INSTITUTIONAL FIRST READ
Test the finite record before evaluating the wider allegation.
Use the same controlled evidence base to inspect source status, contrary material, procedural scope and open gaps.
Boundary. Navigation does not establish joinder, receipt, admissibility, knowledge, reliance, wrongdoing or merits.
26–27 APRIL 2018 · TRANSACTION GATEKEEPING
Carlos Sanz sought the necessary information; the AC redirected him into the proceeding
Precision matters: Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori did not remain literally silent. He answered, declined the substantive content requested and directed the interested party to personate and seek the information through the Court.
He seeks the applicable terms for an LPB/Sun Park offer, the amount to be improved and the deadline. The context was an acquisition, financing and exit route, not an abstract enquiry.
The AC does not supply the substantive information because Carlos has not identified his principal and says that a person claiming legitimate interest should personate and request it in the proceeding.
ONA produces operating documents, Clubotel signs the lease on 6 June and finance/acquisition routes are organised.
Clubotel La Dorada seeks personation through Daniel Irigoyen; the Insolvency Administration later opposes or challenges that personation.
The April 2018 → 2019 personation sequence shows continuity between the access route required by the AC and ONA/Clubotel's later formal attempt. The reason for directing personation must be compared with the later opposition to that route.
Carlos's own contemporaneous lane is now preserved in the ONA documented fact matrix. His emails establish transaction purpose, information dependency and the need for a reliable debt figure; they do not make him a co-author of Gil Marer's later criminal theory.
Gil says this was not neutral procedure but an early instance of gatekeeping which, combined with the absence of a reproducible debt figure, loss of control and opposition to Clubotel, helped frustrate an exit capable of paying creditors.
The April response alone proves neither crime nor intent. Criminal relevance requires proof of duty, later knowledge of the package, absence of lawful justification, effect on finance/personation, continuity with other decisions and any benefit to the adverse perimeter.
Documentary questions to close
- What did the AC already know about offers, debt and timetable on 26–27 April?
- What rule or order prevented an operational response or identification of the full route and requirements?
- What changed between directing personation and opposing it in July 2019?
- When did the AC learn of the ONA contract, finance routes and all-creditor payment/consignation objective?
- What certified, complete and reproducible figure was produced, and when?