Carlos asks for terms, the amount to improve and deadline. The Administrator replies but does not provide the substantive information and redirects him to formal personation and a request to the court.
BEFORE → 7 JUNE → AFTER · ONE DOCUMENTARY CHAIN
“Carlos's April approach to the AC → ONA already contracted by 6 June → funded creditor-payment exit → Clubotel's later personation.”
This is the control visualization for reading ONA/Clubotel inside the whole record, not as an isolated rival bid. It separates documented facts, contemporaneous statements, investigative inferences and evidential ceilings.
Attribution rule. Statements by Carlos Sanz, Daniel Irigoyen, ONA/Clubotel, Cuatrecasas and other professionals remain individually attributed to each author and document. They are not converted into a joint witness statement or a criminal finding. Gil Marer's criminal allegations against adverse actors still require actor-specific proof.
The hotel industry lease and suspensive annex with Clubotel/ONA had reached signature before the disputed material control event of 7 June.
Financing, due diligence, security and debt-quantification work continued. In September Daniel reported that the judge had been told funding was approved to exit by paying/consigning all creditors.
Clubotel, through Daniel Irigoyen, sought formal participation in Insolvency 36/2012; the docket identified it as an interested party while it challenged refusal.
Before 7 June
19 April: ONA LOI and business plan.
26–27 April: Carlos approaches the Administrator and is redirected into formal process.
May–6 June: DD, valuation, financing routes and ONA/Clubotel contract become materially developed.
Investigative question: who knew this funded alternative before 7 June, what duties did they hold, and what specific acts affected access, control, information, collateral and preservation?
7 June 2018
Central event: the disputed change in material access/control documented in the 7-J dossier.
Causal relevance: access, inspection, operations, income and the ability to provide security could depend on material control of the asset.
Limit: the site does not publish “7 June killed the deal” as a proven fact. Work continued afterwards, and the 2018 criminal complaint ended in provisional dismissal confirmed on appeal.
After 7 June
8–13 June: ONA/Elaia/DD continue; Stoneweg/Varia issues a conditional offer; Daniel reports court-facing exit work.
September: coordinated team seeks debt quantification and exit by payment/consignation of creditors.
2019: Clubotel seeks personation and novation/security/conclusion work continues.
Investigative question: which private-party, Administrator or court acts/omissions affected concrete exit conditions, and what lawful alternative explanation exists for each?
Unitary criminal-investigative reading — without collective guilt
Gil Marer's attributed hypothesis is that specified private actors and, in functionally distinct capacities, the Insolvency Administrator and Magistrate-Judge committed acts or omissions that may have degraded, blocked or neutralised an exit capable of paying or consigning recognised liabilities and preserving asset value. The proof must be built person by person and act by act.
Correct evidential result: this ONA spine strengthens inquiry into knowledge, available alternatives, causation and effects. It does not automatically turn failure of the exit into a crime or prove a common conspiracy.