Urgent RPL 3304/R33 context and a preservation request were sent in the existing thread. A bounded review through 22 September located no substantive response.
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.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR · SPECIAL FORUM · PROFESSIONAL CUSTODIANS · TRACEABILITY
Nine personalised communications have now been sent: what each body received and what remains open.
On 20 August 2026, a differentiated sequence was completed for Arrecife, Las Palmas Provincial, the Canary Islands Superior Prosecutor, Fiscal Inspection, the State Prosecutor General, Technical Secretariat, Economic Crime Coordination, Anticorruption and the National Court Prosecutor. This was not one mass email: every destination received its own purpose, the same evidential limits, two Spanish visual source indexes and the controlled webinar link.
9 communications sent · no bounce located · 1 signature cure open
Precision boundary. Sending does not mean admission, allocation, joinder, investigation or decision. A professional engagement, contact or client introduction does not prove information transfer, improper influence, corruption or responsibility.
THREE PROFESSIONAL CUSTODIANS · CURRENT UPDATE · 21–22 SEPTEMBER 2026
One common procedural update; three distinct documentary reasons; no collective allegation.
The update was placed in NNR4-1025C2F66. No substantive reply was located; RSM's stated September response window remains open.
The update was placed in the existing file thread. One automatic absence reply was located; that is not a substantive response or merits position.
Shared limits. On 22 September the company name was corrected to Aweswell Limited (legal-register literal AWESWELL LIMITED, company 07716847). Silence is not admission. Receipt is not review. A professional relationship does not transfer another actor's alleged knowledge, intention, conduct or criminal responsibility. R33 remains a party filing.
360-degree control result
The current architecture separates four modules
Private / extra-insolvency
Judicial / special forum
Professional / information
Economic / tax / public funds
Verified special-forum module. DIP 2/2026 identifies at least one module concerning the Magistrate of Mercantile Court No. 1 in Las Palmas and explains the forum under Article 73.3.b LOPJ. This does not prove an offence and does not absorb the private mechanism. Government File 112/2026 requires clarification because it says no specially protected officeholder is identified while relying on DIP 2/2026 and the judicial proceedings to characterise the later filing’s “real” object.
The institutional wording used in the emails does not assert that the Acosta Matos perimeter exercised corruption, pressure or unlawful influence. It asks for actor-specific confirmation or rebuttal of possible access, interlocution or information channels capable of affecting the formation, selection, circulation or receipt of relevant facts and documents.
Verification matrix: PERSON → ENTITY → CAPACITY → CONTACT → INFORMATION → DOCUMENT → RECIPIENT → USE OR DECISION → EFFECT → BENEFICIARY.
Three professional custodians
What may be preserved—and what must not be inferred
PwC
The contemporary 2016 record reflects knowledge of the Sun Park dispute, the client’s instruction to pursue “the criminal route against these people”, PwC’s acknowledgement “We take note of your decision”, and later-confirmed direct contact with the insolvency administrator.
Finite measure: legal entity, matter codes, notes, communications, conflicts, Legal/Risk, billing, access and custodians.
This is not a PwC finding of crime, and the contact is not inherently improper.
Grant Thornton
In 2020 there were a conflict check, an NDA with Grant Thornton Advisory, S.L.P. and terms for a possible forensic engagement. A later professional/commercial relationship between the insolvency administrator and a Canary Islands associated entity was subsequently acknowledged.
Finite measure: entity, dates, onboarding, file availability, access, acceptance, independence and separation.
The proposal does not prove commencement or later access to the file.
RSM / San Telmo
Ethics review NNR4-1025C2F66 received the source in which Eduardo Sánchez stated that “in that first investment… we put in several clients”. The controlled context connects the discussion with RICPE / Acosta Matos / Sun Park.
Finite measure: matters, client introductions, KYC, conflicts, access, communications, billing/referrals and information separation.
This does not prove coordination with the insolvency administrator, information transfer, unlawfulness or liability.
Common audiovisual source
Statement approx. 08:08–08:12 · context 07:57–08:27.
Open video at 08:08Statement approx. 08:08–08:12 · context 07:57–08:27.
Public transmission register
Nine destinations, nine different functions
| Order | Destination | Own purpose | Controlled public state |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Arrecife Area Prosecutor | Government File 86/2026, territorial evidence, preservation and local measures. | Sent; receiving reference pending. |
| 2 | Las Palmas Provincial Prosecutor | DI 22/2026, DP 1901/2026 corpus, custody and Arrecife coordination. | Controlling version sent; duplicate corrected in writing. |
| 3 | Canary Islands Superior Prosecutor | Government File 112/2026 errors, special forum, object separation and referral. | Controlling version sent; duplicate corrected and traceability notice added. |
| 4 | Fiscal Inspection | Classification, allocation, custody, joinder, referral and coherence. | Sent through central channels; registration/transfer pending. |
| 5 | State Prosecutor General | Central coordination and operational owner by module. | Sent; association pending. |
| 6 | Technical Secretariat | ST 553/2026 / ST 104/2025 and technical destination. | Sent; technical response pending. |
| 7 | Economic Crime Coordination | Asset, income, information, financing and beneficiary matrices. | Sent through central channels; functional transfer pending. |
| 8 | Anticorruption Prosecutor | Specialist competence and the economic/tax/professional perimeter. | Receipt acknowledged; admission pending electronic signature. |
| 9 | National Court Prosecutor | Arrecife-referral traceability and separation of the Pink/AEAT lanes. | Sent; association/forwarding and delivery proof pending. |
Version control. An earlier version was also transmitted to Las Palmas Provincial and the Superior Prosecutor. In both cases an immediate written clarification identified the controlling version. The complete history remains preserved; the current editorial position is not ambiguous.
Provenance and effect
Pink / AEAT / National Court: three lanes that must not be merged
Government File 86/2026
A criminal-source/provenance communication referred by the National Court Prosecutor to Arrecife. Pink/Patricia/AEAT was already in the 2 August package.
Pink v AEAT
A separate contentious-administrative challenge concerning tax acts and procedural safeguards. It does not itself decide private provenance or criminal relevance.
DP 91/2023 / Appeal 120/2024
Earlier correspondence concerning prosecutorial reports in another proceeding. It is institutional background, not the same file.
Chain to test: ATTRIBUTED PRIVATE SOURCE → STATEMENT → TRANSMISSION/INCORPORATION → AEAT USE → TAX ACT → DERIVATION/ENFORCEMENT → HARM → POSSIBLE PRIVATE BENEFIT.
The later professional sources identify additional custodians. They do not prove this chain.
Response and next events
One concrete cure; all other substantive responses remain open
Anticorruption. It acknowledged receipt and said the communication remains pending admission until presented with a valid electronic signature. This is a formal cure requirement, not a merits decision.
The search located no delivery failure for the nine controlling emails and no substantive reply from the other eight destinations at this point. For the firms, only automatic absence replies from PwC and Grant Thornton were located; RSM’s stated response window remained open.
Next prosecutorial controls
Signed Anticorruption cure; receiving references; association with DI 22/2026, Government File 112/2026 and ST files; National Court→Arrecife referral proof; responsible prosecutor/unit; and individualised responses.
Next evidential controls
Preserve matters, access, KYC, conflicts, emails, metadata, billing, client-introduction records and comparison with ATLANTE and the 2018/2021–22 judicial chains.