ACT → KNOWLEDGE → CAUSATION → INTENT → BENEFIT
The ONA exit as evidence of alleged criminality
Gil Marer alleges that the private, insolvency and judicial acts were not disconnected failures but a continuum that prevented creditor payment, frustrated the security package and diverted the hotel and its business toward the adverse perimeter.
No adjudicated guilt is published
This page states Gil's strongest criminal hypothesis and the proof test it must pass. No person is presented as convicted. Each actor retains a separate lane, explanations and right of reply.
The individually attributed statements and acts of Carlos Sanz, Daniel Irigoyen, ONA/Clubotel/Nacho Barrau, Cuatrecasas/Rosa Gual, Juan Tomás Parrilla, the Insolvency Administrator and the judge-as-reported-by-Daniel are now separated in a dedicated documented fact matrix. It fixes what each source actually establishes before criminal inference is applied.
Seven-lane matrix
| Actor and capacity | Alleged conduct relevant to ONA | Knowledge to prove | Dependency affected | Benefit/outcome to trace | Limit and missing proof |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Francisco Mario Matos Matas Private actor / minority-community perimeter | Alleged participation in parallel governance, debt and operating obstruction preceding or sustaining adverse control. | What he knew of ONA, the 6 June contract, finance and the need for access/operation. | Owner cooperation, unitary operation, access, income and non-interference. | Community control, influence, perimeter continuity and later effects. | The ONA record alone does not prove exact knowledge or a specific 7 June act; cross-check minutes, messages and his dossier. |
| Antonio Cogolludo Rojas Private actor | Alleged intervention in the governance, debt, possession or operating perimeter used against LPB. | Individual knowledge of the exit and how his acts could prevent it. | Access, community cooperation, operating continuity and asset protection. | Position, control or advantage obtained by the related perimeter. | Knowledge does not transfer from relatives or associates; his own records are required. |
| Shaila María Cogolludo Ramos Private actor | Alleged participation in adverse-perimeter decisions or structures before/after control. | Exact date and content of her knowledge of ONA and the finance. | Governance, representation, operation and access to information/assets. | Specific corporate, community or operating advantage. | Family or corporate relationship proves no intent; personal conduct evidence is required. |
| José Daniel Acosta Matos Private actor / creditor and material-control perimeter | Gil attributes a central position in taking/retaining control, using debt and replacing the exit package with an outcome favourable to his perimeter. | Knowledge of ONA, the offer, judicial timetable and effect of control on security, income and closing. | Possession, keys, income, collateral, information, valuation, security and deliverability. | Material control, later finance, adjudication and later operation/value. | Later outcome alone proves no prior plan. Acts, communications, authority and economic flow must be proved. |
| Laura Patricia Acosta Matos Private actor / corporate perimeter | Alleged participation in vehicles, decisions or benefits of the Acosta Matos perimeter concerning the asset. | Her exact capacity, date of knowledge and personal decisions. | Acquisition/operation vehicles, finance, title and destination of value. | Specific corporate or economic participation/benefit. | José Daniel's conduct is not attributed by family relation. Her own signatures, offices, accounts and decisions are required. |
| Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte Insolvency Administrator | April gatekeeping; later knowledge; alleged failure of figure/route/protection; opposition to Clubotel; omissions said by Gil to facilitate failure and diversion. | What he received in April, June, September and 2019; knowledge of every route and the effect of lost control. | Certified debt, asset preservation, access, personation, cooperation, security and court proposal. | Fees, continuation in office and outcome favourable to the adverse perimeter, without automatic causation. | Each decision must be compared with duties and a lawful insolvency explanation. Opposition alone is not a crime. |
| Alberto López Villarrubia Magistrate-Judge | Gil alleges knowledge of the package and all-creditor finance, followed by lack of protection, reproducible figure and effective route, allowing adverse control to prevail. | Docket, meetings, submissions and annexes proving what he knew and when. | Possessory/asset protection, procedural direction, debt, consignation, personation and preservation of value. | Procedural and property outcome benefiting the adverse perimeter; any influence must be proved independently. | Error, discretion or judicial omission is not automatically criminal. Ruling, unequivocal duty, arbitrariness/intent and causation are required. |
ONA provides a documented counterfactual: operator, plan, valuation, due diligence, finance routes, security and a payment/consignation strategy existed. Loss of access, control, income, information or security can therefore be measured against a real alternative rather than aspiration alone.
It does not by itself establish a completed offence, coordination or intent. Knowledge communications, condition ledger, debt figure, certified docket, benefit flows and contemporaneous reasons for every blockage remain required.
Loss hypothesis
- Wasted professional, due-diligence and mobilisation costs.
- Loss or impairment of operating rights and acquisition opportunity.
- Inability to deliver access, possession, income and security at closing.
- Increased debt/interest and prolonged insolvency.
- Loss of hotel, business, rents, control and later appreciation.
- Loss to LPB, Aweswell, stakeholders, financiers, ONA/Clubotel and creditors who could have been paid.