1 · PEP / PRP
Spanish AML law uses persona con responsabilidad pública. The question is whether the person held a qualifying important public function, with exact office and dates.
DUE DILIGENCE · LEGAL CATEGORIES · EVIDENCE BEFORE LABELS
Are any material private actors PEPs, specially related persons, aforados—or actually shown to influence public officeholders?
This is a verification question, not an accusation. Wealth, business prominence, public funding, access to institutions, a favourable decision or a corporate relationship does not by itself answer any of those legally different questions.
Current controlled position: the bounded public-source scan performed on 20 August 2026 did not locate a qualifying public office for José Daniel Acosta Matos, Laura Patricia Acosta Matos or Francisco Mario Matos Matas. That is not a certification that they have never been PEPs/PRPs. The historical-office, family/close-associate, influence, aforamiento and insolvency-related-person tests remain separate and source-led.
Six questions that must not be collapsed
2 · Family / close associate
A family member or allegado of a verified PEP can trigger enhanced AML diligence. That is not the same thing as being the officeholder.
3 · Access / influence
Contact, access, a claim of access, an intervention and actual causal influence are different evidential levels. None may be silently upgraded.
4 · Aforamiento
Special criminal jurisdiction arises from a qualifying office/status and the law in force—not from money, reputation or connections.
5 · PER in insolvency
Persona especialmente relacionada is debtor-specific and date-specific. For LPB’s 2012 insolvency, historical insolvency law must be tested before current TRLC shorthand.
6 · Corporate related person
Article 231 LSC persona vinculada is a corporate-conflict category. It is not a synonym for PEP, PER or political influence.
Current bounded screen of the three priority actors
| Actor | PEP / PRP | Access / influence evidence | Aforamiento | PER — LPB 36/2012 | Article 231 / corporate related-person record |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| José Daniel Acosta Matos (JDAM) | Not verified. The current bounded official/public scan located private corporate roles, not a qualifying public office. Historical-office screening remains open. | No competent finding or source presently identified that proves influence over an officeholder. Business, RICPE/AGM/Orion governance and public-sector interaction are not enough. | Not verified. Any conclusion requires exact office/status, dates and applicable jurisdictional rule. | Open / not established. The test must be LPB-specific and apply the law relevant to the 2012 declaration, role/ownership and credit dates. | Documented corporate context. Orion’s issue-document family contains Article 231 related-person disclosures around JDAM and his family/corporate perimeter. |
| Laura Patricia Acosta Matos (LPAM) | Not verified. The bounded scan located private corporate roles, not a qualifying public office. | Attributed claim requiring verification. The CGPJ evidential family contains witness-attributed statements concerning personal access/contact with the judge and separate witness material. The repository classifies this as party/witness evidence—not proof of influence, improper communication, partiality or criminality. | Not verified. | Open / not established. Exact debtor, role, timing and statutory limb are required. | Documented in a specific corporate context. Orion’s Article 231 disclosure includes LPAM within the JDAM family/corporate related-person perimeter. |
| Francisco Mario Matos Matas (FMMM) | Not verified. The bounded scan located private business, Community, AGM and Orion roles, not a qualifying public office. | No objective influence finding presently identified. Community/property-administration and later corporate roles do not themselves establish political or judicial influence. | Not verified. | Open / not established. A Community or property-administration role must not be confused with being specially related to LPB as insolvency debtor. | Documented. Orion’s issue document expressly describes FMMM’s Pamalexsha/AGM interests and an Article 231 related-person perimeter. |
Bounded-search rule. “Not verified” is deliberately different from “no”. A name search can miss historic office, a variant, a former appointment, a non-indexed record or a relationship that only becomes visible after identifying a particular PEP/PRP. The internal protocol therefore requires a dated official-office search before any final label.
Influence: the evidence ladder
| Level | What the evidence establishes | What it still does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| 1–2 | Public/professional contact or repeated access. | Influence, improper access, a request concerning a decision or benefit. |
| 3 | A self-claim or witness-attributed claim of access/influence. | That the claim was true, used, effective or improper. |
| 4–5 | Corroborated private channel/contact and, at the higher level, a documented intervention directed to an officeholder. | That the intervention caused a decision. |
| 6–7 | A traceable decision after intervention; at level 7, evidence supporting a causal influence/benefit inference. | A criminal finding; every legal element and defence still requires testing. |
| 8 | A competent finding or legally sufficient proof. | No broader guilt-by-association beyond the finding’s actual scope. |
Criminal-law limit: Spanish Criminal Code arts. 428–430 concern conduct materially beyond acquaintance or access. In the private-person route, the law addresses actual influence over an official/authority through a personal relationship in order to obtain a resolution capable of generating economic benefit. This page does not say that threshold has been met by any named private actor.
PER and “related person” need their own clocks
For Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. / Concurso 36/2012, the starting question is the historical Article 93 of Ley 22/2003 applicable to the relevant 2012 insolvency facts and any transitional rules—not a retrospective application of the current TRLC label. The historical corporate-debtor test included specified qualifying shareholders, de iure/de facto administrators, liquidators, general attorneys, group relationships and a defined presumption for certain credit assignees/adjudicatees within the statutory pre-declaration period.
PER is not generic. A later creditor, unit owner, Community participant, promoter or investor-platform director does not become a “persona especialmente relacionada” with LPB merely because that later role is commercially close to the asset. The exact debtor, relationship, credit, dates and statutory route must be identified.
Separately, Article 231 LSC defines persons linked to company administrators for corporate-conflict purposes. Orion’s own disclosure materials are useful here because they expressly identify related-person relationships around JDAM and FMMM. Those disclosures are evidence of a corporate related-person perimeter—not evidence of PEP status, aforamiento, political protection, PER status or wrongdoing.
Aforamiento is not influence
The audit asks whether any relevant person actually held an office/status that changed criminal jurisdiction at the relevant date. Current LOPJ Article 57 identifies a defined set of national and judicial officeholders. Autonomous rules must be checked in their historical version. The Canary Statute was substantially reformed in 2018, so an old special-forum proposition cannot simply be carried into a current analysis.
No shortcut: a private businessperson is not aforado because they know politicians, meet officials, participate in publicly financed projects or claim access to a judge.
What would change the current status?
PEP / PRP
An official appointment/election/cese record identifying a qualifying function and dates—or reliable evidence of a statutory family/known-close-associate relationship to an identified PEP.
Influence
Authenticated communications or official records showing an intervention directed to a decision-maker, its content, timing, decision and benefit nexus; equally, records excluding or innocently explaining the claimed channel.
PER / aforamiento
For PER: LPB ownership/administration/credit chronology and the historical statutory route. For aforamiento: the actual office/status, dates and jurisdictional rule in force.
Correction and right of reply
If any named person or institution can identify an official record establishing or excluding a qualifying office, correcting a relationship, explaining a contact, or resolving the PER/aforamiento analysis, Project Sun Rock invites the exact source. The page should change when the evidence changes.
Publication rule: this page is a due-diligence screen. It must never become a reputational list where a person’s inclusion is itself treated as adverse evidence.