Source-controlled register · core records verified to 20 August 2026 · live supplements with controlled events through 18 September 2026
What was sent. What came back. What remains.
Fourteen core records consolidate key communications and bounded technical-record references concerning public bodies, judicial-administration routes and statutory professional corporations. Core records retain their own verification dates; later controlled supplements add dated events without pretending that the whole corpus has been revalidated again. The live supplement now includes the 5 September CajaSiete submission and the 18 September institutional response.
PD-MADRID-CTBG-REGISTERED-20261025
24–25 October 2026 · Madrid / CTBG: six separate registration events
The three Madrid entries of 24 October form one documentary delivery family, followed by a supplement on 25 October. The two CTBG submissions maintain the independent access claim. This addition does not revalidate every earlier record. All presentation and registration times below are literal electronic-headquarters times; no timezone offset or later handling is inferred.
PD-SP-EVT-0600
REGAGE26e00091776746
Initial Madrid criminal complaint registration, first part of one three-entry documentary delivery family.
Destination / DIR3: Fiscalía Provincial de Madrid · J00001430
Source and custody: Receipt read copy in the preserved 131-page compilation · Source pages 2-3. No fresh attachment-fingerprint comparison is asserted for this event. The public source-control description identifies provenance; protected native files and unnecessary personal data remain private. A compilation control fingerprint is not a native-receipt fingerprint.
Evidential limit: Registration establishes the recorded presentation and attachment inventory only. The merits and subsequent institutional treatment require separate sources.
Source and custody: Receipt read copy in the preserved 131-page compilation · Source pages 4-4. No fresh attachment-fingerprint comparison is asserted for this event. The public source-control description identifies provenance; protected native files and unnecessary personal data remain private. A compilation control fingerprint is not a native-receipt fingerprint.
Evidential limit: Registration establishes the recorded presentation and attachment inventory only. The merits and subsequent institutional treatment require separate sources.
Source and custody: Receipt read copy in the preserved 131-page compilation · Source pages 5-5. No fresh attachment-fingerprint comparison is asserted for this event. The public source-control description identifies provenance; protected native files and unnecessary personal data remain private. A compilation control fingerprint is not a native-receipt fingerprint.
Evidential limit: Registration establishes the recorded presentation and attachment inventory only. The merits and subsequent institutional treatment require separate sources.
CTBG hearing response maintaining reclamation 3929/2026 and NO DESISTO, accompanied by the Madrid complaint copy and registry receipts. The copy-identity description is qualified by the later 25 October supplement.
Destination / DIR3: Autoridad Administrativa Independiente Consejo de Transparencia y Buen Gobierno · EA0040111
Source and custody: Preserved native registry receipt · Source pages 1-2. No fresh attachment-fingerprint comparison is asserted for this event. The public source-control description identifies provenance; the native receipt and unnecessary personal data remain private.
Evidential limit: Registration establishes the recorded presentation and attachment inventory only. The merits and subsequent institutional treatment require separate sources.
Documentary supplement and precisions to the existing Madrid complaint, with a four-page pleading and a 131-page annex containing 15 complete documents; both attachment fingerprints match retained submitted files. The party maintains source-supported allegations while disclosing corrections and contrary evidence.
Destination / DIR3: Fiscalía Provincial de Madrid · J00001430
Source and custody: Preserved native registry receipt · Source pages 1-2. The listed attachment SHA-512 fingerprints were freshly compared and match the retained filed binaries. The public source-control description identifies provenance; the native receipt and unnecessary personal data remain private.
Evidential limit: Registration establishes the recorded presentation and attachment inventory only. The merits and subsequent institutional treatment require separate sources.
Supplementary CTBG hearing response and later-obtained documentary material. All four listed attachment fingerprints match the retained submitted files, including the common 131-page annex and Madrid supplement receipt. The submission maintains NO DESISTO and the independent access procedure.
Destination / DIR3: Autoridad Administrativa Independiente Consejo de Transparencia y Buen Gobierno · EA0040111
Source and custody: Preserved native registry receipt · Source pages 1-2. The listed attachment SHA-512 fingerprints were freshly compared and match the retained filed binaries. Its 131-page annex is the common Madrid compilation, not independent corroboration. The public source-control description identifies provenance; the native receipt and unnecessary personal data remain private.
Evidential limit: Registration establishes the recorded presentation and attachment inventory only. The merits and subsequent institutional treatment require separate sources.
Public source-control cohort · The filed corrections remain party statements; receipt verification does not establish their substantive truth.
How to read the register
An institutional mark now points to this evidence record—not to an implied relationship.
Registration, receipt, rejection, referral, opening, closure and appeal are different procedural states. A filing proves what was submitted and when; a response proves only what it says. Neither volume nor silence establishes the merits. Public bodies and statutory professional corporations are classified by their distinct competence, not treated as interchangeable.
Competence: criminal investigation, territorial routing and senior prosecution coordination. The three offices below are distinct recipients and procedural records; they are not treated as one file or one decision-maker.
Last verified20 August 2026
Overall statusOne territorial referral; separate closures; coordination questions remain
Arrecife–Lanzarote–Puerto del Rosario
Territorial investigation. On 10 August 2026 the National Court Prosecution Office notified withdrawal in favour of, and referral of GUB 86/2026 to, this Area Prosecutor.
Referral recorded; territorial file number and result not located.
Provincial Prosecutor, Las Palmas
Provincial criminal investigation and review. Decree DI 22/2026 assessed the narrative and documents and closed that file; later submissions were joined to the closure.
Closed record; differentiated new facts require their own route.
Canary Islands Prosecutor · DIP 2/2026
Senior coordination and connected prevaricación allegation. The 2 March check said no appeal was recorded; court records of 28 January and 18 February already documented RPL 3319/2025.
Closure recorded; the documentary appeal-status contradiction is published.
Date
Direction
Reference
Subject / procedural state
10 Aug 2026
National Court Prosecutor → Arrecife Area Prosecutor
GUB 86/2026
Territorial referral; not a merits finding.
2026
Las Palmas Provincial Prosecutor → contributor
DI 22/2026
Closure after assessment; later submissions joined to the closure.
11 Mar 2026
Contributor → Canary Islands Prosecutor
REGAGE26e00026303869 · DIP 2/2026
Formal communication of the already-recorded appeal and requested correction.
ProvesSeparate prosecution offices received, routed or decided identifiable material, and the DIP 2 appeal-status contradiction was formally notified.
Does not proveReferral or registration establishes no offence, guilt, coordination failure, institutional agreement or territorial outcome.
Outstanding finite actionIdentify the Arrecife file and assigned prosecutor; record preservation and a reasoned decision; reconcile DIP 2’s inaccurate appeal premise and keep new extra-insolvency facts separate from closed records.
Competence: judicial governance and discipline within statutory limits; it does not replace appeals or determine civil title, fraud or criminal liability.
Last verified20 August 2026
StatusDI 169/2026 closed; Recurso de alzada 286/2026 filed and supplemented; final decision not located
Date
Direction
Reference
Subject / procedural state
2026
Contributor ↔ Registry and Archive Unit
DI 169/2026
Judicial-governance complaint opened and closed; the decision identified review before the Standing Committee within one month.
Documented supplementary filing in the appeal arising from DI 169/2026. The registry receipt proves submission and identifies the linked appeal; it does not prove admission of each requested measure or the result.
ProvesAn identifiable governance file was closed and a linked review exists under Alzada 286/2026; a 28 July supplementary filing was registered before decision.
Does not proveThe filing proves no friendship, improper communication, bias, disciplinary breach, merits error or outcome of the appeal.
Outstanding finite actionObtain the final/current decision and certified index for Alzada 286/2026, keeping allegations in the supplementary filing distinct from facts independently established by official sources.
Competence: supervision of the RICPE vehicle and investor communications, subject to statutory supervisory secrecy.
Last verified13 August 2026
StatusSupervisory action confirmed; outcome not public
Date
Direction
Reference
Subject / procedural state
13 Jan 2021
Contributor → CNMV
RICPE / Sun Park filing
Identified the brochure, webinar, Sun Park, CAM and alleged use of third-party property.
20 Jan 2021
CNMV → contributor
ED/36/2021
Opened a reference and referred the material to the competent department.
22 Jan 2026
CNMV → contributor
Supervisory response
Confirmed supervisory actions and that obtained material lacked the 20–21 July 2021 certificate and court filing.
ProvesNotice, internal routing, supervisory activity and one specific absence from the material obtained.
Does not proveA sanction, endorsement, validation of Sun Park, falsity, criminality or a public merits closure.
Outstanding finite actionPreserve the 2021 and later file and establish internally which representations were tested, by which unit and with what supervisory consequence.
Competence: state-tax control and the tax treatment of RIC materialisation. Tax secrecy and the reporter’s non-party status limit public feedback.
Last verified20 August 2026
StatusNotice history established; separate Pink Canary judicial tax proceeding identified
Date
Direction
Reference
Subject / procedural state
13 Jan 2021
Contributor → AEAT
Tax complaint · “RIC PE investor fraud”
Receipt concerning RIC materialisation and the Sun Park investor narrative.
2025–2026
Contributor → AEAT destinations
12 recorded registrations
RIC alerts and traceability requests; no publication-safe merits decision located.
6 Jul 2026
Audiencia Nacional · Sala Contencioso-Administrativo · Sección 7ª
PO 496/2026 · PSS 496/2026-1 · Auto 426/2026 · NIG 28079 23 3 2026 0002648
In the separate Pink Canary Services S.L. tax-administrative litigation, the Chamber refused the requested interim suspension. The order did not decide the merits of PO 496/2026.
ProvesThe 13 January 2021 tax notice, later traceable registrations, and a separate identifiable judicial tax proceeding in which an interim-measures order was issued.
Does not provePublic silence is not inaction, acceptance or rejection; the 6 July interim order is not a merits finding on the underlying tax acts or the ordinary proceeding.
Outstanding finite actionKeep the notice/registration track separate from PO 496/2026; source-verify any later merits judgment or final determination before publication.
Competence: AFCOS coordination concerning operations or projects linked to European Union funds; it is not a general criminal or tax authority.
Last verified13 August 2026
StatusAFCOS file identified; material effect unclear
Date
Direction
Reference
Subject / procedural state
2026
Contributor → AFCOS / SNCA
141-2026-IRR02
File registered concerning the alleged public/EU-funds nexus.
2026
SNCA → contributor
141-2026-IRR02
Located response supplied general channel and scope material.
ProvesAn identifiable AFCOS file and a response about channel and scope.
Does not proveA concrete EU-funds nexus, case investigation, OLAF referral, irregularity or closure on the merits.
Outstanding finite actionIdentify the concrete project and EU fund, if any, and confirm referral, admissibility review, OLAF coordination or reasoned closure.
Competence: distinct functions across Canary taxation, internal control, transparency review, European funds and the Law 2/2023 internal reporting route. These subrecords are grouped for navigation only and are not conflated.
Last verified13 August 2026
Overall statusReferrals, access decisions and pending verification across separate offices
Canary Tax Agency — ATC
Seven registrations are recorded: four received and three rejected as transport states. No publication-safe merits result was located.
Mixed transport traceability; no merits decision.
General Intervention
Responses 184368/2026 and 497011/2026 record consideration within the Integrity Commission and competence-based referrals, including to Justice and Finance/EU Relations.
Referral established; overall control decision unreconciled.
Transparency Commissioner
R2026000054 partially upheld access against Yaiza and required document lists for three municipal files within fifteen working days. A separate 11 August claim challenges Decision 28/2026.
One published partial uphold; other review remains live.
European Funds / Treasury / Law 2/2023
On 12 August the Technical General Secretariat confirmed that REGAGE26e00065752755 was transferred from Treasury to the Directorate-General for Modernisation and Service Quality for Law 2/2023 treatment.
Formal routing established; handler and merits outcome pending.
Date
Direction
Reference
Subject / procedural state
6 Mar / 11 Jun 2026
General Intervention → contributor
Outputs 184368/2026 and 497011/2026
Internal-control scope and referrals; no merits decision on title, aid or funds.
2026
Transparency Commissioner → Yaiza / contributor
R2026000054
Partial uphold; document lists for files 7043/2022, 7059/2022 and 10356/2022 ordered within 15 working days.
15 Jul → 12 Aug 2026
Treasury / Technical Secretariat → Modernisation and Service Quality
Formal routing for Law 2/2023 and Decree 91/2024 treatment.
ProvesSpecific referrals, official responses, a partial access decision and formal Law 2/2023 routing between identified offices.
Does not proveThat ATC, Intervention, the Commissioner, European Funds or the internal reporting system reached the same conclusion—or any merits conclusion.
Outstanding finite actionFor each office, identify the custodian, handler, preserved file, substantive competence exercised, current access status and reasoned outcome; confirm any actual EU-funding line separately.
Competence: municipal planning, works, activity, enforcement and municipal records. Yaiza should identify its documents and checks; it is not asked to determine the lawful tourism operator.
Last verified13 August 2026
StatusPartial access ruling; newer preservation and separate-file requests unanswered on the merits
Date
Direction
Reference
Subject / procedural state
Apr 2022
Municipal technical / police record
1748/2022
Records incomplete documentation and executed works not fully matching material submitted, within the scope described by the file.
2026
Transparency Commissioner → Yaiza
R2026000054
Partly upheld access; ordered document lists for 7043/2022, 7059/2022 and 10356/2022 within 15 working days.
31 Jul–7 Aug 2026
Contributor → Yaiza
Separate-file, preservation and verification communications
Requests separation and preservation of planning, licences, activity, works, tax and declared-title records; no merits response located.
ProvesThe identified municipal files, a binding transparency-access decision and recent traceable requests.
Does not proveThat receipt validates private title, works, licence, compliance, tourism authority, the allegations or any offence.
Outstanding finite actionProvide authenticated indexes and source documents for 7043/2022, 7059/2022, 10356/2022, 1748/2022 and 5854/2022; identify each declarant’s capacity, properties stated and verification performed, or certify a bounded absence.
The public page names files and procedural acts, not private identities, signatures, addresses or raw correspondence. Any remedy date must be calculated from confirmed notice of the relevant act.
08
Cabildo de Lanzarote
Competence: Cabildo-held tourism records, Tourism Planning files and certified extracts within its custody. The operator-history request distinguishes establishment holder, operating undertaking and private-community authority.
Last verified13 August 2026
StatusAccess record established; operator-history allocation and response pending
Date
Direction
Reference
Subject / procedural state
7–9 Apr 2026
Cabildo → contributor
File 614/2026 · Resolution 2026-2735
Granted access and reproduced the 13 March Tourism Planning report identifying 3671/2022, 2984/2023, 17070/2023, 19995/2023, 7206/2024 and 4887/2025.
18 Jun 2026
Contributor → Cabildo
Traceability and preservation communication
Requested author, authority, exact community, units, verification, funding/incentive effects, metadata and specific treatment of Matkator units.
13 Aug 2026
Contributor → Cabildo
REGAGE26e00072883405 · file 614/2026
Requested execution/re-delivery and access to specified records including 3671/2022, 498/2020, 547/2020 and 21219/2021; receipt proves submission only.
ProvesThe Cabildo access decision, the six identified tourism files, formal traceability questions and the 13 August operator-history filing.
Does not proveThat any file validates title, a Community mandate, all-unit authority, a registry change, eligibility or that the latest filing was allocated or accepted.
Outstanding finite actionConfirm allocation and answer REGAGE26e00072883405; provide certified entries, indexes and source acts for H-35/3/0034 / H-35-3-0000034 / LZ/2012/000031, determine whether GE-014212/2014 caused any entry, and state current status/final acts in the six named tourism files.
Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Las Palmas — ICALPA
Competence: professional-conduct control and preliminary disciplinary handling within its statutory remit. It does not determine private title, civil or insolvency merits, or criminal liability.
Last verified13 August 2026
StatusTwo preliminary files described as open; no later final decision located
Date
Direction
Reference
Subject / procedural state
27 May 2026
ICALPA → complainant
DIP 79/2026
Preliminary information opened concerning the complaint about CAM-side professional presentation; Raúl Galván González was appointed rapporteur.
27 May 2026
ICALPA → complainant
DIP 80/2026
A separate preliminary information file opened concerning insolvency-administrator-side professional handling; Luis Alejandro Guerra Rodríguez was appointed rapporteur.
10 Jun 2026
Complainant → ICALPA
Expansions in DIP 79/2026 and DIP 80/2026
Further claimant submissions in the two files; they are not ICALPA determinations.
ProvesThe reviewed records identify two distinct complaints, preliminary procedural activity and separately appointed rapporteurs.
Does not proveThe truth of either complaint, invalidity of private or court acts, a professional breach, an offence or any final College conclusion.
Outstanding finite actionObtain and verify each complete official file, including service, responses, admitted evidence, current status and any reasoned final determination.
Official College of Architects of Gran Canaria — COAGC
Competence: its own membership, habilitation, historical records, professional correction and professional-conduct functions. Article 44.3 of Royal Decree 129/2018 places primary disciplinary competence for the physical Lanzarote work with COALZ, but it does not leave COAGC's own historical records or identified discrepancy unauthenticated.
Last verified20 August 2026
StatusTerritorial answer, record discrepancy and complete institutional distribution; exact clarification pending
Date
Direction
Reference
Object / status
13 Jul 2026
COAGC → contributor
Art. 44.3 RD 129/2018
Stated that primary disciplinary authority lay with the Lanzarote College because that was where the professional act occurred.
22 Jul 2026
COAGC → contributor
Pablo Cabrera response
Said the supplied data did not coincide with its records; opened no auxiliary reference; confirmed custody of José Daniel Acosta Matos's membership data; reported no Sun Park / MYND Yaiza documentation and declined coordination on that basis.
22 Jul 2026
Contributor → COAGC
Clarification request
Asked which datum differed — affiliation, 2315, 21428, status or habilitation on 25 February 2022 — and what the correct professional datum was. No later answer was located in the reviewed thread.
20 Aug 2026
Contributor → COAGC
Follow-up and four-channel redistribution
Separate communication after the COALZ dispatch, followed by full redistribution to Colegio, Secretary, Secretariat and Supervision/Visados. It requested record reconciliation, preservation, search scope, autonomous Gran Canaria acts, coordination, Article 262 LECrim assessment if the threshold is met and a reasoned decision.
EstablishesCOAGC answered on territorial competence, said it retains its own membership data, identified a specific but unexplained mismatch, reported a search result and received the 20 August communication through the complete functional distribution.
Does not establishThe mismatch does not prove a false visado, lack of membership or habilitation, an autonomous professional act, a professional breach, an offence, coordination or a merits decision.
Finite action pendingIdentify the non-matching datum; certify the correct 25 February 2022 position; explain 21428 and 2315; delimit the searched records, period and custodian; preserve the search trail; notify COALZ of any correction; and issue a reasoned, reviewable decision.
Calling Gran Canaria a documentary nexus refers to corporate, insolvency, finance, professional, institutional and judicial connections. It is not a finding that a professional breach occurred there. Non-response is recorded as non-response, not admission.
11
Official College of Architects of Lanzarote — COALZ
Competence: primary territorial route for verification of the professional act and visado file linked to the Yaiza property, without deciding private title, insolvency, municipal planning, tourism, tax, public support or criminal liability.
Last verified20 August 2026
StatusThree registered entries, Board transfer and 20 August supplement; no merits decision located
Date
Direction
Reference
Object / status
13–14 Jul 2026
Contributor → COALZ
RE 26/008230
Principal request concerning José Daniel Acosta Matos, Sun Park / MYND Yaiza, the 25 February 2022 visado, ref. 22/000036/7800 and Yaiza file 1748/2022. It requested identification, preservation, authority records, native files, metadata and possible preliminary professional-conduct verification.
15–16 Jul 2026
Contributor → COALZ
RE 26/008474
Additional identity, corporate-capacity and direct property-interest material provided after the College requested evidence of the contributor's relationship to the file.
15–16 Jul 2026
Contributor → COALZ
RE 26/008476
Supervening-event update concerning Yaiza and Cabildo. Isabel Arcas confirmed transfer to the COALZ Board, as with the earlier communications.
20 Aug 2026
Contributor → COALZ
Follow-up in the existing thread
Added two Spanish visual indexes, the direct audiovisual source, the PwC–Grant Thornton–San Telmo/RICPE–RSM chronology and the DP 1901/2026 order. It renewed requests concerning preservation, client/authority/perimeter, later uses, 21428/2315 reconciliation, preliminary action, Article 262 LECrim where applicable and an express decision.
EstablishesCOALZ received and registered three submissions, requested relationship evidence, received that material and passed the record to its Board. The 20 August communication was sent in the same thread with three attachments.
Does not establishRegistration, receipt, internal transfer or dispatch does not prove completed preservation, preliminary inquiry, disciplinary proceedings, notice to JDAM, breach, offence or merits determination.
Finite action pendingConfirm handler and internal reference; preserve the file, native data and metadata; decide preliminary verification or give reasons for refusal; reconstruct client, authority, perimeter and later use; reconcile 21428/2315; assess Article 262 LECrim only if the threshold is met; and identify the review route.
The DP 1901/2026 order is used only as an identifiable judicial and preservation reference. It does not establish final admission, an offence or liability. The two images are evidence maps with express limits, not expert or College findings.
12
Audiencia de Cuentas de Canarias
Competence: external economic-financial audit of the Canary public sector within its statutory framework. It does not replace tax, judicial, criminal or disciplinary bodies or itself determine civil title or insolvency validity.
Last verified20 August 2026
StatusEntry 1619/2026 established; treatment and substantive response pending
Date
Direction
Reference
Subject / procedural state
19 Aug 2026
Audiencia → contributor
File 145/2026 · outgoing 954/2026
Certificate of the decision concerning file 60/2026 and formal transmission. It records the decision not to initiate an audit, not a merits determination of the underlying facts.
19 Aug 2026, 20:48 → 20 Aug, 08:30
Contributor → Audiencia
REGAGE26e00074022302 · entry 1619/2026
Request for access, clarification, competence delimitation and limited reconsideration. The Audiencia confirmed internal SIR entry; procedural treatment and any decision remain pending.
ProvesThe Audiencia received and internally entered the 19 August follow-up under 1619/2026, documentarily linked to files 60/2026 and 145/2026.
Does not proveAdmission, reopening of an audit, a successful reconsideration, acceptance of allegations or a merits decision.
Outstanding finite actionObtain both file indexes, the Autonomous Community Area report, the inventory of material examined, the competence partition, referrals and a reasoned response to the registered submission.
The native receipt contains personal contact data and a document-verification credential and is not published without redaction. The public record preserves the reference, procedural state and evidential limit.
13
Diputación del Común — Q26/574
Competence: supervision of concrete acts of Canary public administrations within the scope of Law 7/2001. It is not a general criminal, tax or private-transaction investigation body.
Last verified20 August 2026
StatusComplaint not admitted on 19 June 2026; reconsideration / alternatively a newly delimited complaint requested
Date
Direction
Reference
Subject / procedural state
19 Jun 2026
Diputación del Común → contributor
Q26/574 · outgoing 202600010579
Non-admission. The institution said the material did not sufficiently identify a concrete Canary-administration act, file, resolution, aid or subsidy susceptible to its supervision, and distinguished matters belonging to State bodies such as AEAT / Customs Surveillance.
19 Jun 2026
Contributor → Diputación del Común
Q26/574
Requested reconsideration of non-admission and, subsidiarily, treatment as a newly delimited complaint. The filing is a party request, not proof that the file was reopened.
ProvesA formal Q26/574 file existed and was expressly not admitted for lack of sufficient delimitation within the institution’s Canary-administration supervisory competence.
Does not proveThe non-admission is not a merits finding about Sun Park, MYND Yaiza, tax, public funding, corporate transactions or criminality, and it does not establish that the reconsideration succeeded.
Outstanding finite actionVerify whether the 19 June reconsideration / alternative delimited complaint received a new or reopened reference and any later reasoned response.
Competence: functional, documentary and service supervision of Letrados de la Administración de Justicia and the Judicial Office, without substituting judicial remedies or reviewing the merits of judicial decisions.
Last verified20 August 2026
StatusThree registry receipts for one coordinated evidential corpus; no distinct supervisory expediente located
Date
Recipients / route
Reference
Subject / procedural state
15 Aug 2026
Contributor → Government Secretariat, TSJ Canarias; Provincial Coordination Secretariat, Las Palmas; General Secretariat of the Administration of Justice
The same core filing was distributed separately for competence, coordination and preservation. It requested prior information / equivalent supervisory verification concerning LAJ and Judicial Office functions and documentary chains in Concurso 36/2012.
ProvesThree traceable registry receipts and three institutional destinations for the same coordinated documentary corpus.
Does not proveThese are not three investigations. Registration does not prove opening of disciplinary proceedings, acceptance of allegations, improper conduct or a merits determination.
Outstanding finite actionIdentify the competent handler and any single or coordinated expediente reference, confirm preservation and routing, and record any express supervisory decision without double-counting the three receipts.
The first receipt expressly says the same nucleus would be sent separately to the other two supervisory destinations to avoid gaps and duplication. The public register therefore counts the chain once.
06A · grouped-record update
Canary Treasury · Transparency 7/2026
Competence: public-information access and custody of contracting and borrowing files produced by the Directorate-General for Treasury and Financial Policy. This lane is not merged with the Vice-Ministry's Resolution 28/2026 or the Law 2/2023 routing chain.
Last verified30 August 2026
StatusPartial access recognised; signed implementation act and first delivery of 8 files / 734 pages reviewed; later production open
Date
Body / signer
Reference
Object / state
16 Jun 2026
Directorate-General for Treasury and Financial Policy
Resolution 154/2026 · transparency 7/2026
Partial access recognised, subject where appropriate to dissociation.
28 Aug 2026
María Teresa Bosch Llinares · Director-General
Colabora 7-2026-0316134247
Signed implementation act; first delivery of contracting and 2022–2025 files. Automated retransmissions are not counted as separate decisions.
EstablishesOfficial authorship of the act, access in implementation, the Colabora mechanism and the reviewed first-delivery denominator.
Does not establishA complete file, acceptance of allegations, public-bond flow to HNT, irregularity or individual responsibility.
Finite action pendingReceive, preserve, count, hash and reconcile each announced later delivery under ME-110.
Notices, sources and decisions — individual registration
Every date links to its event and source. Sending, receipt, registration, incorporation, review and decision are different states. Commercial proximity and receipt of allegations do not transfer criminal responsibility. Due diligence and subsequent conduct are tested actor by actor.
Gil Marer sent an Orion disclosure complaint to Portfolio customer-service and contact functions. The message advances allegations concerning legacy actors and requests a compliance review.
The body names CNMV as a copied party, but the actual recipient metadata contains no CC recipients. This transmission does not establish delivery to CNMV, any breach or the truth of the allegations. Its use of prospectus is source wording, not a statement that CNMV approved a prospectus.
Gil forwarded the Orion/CNMV material to Martin Graham and requested confirmation of safe receipt.
A sent individual escalation does not establish that its recipient read it or circulated it to the full Portfolio board. The recipient's capacity is not inferred from the email address.
Portfolio confirmed that the information had been received and logged, promised review and confidential preservation, and stated that it would engage with CNMV or other relevant authorities for context.
The stated future regulatory liaison is not evidence that liaison actually occurred. Acknowledgement is not endorsement of the complaint.
Gil sent a further escalation concerning Orion, alleging regulatory failures and media suppression, to Portfolio's channel, CNMV routes and the named individual escalation recipient.
These are the sender's allegations. Sending the escalation does not prove its allegations, a failure of statutory duty, receipt by every recipient or board circulation.
Portfolio reported an internal investigation over three months, collection of data and review of sources. It said the assessment was completed, subject to possible extension on new evidence, and requested official authority documents rather than merely copies of filed complaints.
This is Portfolio's reported assessment status, not an exonerating judgment or a finding of fraud. Later correspondence referring to 22 March does not replace the retained 21 March message timestamp.
Gil asked Cajasiete's channel manager for receipt/case-opening confirmation, independence and conflict assurances, confidentiality and protection before providing a structured evidential submission.
This preliminary request does not itself prove delivery of the full evidence, formal admission or a legally adjudicated protected status.
Cajasiete directed Gil to its internal reporting system and gave assurances of independence, confidentiality, non-retaliation and recusal/reassignment if a potential conflict were identified.
The assurances and channel invitation are documented; actual conflict checks and substantive investigation are not established by this email.
Cajasiete notified inadmission of communication 6. Its stated reasons included public information/rumour, possible personal conflict outside the organisation, scope exclusions and inability to investigate. It said the information would be destroyed.
The notice proves the stated reasons and announced action, not their legal correctness, the original submission's complete contents or actual destruction. The native submission date and attachment manifest remain open.
CNMV's later acknowledgement identifies a new RICPE communication sent on 20 August. This date-specific communication is registered from that recipient confirmation.
The complete native 20 August submission and attachment manifest have not been reconciled in this release. The acknowledgement does not establish acceptance of its allegations.
Gil corrected two earlier attachment failures and actually sent four ES/EN visual exhibits with the San Telmo/PwC source routes. He requested consolidation, preservation and appropriate internal escalation, including the board where applicable.
The earlier two sends must not be credited with delivery of these four exhibits. The visual exhibits are explanatory indexes, not primary findings. Board circulation was requested, not presumed.
CNMV's signed decision records receipt on 25 August of public-information request 2026114903 covering RICPE/Sun Park/MYND source versions, Series F/G, conditions, conflicts, controls and advisers.
This is intake attested by the later decision, not a newly located standalone receipt. The relationship with the separately registered 24 August REGAGE event PD-SP-EVT-0152 is a reconciliation question, not assumed identity.
Portfolio confirmed receipt of the four exhibits on 22 August, inclusion in the file opened in December 2024, consolidation of requests 81/82, preservation, contextual review and referral to relevant internal functions. It identified its Legal/Compliance head as custodian.
This does not identify every board recipient, prove full-board circulation, constitute an express formal reopening decision or establish misconduct. The source's affirmative review/preservation statements must be preserved, not rewritten as silence.
Gil requested a genuine Aweswell/Matkator financing meeting and internal referral to management, risk, commercial and institutional-relations functions. He asked for objective title, ECO valuation, LTV, debt-service, KYC and litigation criteria for his own proposal, not another client's confidential information.
The request does not prove internal delivery to the named officers, acceptance of finance, comparability of actual underwriting or a response. No financial concession is made a condition for withholding an allegation.
The signed CNMV decision extends the transparency-request response period by one additional month because of the volume and complexity of the information requested. The decision is separate from its covering email.
This is a deadline extension, not refusal of access, a substantive disclosure decision, refusal to investigate, clearance or finding on the allegations. The printed registry time has no stated timezone.
CNMV's transparency function transmitted the attached response to the request received on 25 August and asked Gil to acknowledge receipt.
This records the covering transmission only. Its unstated-zone timestamp is not directly comparable to the decision's printed registry time; no new merits conclusion or acknowledgment by Gil is inferred.
Gil sent two official CNMV documents to the Ethics Channel, requested incorporation into Communication 6, identification of the independent reviewing function, conflict analysis and lawful preservation, anonymisation or deletion traceability.
The supplemental submission does not prove substantive reconsideration, Board circulation, a conflict finding or a liability conclusion.
“Gestor del Canal Cajasiete” acknowledged the supplemental material, stated that it had been incorporated and did not alter the April 2026 decision, and said it remained registered with confidentiality and restricted access.
The response documents the institution's stated outcome, but does not identify the decision owner, explain the requested conflict analysis or describe the complete decision/preservation audit trail. It does not establish the legal correctness of the April inadmission.
5 September 2026 email to CajaSiete's Ethics Channel with two official CNMV documents and express requests for independent review, conflict analysis and traceability.
18 September 2026 response from “Gestor del Canal Cajasiete”: material incorporated, April decision maintained, and registration with confidentiality/restricted access.
RETAINED_RECEIVED_EMAIL · public-safe minimised derivative; no credentials or sensitive data published.
Gil asked Cajasiete's channel manager for receipt/case-opening confirmation, independence and conflict assurances, confidentiality and protection before providing a structured evidential submission.
Cajasiete directed Gil to its internal reporting system and gave assurances of independence, confidentiality, non-retaliation and recusal/reassignment if a potential conflict were identified.
Cajasiete notified inadmission of communication 6. Its stated reasons included public information/rumour, possible personal conflict outside the organisation, scope exclusions and inability to investigate. It said the information would be destroyed.
Gil requested a genuine Aweswell/Matkator financing meeting and internal referral to management, risk, commercial and institutional-relations functions. He asked for objective title, ECO valuation, LTV, debt-service, KYC and litigation criteria for his own proposal, not another client's confidential information.
The signed CNMV decision extends the transparency-request response period by one additional month because of the volume and complexity of the information requested. The decision is separate from its covering email.
Gil Marer sent an Orion disclosure complaint to Portfolio customer-service and contact functions. The message advances allegations concerning legacy actors and requests a compliance review.
Portfolio confirmed that the information had been received and logged, promised review and confidential preservation, and stated that it would engage with CNMV or other relevant authorities for context.
Gil sent a further escalation concerning Orion, alleging regulatory failures and media suppression, to Portfolio's channel, CNMV routes and the named individual escalation recipient.
Portfolio reported an internal investigation over three months, collection of data and review of sources. It said the assessment was completed, subject to possible extension on new evidence, and requested official authority documents rather than merely copies of filed complaints.
Gil corrected two earlier attachment failures and actually sent four ES/EN visual exhibits with the San Telmo/PwC source routes. He requested consolidation, preservation and appropriate internal escalation, including the board where applicable.
Portfolio confirmed receipt of the four exhibits on 22 August, inclusion in the file opened in December 2024, consolidation of requests 81/82, preservation, contextual review and referral to relevant internal functions. It identified its Legal/Compliance head as custodian.
22 individual events; eight source/attachment descriptors. This is not a certificate of historical completeness.
Recover Cajasiete communication 6 native submission, date, attachments, admissibility worksheet, conflict checks and preservation/deletion audit. Announced destruction is not completed destruction.
Identify the exact Cajasiete facility, borrower, principal, deed, collateral fincas and dates. Gil's approximate EUR1m recollection, the 2018 locales sale, the 2022 adjudication and the reported 2023 security entry must not be collapsed into one proved transaction. The suspension/funded-exit relationship requires the relevant orders and dated financing documents.
Obtain the actual Portfolio board/committee distribution and decision record. Individual escalation and relevant-functions referral do not prove circulation to every director.
Reconcile the two earlier 22 August emails and separate Requests 81/82 acknowledgements individually; do not backdate delivery of the four exhibits to those failed-attachment sends.
Recover the complete native 20 August RICPE submission and its attachment manifest, beyond the recipient's date-specific receipt confirmation.
Reconcile CNMV incoming 2026114903 on 25 August with the separate 24 August REGAGE event PD-SP-EVT-0152; preserve both records until documentary identity is established.
Shared governance, a disclosed investment or an acknowledged complaint does not establish common control, lack of legal independence, concealment, reliance, intent or criminal responsibility. Test knowledge, disclosure and subsequent conduct actor by actor.
