Reconstruct patrimonial, corporate, office-holder, knowledge and functional continuity without presuming criminal continuity.
Institutional protection · Proceeding 36/2012 · ONA / Clubotel · 7 June 2018
Who acted, who knew, who had to protect, and who investigated?
Reverse engineering does not end with identifying who obtained or exercised material control. If a funded exit existed that could be tested as a route to pay or consign creditors, the next question is what protection the Insolvency Administrator, the Court, the prosecution service and other authorities provided while assets, rights, evidence and competing exit routes could still be preserved.
Controlling limit: this ledger does not presume a criminal organisation, institutional collusion or collective guilt. Montelanza/Molina, the later Acosta Matos perimeter, private actors, the Insolvency Administrator, the Magistrate-Judge and prosecution authorities are assessed by their own conduct, date, knowledge, capacity, duty, causation and contrary evidence. The 2018 provisional criminal dismissal and its confirmation on appeal remain mandatory adverse evidence.
The chain should no longer be read in fragments
The working hypothesis is a functional continuity to test, not inherited criminal liability: Montelanza–Molina property/governance roots → later accumulation of CAM/Acosta Matos positions → material control → need for insolvency/judicial protection → investigative response → later economic outcome.
Who prepared, ordered, executed, adopted or ratified each act and what authority was invoked.
What they knew, what they could protect and which measures they adopted, rejected or left unresolved.
What evidence was acquired, preserved and tested, and which hypotheses were actually proved or rejected.
Trace the later result entity by entity without treating later benefit as retroactive proof of intent.
Institutional attribution must answer four questions
What did they do and what did they know?
The public record already contains actor-specific attributions around 7 June. The next layer is knowledge of ONA, title/possession limits, prior communications, instructions, security, keys, access, due diligence and later benefit.
Lawful alternative valid exercise of credit/title rights, legitimate preservation and independent private decisions.
What did he protect, authorise or fail to correct?
The record documents receipt of Carlos Sanz's April approach and places the IA in the May security/access pathway. The native scope of authority must be compared literally with execution and with preservation of estate value and exit alternatives.
Lawful alternative reasonable insolvency administration, necessary security, competence limits and formal routing of third parties.
Where was judicial protection?
Decision by decision, reconstruct what the court knew about material control, ONA, financing, appearance, extra-insolvency assets and protective measures; what was requested, what was decided and with what effect.
Lawful alternative legitimate judicial discretion, procedural limits, missing legal prerequisites or insufficient proof at the relevant time.
What was actually investigated?
The question is not why prosecutors did not charge. It is which concrete investigative steps were taken to prove or reject instructions, excess of authority, knowledge of the funded exit, causation, communications, flows, benefit and possible institutional conduct.
Lawful alternative insufficient indicia, reasoned closure, different territorial/material competence or later evidence not available at the time.
Protection and investigation ledger
| Node | Notice / knowledge to date | Capacity or duty to test | Observable response | Criminal / investigative question | Evidence still required |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Private perimeter | Fragmented ownership, credit, Community authority, ONA and access dependencies | Exact private rights, not public authority | Material acts and later consolidation must be attributed actor by actor | Knowing unlawful interference or legitimate exercise of rights? | Communications, orders, logs, contracts, CCTV, corporate and economic tracing |
| Insolvency Administrator | Carlos Sanz approach 26–27 April; May security/access context; later events | Preservation of estate/value and action within insolvency perimeter | Formal redirection, security initiative and later explanations require reconciliation with native sources | Did any act or omission knowingly facilitate excess authority or private advantage? | Native mandates, emails, incident reports, inventory, instructions, ONA assessment and quantified debt |
| Court | Applications, complaints, funded-exit work and appearance at dated points | Procedural protection and powers available at each stage | Orders, procedural acts, refusals, delays and omissions must be read literally | Is there anything beyond adverse outcomes: duty, knowledge, causation and relevant mens rea? | Complete file, minutes, court-stamped submissions, decision sequence and requested measures |
| Prosecution / Judicial Police | Complaints and later enlargements / new material | Investigative competence where legal thresholds are met | 2018 provisional dismissal and later proceedings must be preserved and contextualised | Which hypotheses were actually tested and against what evidential universe? | Decrees, investigative steps, requests, forensic acquisitions, preservation and reasons for closure/referral |
| Later outcome | Adjudication, refurbishment, finance/support and operation | N/A: outcome indicator, not automatic proof of offence | Later economic consolidation through differentiated entities | What causation and net benefit can legitimately be tied to earlier conduct? | Entity-level accounting, own investment, extinguished debt, support, rents, EBITDA, distributions and value |
The question institutions should be able to answer
If a funded alternative was materially developed, the record should allow these questions to be answered with documents rather than assumptions:
- Who knew of the exit, and from when?
- Who gave each material instruction?
- What title authorised each access, exclusion or intervention?
- Who knew LPB did not equal the whole of Sun Park?
- What did the IA do to preserve value and alternatives?
- What concrete protection was requested from the Court?
- What did the Court decide and what remained undecided?
- What evidence did prosecutors obtain?
- Were communications, CCTV, logs, phones and banking material preserved?
- Was the functional Montelanza/Molina → Community → CAM/Acosta Matos relationship reconstructed?
- Was ONA examined as a possible target/motive of interference or merely as a failed transaction?
- Was the later economic outcome traced entity by entity?
Absence of protection or of a particular investigative step does not prove complicity. But where notice, potential capacity to act and a material result coexist, the institutional response should be reconstructable and auditable.
Common evidential rule
ACT / OMISSIONKNOWLEDGECAPACITY / DUTYRESPONSECAUSATIONINTENTCONTRARY EVIDENCEGAP
Institutional pressure is strongest when each question can be documented or refuted. Office, association, silence, an adverse outcome or later benefit do not substitute for the elements required for individual liability.