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.
← Open letter · Justice record · E.G. 745/2026 · Classification · RPL 2523/2025 · DP 1901/2026
Objective and addressees of the open message
This is not addressed only to one territorial prosecution office. It is addressed to the Public Prosecution Service as an institution, and to every level that has received, decided, referred, supervised or reported on a material part of the matter.
Updated thesis
The thesis is not “Las Palmas Fiscalía is the problem.” It is broader: a system can become functionally instrumentalised when each isolated decision may appear defensible, yet no level reconciles the whole record, corrects inherited premises, distinguishes later facts from earlier ones, or tests whether repeated routing into the same decisional perimeter produced genuinely cumulative reconsideration.
The question is not only who was territorially competent, but whether the full prosecution architecture produced objective, traceable and evidence-responsive reconsideration.
Objective
We seek an auditable institutional response showing, for each level: what it received, what it decided, what it referred, what fell outside its decision, what later evidence altered earlier premises, and what happened next. Unity of action and hierarchy should correct fragmentation and error, not merely route files.
Relevant offices and people
Fiscalía Provincial de Las Palmas
Central territorial office in several inside- and outside-insolvency decisions. Current Fiscal Jefa Provincial: Beatriz Sánchez Carreras. Her source-controlled personal acts are the 8 February 2023 DI 113/2022 archive, the 23 February 2026 copy decision, and the 11, 13, 16 and 19 February and 2 and 3 March DI 22/2026 decisions. In DI 248/2018 she signed the 16 May 2019 notice, not the substantive archive decree. The 3 and 30 June and 8 July DI 22 office acts remain attributed only to the institution while their signatures are unverified. See the unitary inside/outside-insolvency matrix →
Fiscalía de Área de Arrecife de Lanzarote–Puerto del Rosario
Territorially responsible for Arrecife/Lanzarote and documented destination of GUB 86/2026. Current Fiscal Jefa de Área: M.ª Yolanda López Gómez. The assigned prosecutor, territorial reference and outcome remain to be identified.
Fiscalía Superior de Canarias
Relevant through DIP 2/2026 and as the superior territorial level. Current Fiscal Superior: Jaime Serrano-Jover González. Inclusion asks for cumulative review; it does not attribute decisions predating his appointment to him.
Fiscalía General del Estado
Current Fiscal General del Estado: Teresa Peramato Martín. The objective is to use institutional unity, legality and impartiality to test possible dependence on inherited framing.
Inspección Fiscal
Current head: María José Osuna Cerezo. Receipt/supervision must be distinguished from any substantive review actually documented.
Fiscalía Especial contra la Corrupción y la Criminalidad Organizada
A specialist perimeter to which material has been directed or through which it has been routed. Current Fiscal de Sala Jefe: Alejandro Luzón Cánovas. Do not infer his personal substantive position without identifying the prosecutor who handled the material.
Fiscalía de la Audiencia Nacional
Touched directly through GUB 86/2026 and its territorial referral. Current Fiscal de Sala Jefe: Jesús Alonso Cristóbal. The known act should be treated as competence/routing unless broader merits analysis is documented.
Delitos contra la Administración Pública / EG 49/2026
Includes the documented intervention of Emilio Jesús Sánchez Ulled. The exact request decided and matters left outside the decision should be identified.
Fiscalía Provincial de Santa Cruz de Tenerife
Relevant only where Tenerife-originating files or communications were actually received and transferred to Las Palmas. Reconstruct file by file.
Prosecutors acting inside court proceedings
The institutional map also includes prosecution participation before courts, including DP 332/2014, Concurso 36/2012/culpability phase, DP 1901/2026 and related proceedings. The signed DP 1901/2026 prosecution report remains a priority missing record.
Prosecutors already individually identified
Tomás Fernández de Páiz — identified signatory of the DI 273/2013 complaint dated 27 December 2013; identification attributes that act, not total knowledge, improper motive or an offence. Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo — identified signatory of the 12 March 2019 prosecution classification opinion; the judgment proves institutional prosecution attendance at the 25 July 2023 hearing and Gil identifies him directly, but official individual certification remains missing. Elena Herrera Rodríguez — identified signatory of the substantive 7 May 2019 DI 248/2018 archive decree. Beatriz Sánchez Carreras — signatory of the 16 May DI 248 notice, not that decree; signatory of the DI 113 and DI 22 acts detailed above. Juan Manuel González-Casanova Ruiz — signatory of the 6 March 2026 DIP 2/2026 decision and closure decree. Ernesto Vieira Morante — signatory of the 9 March DIP 2/2026 notice. Emilio Jesús Sánchez Ulled — identified signed intervention in EG 49/2026.
The complete prosecution history and primary final disposition of DP 332/2014; complete DI 113/2022 file/index; DI 22/2026 submission/module/treatment matrix and June/July signatures; separate DIP 2/2026 opening act and complete file; particular Anti-Corruption handlers; DP 1901/2026 reporting prosecutor, corpus and later order; GUB 86/2026 author and destination prosecutor remain to be reconstructed. See the DI 273/2013 complaint and attribution control →
Wider audience
This message is also addressed to judges, prosecutors, lawyers, journalists, academics, investors and citizens concerned with rule of law, effective judicial protection and EOMF legality/impartiality. They are not asked to adopt our conclusion, but to test the documentary sequence.
Discipline and evidential ceiling. Naming a person means attributing a documented public act or identifying the current holder of a relevant office. The located acts support investigation of institutional self-neutralisation and an asymmetrically protective practical effect in the limited sense of classification/accumulation without an exposed public matrix; its absence does not mean no internal review existed. They do not prove favouritism, capture, agreement or coordination, knowing suppression or intent, prevarication or criminality.