INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTION · APRIL 2018–2019
What each participant actually said or did in the ONA funded exit
This page turns the contemporaneous record into a statement-of-fact matrix without inventing a joint declaration. Each participant is attributed only their own documented words, acts or procedural role. Gil Marer's later criminal interpretation is shown separately.
Controlled conclusion
ONA/Clubotel was not merely an unrelated rival bidder. Read as one sequence, the documents support its role as intended operator and acquisition participant inside a coordinated funded-exit architecture whose wider objective was to establish the payable insolvency amount, obtain sufficient finance, pay or consign recognised creditors and conclude Insolvency Proceeding 36/2012.
Attributed fact matrix
| Participant | Documented statement / act | What it establishes | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carlos Sanz / Pledge Investments | 26 April 2018 request to the Insolvency Administrator for offer terms, amount to improve and deadline; later insistence that a reliable debt figure was vital to resolve the insolvency proceeding. | A real transaction depended on usable information and debt quantification. | His communications do not adopt Gil Marer's later criminal conclusion. |
| Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte Insolvency Administrator | 27 April response declined the requested substantive information and directed a party asserting legitimate interest to personate and seek information through the proceeding; later dealt with/contested Clubotel personation. | A documented gatekeeping sequence exists from April 2018 to the later formal access route. | Gatekeeping or opposition alone does not prove crime or intent. |
| ONA / Clubotel La Dorada, S.L. / Nacho Barrau | Pre-7-June operating/business-plan work; 6 June Clubotel operating instrument; continued transaction work and 2019 personation. | ONA/Clubotel was inside a developed transaction before and after 7 June. | Exact legal person must be taken from each instrument; ONA was not necessarily the lender. |
| Daniel Irigoyen | Reported to the coordinated team that the judge had been told financing was approved to exit through payment/consignation to all creditors; sought court/AC coordination; later acted for Clubotel in personation. | Bridges the transaction to the concurso and the all-creditor payment objective. | His account is not a certified judicial minute. |
| Rosa Gual Tomás / Cuatrecasas team | Debt, due-diligence, security and drafting work; agreed in the drafting chain to remove a subtle reference to ONA from one proposed submission. | Professional knowledge that ONA was within the strategy even when omitted from that one draft. | The omission does not by itself prove concealment, negligence or crime. |
| Juan Tomás Parrilla | Final-claims, privileged/post-petition debt and meeting analysis within the coordinated September exit work. | The financing question was being matched to the legally payable insolvency amount. | Participation does not make him a signatory to Gil's later theory. |
| Alberto López Villarrubia Magistrate-Judge | Knowledge is attributed through Daniel Irigoyen's contemporaneous report that the judge was informed of the financed all-creditor exit and asked to coordinate a route with the AC. | Creates a specific knowledge proposition for certification against the docket. | The docket and operative orders control; no direct quotation from the judge is invented. |
ONA transaction materials, Carlos Sanz's access request and the Clubotel operating instrument all pre-dated the material-control event. The criminal relevance alleged by Gil is therefore not retrospective invention: the alternative transaction existed before the event that he says impaired access, operation, information, income and collateral.
The route continued through finance work, the judge/AC presentation, September debt-and-payment coordination, 2019 novation/guarantee/conclusion work and Clubotel personation. Continued work does not prove that 7 June caused failure, but it permits the effect of the event and later institutional decisions to be tested against a real counterfactual.
Gil alleges that the five identified private actors, together with affirmative acts or legally relevant omissions of the Insolvency Administrator and judicial acts/omissions of the Magistrate-Judge, formed a continuum that frustrated a creditor-paying exit, degraded its security/operating dependencies and enabled the adverse control outcome to consolidate.
The required proof test is actor-specific: act/omission → capacity/duty → actual knowledge → dependency affected → contemporaneous effect → loss → alleged intent → benefit/destination → alternative explanation.
Later control, adjudication, finance or economic benefit can be investigated as outcome evidence; it does not automatically prove an earlier criminal agreement. Family, corporate or professional association does not transfer knowledge or intent.