The Judgment confirms Ministerio Fiscal attendance but does not name him. The identity may therefore be published as direct eyewitness identification, not yet as official certification. The three preserved videos, appearance/minutes record, prosecutorial allocation or substitution record and a speaker-attributed transcript are the closure controls.
The unitary allegation.
Gil alleges that the accusation package advanced by the Insolvency Administrator and partially adopted by the Public Prosecutor was materially excessive and maliciously instrumentalised: while the Acosta Matos perimeter consolidated a structural advantage over the same hotel project, the conduct of those who had reported, contradicted and sought protection was reframed inside the classification as non-cooperation or obstruction. That is a party allegation which Por Derecho submits to testing; it is not a judicial finding of motive, concerted action or criminal responsibility.
The accountability Gil intends to pursue · provincial acts now differentiated.
Gil characterises what occurred as criminal misuse of the classification proceeding and states his intention to pursue remedies through the competent routes for individually attributable acts. The wider provincial record now permits separation: Ricardo de Mosteyrín signed the 12 March 2019 opinion; Elena Herrera signed the substantive 7 May DI 248 archive decree; Beatriz Sánchez signed its 16 May notice, not that decree, and did sign the 8 February 2023 DI 113 archive, its 23 February 2026 copy decision and the February/March 2026 DI 22 sequence. The June/July DI 22 acts remain attributed only to the office while their signatures are unverified.
Those acts provide source-controlled support for investigating institutional self-neutralisation and an asymmetrically protective practical effect in the limited sense of classifying/accumulating extra-insolvency modules without a public actor–asset–date–conduct matrix while the adverse prosecution classification frame remained operative. The absence of an exposed matrix does not mean no internal review existed. They do not prove favouritism, capture, agreement or coordination, knowing suppression or intent, prevarication or criminality.
Unitary Provincial Prosecution matrix → · Justice record → · E.G. 745/2026 → · RPL 2523/2025 → · DP 1901/2026 →
The test capable of confirming, narrowing or defeating retaliation
Essential limit: chronology and presence justify investigation but do not by themselves prove which annexes each actor read, the precise oral position maintained by the prosecutor, that the hearing or judgment occurred solely because of reporting, or that the Administrator, Fiscalía, Court and CAM acted by agreement. Article 36.2 defines retaliation; Article 38.4 creates only a rebuttable presumption after a compliant report and detriment are reasonably shown. The Law must be applied report by report and act by act. Law 2/2023, Articles 35–38 ↗ · Sixth Additional Provision ↗
SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS · CONNECTED EVIDENCE
One factual history does not turn every route into a single case.
Merits, nullity and defenceRPL 2523/2025 · Provincial Court
Reviews Judgment 163/2023 and the hearing, reasoning, contradiction and effective-defence grounds. A favourable result may supply new evidence elsewhere but does not automatically determine criminal responsibility.
Insolvency AdministratorDP 1956/2026Provisionally dismissed; no filed challenge is established. Any future reassessment requires materially new evidence, the legal conditions and a judicial decision.
Identity under auditDP 1901/2026July records associated this DP with the private-actor / Control 21 lane, while the 14 September order treats it as alleged judicial prevarication and records a 29 July prosecution report seeking dismissal. The official allocation bridge remains to be certified.
Judicial complaint18 June complaint · daily reference 24daily reference no. 24 concerns judicial rulings/conduct and is not itself a NIG or DP. Its destination/allocation must now be reconciled with DP 1901 rather than assumed separate or merged.
Judicial governance and disciplineDI 169/2026 · Appeal 286/2026The archive and appeal belong to the supervisory route; they do not replace the merits appeal or criminal classification.
Regulatory and tax noticeCNMV 2021002141 · AEAT ZZ061/ZZ06They establish filing and receipt within their respective perimeters, not a finding of fraud.
Historic prosecutorial circularityDI 248/2018The Public Prosecution Service relied on its adverse classification frame when archiving the complaint against the AC/CAM perimeter; the institutional link is documentary.
Reporting-person protectionWB-CAN-005Formal transfer is documented; handler, preservation action and merits treatment remain open.
Interface rule: the same record may serve different evidential functions in different routes. Its transmission and incorporation must be proved in each; coexistence of files is not institutional corroboration.
JANUARY 2025 · ELECONOMISTA · MADRID DP 913/2025
A non-final LPB judgment used in a much wider newsroom dispute
The newsroom was investigating matters wider than the classification of LPB: Meeting Point/FTI commercialisation, property and authority, RIC/RICPE, investment, public incentives and European funding.
The preserved 16–20 January chronology strongly supports that Sentencia 163/2023 was supplied or procured through the CAM/Acosta Matos response channel initiated by Laura Patricia Acosta Matos. The exact physical sender/account remains unresolved.
The supplied file was labelled AUTO CONCURSO CULPOSO. It was actually Sentencia 163/2023, a materially adverse first-instance judgment in LPB's classification, already appealed. It did not determine title to the whole mixed-ownership Sun Park complex or decide the later Meeting Point, RIC, regional-incentive or ERDF/FEDER questions.
Por Derecho's allegation: this is a documented scope mismatch and supports an allegation of extra-procedural instrumentalisation: a non-final LPB classification judgment functioned in the newsroom exchange as a reason the broader investigation did not proceed, despite not adjudicating many of its central questions. The evidence does not yet prove that Laura personally sent the file or personally misrepresented its finality.
Adverse result preserved: the 5 May 2025 order of Madrid Investigating Court No. 44 did not find LPAM proved to be the physical sender and treated the secrecy theory as insufficient. Reform and appeal were pursued; no later Provincial Court decision has been located.
DECIDED / REJECTED / OUTSIDE THE PERIMETER
What Judgment 163/2023 does — and does not — do
Partially granted
The judgment classifies LPB's insolvency as culpable and imposes consequences on identified persons and companies. It includes a damages award and disqualification measures tied to finality in the terms of the operative order.
It also rejected claims
The court did not accept every theory put before it. It rejected material asset-concealment constructions, late filing as against Gil and the requested insolvency-deficit liability, and narrowed the non-collaboration case.
It did not decide
It did not adjudicate all Sun Park real estate, turn Matkator or other owners into LPB's estate, or by itself determine Meeting Point/FTI authority, RICPE/RIC, regional incentives, ERDF/FEDER or every later act in the MYND operation.
THE CENTRAL IDEA
One procedural life inside the insolvency. Several parallel lives outside it.
While LPB's insolvency followed its court process, other layers of the same complex continued or acquired different legal and economic lives. The investigation must identify, layer by layer, which asset or right was used, who had authority to use it, and what information later reached operators, investors and public authorities.
1 · Insolvency life
LPB · estate · Insolvency Administrator · liquidation · classification · appeals.
2 · Property / title
LPB · Matkator · third-party owners · PH122→CAM credit · later adjudication/dation acts · CAM/HNT. Later title does not retrospectively settle earlier authority.
3 · Material control
Access · keys · security · reception · circulation · staff · guests · technicians · works. Formal title, legal possession and de facto control must remain separate.
4 · Commercial life
Sun Park · Lava Verde · Club Sei Lanzarote · Meeting Point/FTI · MYND. Documented public marketing does not replace production of contracts, inventory, authority, bookings, commissions and revenue.
5 · Capital / investment
Project · RICPE · RIC capital · financing. The title, availability and asset perimeter represented at each date must be reconstructed.
6 · Institutional life
Authorisations · regional incentives · expressly identified ERDF/FEDER component · later operation. Each gatekeeper requires its own matrix of information received, checks and decisions.
TWO-PLANE CHRONOLOGY
The classification proceeding and the hotel's economic life did not move along one line
LPB enters Insolvency 36/2012. DOCUMENTED
The declaration concerns Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U.; it does not turn all Sun Park into one estate.
CAM enters the credit track. DOCUMENTED
Assignment of the mortgage credit and ownership of the hotel complex are distinct questions.
The sixth/classification section is opened. DOCUMENTED
Material-control threshold. PERIMETER UNDER VERIFICATION
The controlled archive supports a material/access and operational-control shift involving CAM-linked/Community actors. Gil Marer alleges that the cumulative effect amounted to practical possession of the hotel as an operating whole; it is not presented as a judicial transfer of whole-hotel title or legal possession.
Suspension order. DOCUMENTED
Its date must remain distinct from the 7 June material event.
DI 248 role reversal. DOCUMENTED
Gil/Aweswell file the originating complaint against the AC/CAM perimeter while the earlier adverse criminal lane remained active. The Administrator's 17 October testimony request remains a separate event.
DI 248 expansion and financed exit allegation. DOCUMENTED
The expansion seeks investigation of the AC/CAM side and states that financing had been obtained for an Article 176 conclusion route.
Public Prosecutor's classification opinion. DOCUMENTED
Signed by Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo.
DI 248 archived using the MF classification frame. DOCUMENTED
Signed by Elena Herrera Rodríguez; the decree expressly cites the Ministerio Fiscal's adverse classification position about Gil.
Oppositions and adversarial process. DOCUMENTED
LPB, Gil Marer and later Pink Canary/Patricia opposed the classification on the dates recorded in the judgment.
Club Sei Lanzarote appears publicly within the Meeting Point/FTI ecosystem at Calle Janubio 3. DOCUMENTED
This supports a public presentation/distribution layer; contracts, precise authority, inventory and economic flows remain production questions.
The project enters the RICPE/investment track before later consolidated title. TRACEABILITY OPEN
Governance, due diligence, represented title, conditions and use of funds require document-by-document review.
CNMV and AEAT alerts. RECEIPT DOCUMENTED
CNMV 2021002141 and AEAT ZZ061/ZZ06 establish filing and receipt of allegations concerning RICPE/RIC, title and third-party property; they do not establish fraud or a merits outcome.
Formal bridge into Insolvency 36/2012. REGISTER 918/2021
The challenge brought the external CAM/RICPE presentation into the case record. Institutional incorporation does not prove personal reading of every annex.
RICPE certification and CAM use in the insolvency. DOCUMENTED
The record identifies 262 properties, including 190 attributed to LPB, but final judicial treatment and reconciliation with the earlier alert remain incomplete.
Later adjudication/dation and CAM→HNT acts. DOCUMENTED
Later formal acquisition cannot automatically become retrospective authority for earlier acts.
Hearing challenged on appeal. EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION / CERTIFIED RECORD PENDING
The Judgment records Ministerio Fiscal attendance. Gil identifies Ricardo de Mosteyrín as present throughout and alleges that he, Patricia and PINK were left without their own counsel after a last-minute withdrawal and an unaddressed adjournment request. The complete recording, minutes, official identity, speaker-attributed interventions, notices and ruling must be obtained.
Judgment 163/2023. DOCUMENTED
A partial and materially adverse first-instance outcome within LPB's insolvency track.
Separate appeals against the judgment. DOCUMENTED / LPB SOURCE PARTIAL
Gil and PINK/Patricia filed separate instruments on 30 October; counsel reported LPB's filing on 2 November, but its complete filed copy remains missing. No separate Aweswell appeal is established in the canonical source.
The appealed judgment enters the elEconomista response chain. DOCUMENTED / PROVENANCE INFERENCE
The CAM/Acosta Matos response provenance is strongly supported; the physical transmitter remains unresolved.
MYND · regional incentives · ERDF/FEDER · financial/institutional continuity. AUDIT OPEN
Public financing or support does not itself prove fraud; it increases the need to reconstruct what was declared and what each body verified.
SIX DOCUMENTARY LIVES
The same hotel can look different depending on which file is opened
Insolvency
What belonged to LPB, the Administrator's powers and what the Court decided.
Real estate
Property by property: LPB, Matkator, third parties, CAM/HNT and acquisition dates.
Material
Who could enter, exclude, measure, refurbish, show or control practical operation.
Operational / commercial
Which hotel was offered to the market, under which brand, by whom and with what inventory.
Financial
Which asset/project was presented to RICPE/RIC capital and on what basis of availability.
Public / institutional
Which property, operating and financial basis supported permissions, regional incentives and ERDF/FEDER.
WHAT SHOULD STILL BE PRODUCIBLE
Finite questions before further upgrades
Insolvency Administrator
Complete original classification report and every annex; proof of receipt/knowledge for each contrary document; exact basis for each accusation and each requested consequence.
Ministerio Fiscal
Complete DI 248 expediente and diligences; the 25 April 2019 rent expert report; source record behind the 12 March opinion; and actor-specific knowledge rather than institutional assumption.
Court / hearing
Certified July-2023 hearing record, notices, counsel-withdrawal communication, suspension request/disposition and complete evidence-before-court matrix for each adverse finding.
Appeal
Certified Audiencia Provincial docket, current status and eventual determination of the specific contradiction, motivation and indefensión grounds.
elEconomista provenance
Native inbound message/header identifying the physical sender of Sentencia 163/2023 and any accompanying representation concerning finality or scope.
Actor-specific knowledge
For every allegation said to be knowingly false: exact contrary document → exact recipient/custody event → date → later statement → incompatibility analysis.
JUDICIAL DOCUMENT
Sentencia 163/2023
The January-2025 copy was labelled AUTO CONCURSO CULPOSO, but the document is a Sentencia dated 28 September 2023. It will be preserved with its procedural status and a policy of minimising non-essential personal data. Its adverse findings, rejected claims and operative provisions should remain visible together.
Evidence status: the complete 47-page Administrator report and located first-level annex set, 12 March 2019 Fiscal opinion, January-2019 DI 248 expansion, 7 May 2019 DI 248 archive decree, 2023 judgment, located oppositions — including LPB's opposition and nine annexes — and the Gil and Pink Canary/Patricia appeal briefs have now been re-queried. The certified court index and DOC3 explanation, complete DI 248 file, standalone Pink/Patricia annex package, exact filed LPB appeal, Gil's principal filing receipt and certified hearing/transmission/appellate records remain source-completion priorities.
The rule of this page
Truth is not made safer by making it weaker. Material contradictions should be stated plainly. So should serious adverse findings. The protection against overstatement is source discipline, not euphemism.
Por Derecho therefore separates: what is documented; what the first-instance Judge found; what that same judgment rejected; what is alleged on appeal; what contrary knowledge can be attributed to each actor; and what remains an inference about intent or motive.
This page makes identified evidence-based allegations of materially false, selective or internally contradictory representations where the source record permits them. It does not present unadjudicated criminal, disciplinary or corrupt intent as an established fact.
CAEPR IDENTITY · PROCEEDINGS INTERFACE
Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo^
Canonical person record for the prosecutor who signed the 12 March 2019 classification opinion. The link connects the classification lane with RPL 2523/2025, DP 1901/2026 and E.G. 745/2026 without attributing any new act to him in those proceedings.
^ verifies identity only. It does not establish conduct, knowledge, liability or procedural outcome. Open the full prosecution, judge, LAJ, notarial and Registry census →