Project Sun RockRecovery record
EspañolEN

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.

Provincial Public Prosecution Office of Las Palmas · DI 273/2013 → DP 332/2014

An official accusation does not turn its hypothesis into truth.

It is documented that prosecutor Tomás Fernández de Páiz signed a criminal complaint against Gil Marer and Patricia Domínguez on 27 December 2013. Gil alleges that the act adopted a frame supplied by the insolvency administrator and shifted onto the incoming perimeter an economic and operating crisis formed partly before December 2011. This page tests—and limits—that allegation proposition by proposition.

Controlled conclusion

The supportable allegation is causal inversion and defective temporal attribution—not “everything happened before us.”

Gil alleges that the complaint criminalised an inherited emergency and privileged the insolvency administrator's frame without a visible reconciliation by date, actor, capacity and knowledge. The located record warrants independent audit of that allegation. It does not by itself prove knowing falsity, capture, collusion or an offence by an individual prosecutor.
What the record supports

Inherited frame + suspicion directed at the incoming perimeter

The complaint incorporates 2008–2011 ownership, sales, debt and Community/operation conflict, but centres suspicion on the 6 February 2012 agreement and alleged later non-payment/non-collection.

Necessary correction

The central operative events did not all predate arrival

The agreement, operator transition and disputed collection conduct occurred after arrival. They require separate examination; concealing that would weaken, not strengthen, the challenge.

Published primary source

The complete complaint, with direct identifiers irreversibly redacted.

The public copy preserves all eight scan pages, including the blank sixth source page. It contains no OCR layer or recoverable hidden data. The accused persons' identity numbers are covered; the act, date, office, theory, requested measures and signatory remain visible.

Open the PDF

EVID-2013-FISCALIA-DI273-QUERELLA-001

Provincial Public Prosecution Office of Las Palmas · 27 December 2013

Complainant: Public Prosecution Service.
Accused: Gil Marer and Patricia Domínguez, in the corporate capacities stated by the complaint itself.
Then-proposed characterisation: corporate offence under former Criminal Code art. 295 in concurrence with asset concealment under art. 257.1.1.
Measures sought: statements, evidence from the AC and former administrator, rent appraisal and document production.

Public SHA-256: 5515b4cbedafc7c419f401769926ba1349553eb99abf87df7702354e972462c2

Controlled native SHA-256: 6531e1cd3677ddcfa600345c38fe69e463b0418b1025f27f0ee231a0817e697e

Open PDFCustody and page mapFull control record

Reconstructed institutional chain

The background begins in 2012; the located prosecution involvement begins in 2013.

Voluntary insolvency and AC appointment. Judicial/insolvency context, not a prosecution act.

The AC says he required Gil to seek termination of the agreement and claim sums. AC→Gil, not prosecution.

Article 75 report and later court authority invoked by the AC for criminal action.

The AC complains to Las Palmas Economic Crime prosecutors.

Tomás Fernández de Páiz signs the DI 273/2013 complaint.

The judicial route continues as DP 332/2014 before Arrecife Investigating Court no. 3.

A prosecution-requested expert places combined consideration within reasonable market ranges, subject to methodological limits.

Reactivation was described in 2021; a secondary procedural source in 2022 reported archive in 2021. The signed order remains missing.

Express limit: no institutional prosecution act dated 2012 has been located. Saying prosecutors “were involved from 2012” would currently exceed the evidence. It is documented that they acted in 2013 on events and architecture extending back to 2008–2012.

Attribution matrix

Separating context, act, actor and proof avoids two opposite inversions.

Earlier context cannot automatically become later personal conduct; nor does earlier history erase decisions genuinely made after arrival.

Proposition in the first frameDateControlled readingEvidence missing or requiring reconciliation
LPB formation, original owners and former administrator2008Pre-arrival context; not Gil's or Patricia's personal act.Corporate chain and responsibility by actor.
Sales, debt, voting and Community/operation conflict2009–2011Mainly inherited architecture.Minutes, ledgers, judgments and causal map.
Acquisition by UK Monterecco1 Dec 2011Transition event.Corporate records and exact capacities.
Gil's administrator statusJan 2012Post-arrival capacity. The complaint says 1 Jan; other sources distinguish decision, deed, registration and BORME dates.Registry certificate and legally operative date.
LPB–Spanish Monterecco agreement6 Feb 2012Post-arrival act requiring its own analysis.Agreement, purpose, negotiation, comparables, flows and knowledge.
Rent/Community sums allegedly unpaid2012–13AC/prosecution allegation, not a fact proved by the complaint.Banks, invoices, set-offs, accounts and collection capacity.
EUR 737,338.85 receivable not collectedJun 2012 balanceAccounting asset whose reality the AC said he could not verify; ignorance is not non-existence.Origin documents, Community ledger and later judicial treatment.
Below-market rent2013 suspicionNot established at filing; expert appraisal was requested.2019 expert + actual operating data not reconstructed by it.

Mandatory corporate separation: Monterecco Sun Park Limited (UK/Aweswell) and Monterecco Sun Park, S.L. (Spain/Pink) are distinct entities. They are not merged for narrative convenience.

Reverse engineering the accusation

The auditable issue is how uncertainty became a criminal frame.

AC source

“Not known”, “presumably”, “could not be verified”

The complaint reproduced by the AC contains uncertainty about payments, corporate control and the receivable's reality/recovery.

→
Prosecution act

Official complaint

Prosecutors formulated a patrimonial-prejudice and asset-concealment theory. The act proves accusation, not content.

→
Verification sought

Statements, records and appraisal

The request for a market appraisal itself confirms that proposition still required testing.

Central question: what did DI 273 independently check before judicialisation, and what remained adoption of the AC source? An investigative complaint can begin from indications; the answer lies in the complete file, not in an assumption either way.

Reverse direction and later evidence

The asymmetry warrants documentary explanation, not an automatic finding of bias.

2014 · Counter-theory

Gil and Patricia complain about the Community/minority frame

Two 24 March pleadings attributed deterioration to voting, debt, costs and operating-unit issues formed largely before arrival. They were party allegations; several complete exhibits remain outside public control.

8 MAY 2014 · DI 39

Prosecution archive

Prosecutors described the allegations as vague/generic and mainly civil/horizontal-property matters while preserving the judicial route. This proves evaluation and archive, not which independent measures occurred.

2019 / 2023

Some components weakened; others remain adverse

The expert placed price within a reasonable range. The judgment rejected culpability merely from entering the contract, Patricia's complicity and asset-concealment branches; it retained an adverse non-payment/non-collection branch against Gil/Pink, under appeal.

What can be alleged strongly

  • an AC→prosecution transmission path existed;
  • the frame mixed inherited architecture and later conduct;
  • several propositions began as uncertainties;
  • later evidence weakened material components;
  • the counter-theory received different institutional treatment requiring explanation.

What is not proved

  • the prosecutor knew any proposition was false;
  • he received private instructions or benefit;
  • the AC, CAM or another actor personally captured him;
  • every branch was false;
  • DP 332 ended in acquittal or final merits dismissal.

Outcome and applicable law

Two firebreaks prevent retrospective or unsupported personal attribution.

DP 332/2014

Final status not certified

Later sources refer to a 2021 archive; contemporaneous communications described reactivation and a November 2022 secondary procedural source supported only “archived in 2021,” without date, grounds or finality. Until the signed disposition is obtained, the status is archive reported, primary outcome missing.

Law 2/2023 · art. 36.2

It does not retroactively turn the 2013 complaint into retaliation

For later acts, protected-informant status, a qualifying report/disclosure, disadvantage and causal connection must each be proved. This page does not automatically attribute liability under that law to any prosecutor.

Official framework: Organic Statute of the Public Prosecution Service · Law 2/2023. The links verify the framework; characterising individuals requires the file and actor-specific proof.

Finite production

Ten questions the complete file can answer.

What exact act did each paragraph attribute to Gil, Patricia, LPB, UK Monterecco, Spanish Monterecco/Pink or third parties?
What measures did DI 273 perform before the complaint, and with what results?
Which exhibits accompanied the AC's 18 September 2013 complaint?
How were Patricia's capacity and the relationship between the two Monterecco entities proved?
Was “payment is not known to me” converted into “no payment occurred” without bank/accounting verification?
How was the 2008–2011 Community/operation architecture handled when individualising later conduct?
What comparative assessment did the March 2014 counter-theory receive?
What effect did the April 2019 prosecution expert have on the original rent theory?
What primary disposition supports the reported closure of DP 332/2014, and how does it reconcile with the 2022 secondary procedural report and contemporaneous reactivation communications?
What actor-specific element, if any, permits movement from error/inertia to knowledge, intent or personal responsibility?
Correction and identity: no separate matter or actor named “Armata” or “Armada” was located. María Paz Armas González later appears as Patricia's court representative; she is not conflated with a separate supposed file. To correct the record, provide a primary source or exercise reply: contact.

Sources and archives

Two ZIPs previously marked unopened are recovered; their contents do not thereby become facts.

Fiscalía.zip

21,153,250 bytes · recovered, path-safely extracted, inventoried and nested ZIP reviewed.

dc7fb8c5cf988fef46a6c0130a7c8d505b312a50f561b0f6f5d2e03664a46079

Ampliación Fiscalía.zip

22,692,319 bytes · recovered, extracted and inventoried; contains the 2019 enlargement and exhibit family.

03aa4f5869f1aab416c53e08ac1bf32d46a2caddf12ae237efa608d48f358abb

Private archives, emails, unredacted exhibits and provider identifiers remain outside Git. Open the source, contradiction and hash control →

Open letter to prosecutorsJustice MapEspañol

Por Derecho · updated 26 August 2026 · living record, correctable through primary evidence.