INSTITUTIONAL UPDATE · 18 SEPTEMBER 2026 · SOURCE → ACTION → RECEIPT CONTROL

Fiscal Inspection E.G. 745/2026: the official Decree is public, the English translation is complete, and the review/action track is being pursued in the open.

The Decree notified on 26 August 2026 archives E.G. 745/2026, describes the originating communication as “confusa e incoherente”, invokes Article 66.1(c) Law 39/2015 and says no irregularity attributable to a particular prosecutor in a particular matter was specified. The Inspection registration, however, contains express scope delimiters, 12 numbered requests and six identified proceedings. This dossier publishes the source, the review issues, the actions being prepared and the evidence still required, without converting those tensions into findings of misconduct or criminality.

ARCHIVED BY DECREE · REVIEW ROUTE OPEN · RECONSIDERATION NOT VERIFIED FILED

Fresh filing-proof control · 31 August 2026. A sent-mail check found no post-notification E.G. 745/2026 reconsideration, no REG-AGE filing receipt and no equivalent merits-filing proof. The controlling status remains PREPARED / OUTSTANDING — NOT YET VERIFIED AS FILED. A repository draft or public webpage is not filing evidence.

Transparency strategy. “Prosecute this matter in the open” is used here in the ordinary sense of publicly pursuing the evidential, review, preservation and accountability case. Por Derecho does not exercise the State's criminal-prosecution function and does not declare any person guilty. Open the live transparency/action ledger →

Controlled cross-proceeding navigation. Institutional clean room → · Decision-dependency Case Prism → · Trace E.G. 745/2026 → · Isolation test for E.G. 745/2026 → · Master record NAT-FIS-004 →. These links preserve interconnectivity controls; they do not create a procedural connection or prove receipt, examination, knowledge, reliance or coordination.

21 September / septiembre 2026 · REG-AGE

E.G.745: all 10 deliveries registered

27 PDFs, 1,272 pages and all 22 illustrations. Every attachment fingerprint matches the official receipts.

J00003992 · Fiscalía General del Estado · Inspección Fiscal. REGAGE26e00082068814 → REGAGE26e00082070021.

Delivery	Registration	PDF	Pages
1/10	`REGAGE26e00082068814`	5	103
2/10	`REGAGE26e00082069039`	2	139
3/10	`REGAGE26e00082069185`	2	221
4/10	`REGAGE26e00082069355`	5	203
5/10	`REGAGE26e00082069484`	5	91
6/10	`REGAGE26e00082069581`	3	64
7/10	`REGAGE26e00082069631`	1	127
8/10	`REGAGE26e00082069746`	2	150
9/10	`REGAGE26e00082069917`	1	125
10/10	`REGAGE26e00082070021`	1	49

Registration does not establish admission, incorporation, examination or merits acceptance. Native receipts and private filing bodies remain in controlled private custody.

DP1901 remains separately registered: 13 actions, fourteen events. Next: substantive Presidencia communication, then the lawyers’ consolidated package.

Historical planning · 19 September 2026 · filing status superseded above

DP1901 and E.G.745: response target for 20 September evening

Gil Marer’s operational target is to complete the respective responses by the evening of 20 September 2026, Canary Islands time, at the latest. This is a working target, not a verified legal deadline or a change to any applicable period. No filing is announced here.

DP1901 · personal actionsComplete notices, requests and preservation steps Gil can initiate himself, with a distinct recipient and function.

DP1901 · judicial remedyA separate lane requiring professional review and filing. It is excluded from the personal-action count.

E.G.745 · separate responseIncorporate the DP1901 module and complete the successor response within the same operational target, without waiting indefinitely for other authorities to reply.

Controlled state:13 recovered direct personal-action candidates; 20 connected economic, recovery or access routes. These working sets establish neither 33 necessary new filings nor an exhaustive historical census. The final total remains open. Drafting, registration, receipt and incorporation are separate states.

The 14 September Auto, received on paper by post on 18 September and photographed, records a 29 July Fiscal report seeking archive. The native electronic court PDF, signed report, author and corpus, and official Ref.21/Ref.24 allocation/association bridge remain outstanding. The Ref.21→DP1901 chronology is contemporaneously corroborated; the direction of the identity collision is not certified.

The DP1901 module to carry into E.G.745

Fact: a 29 July Fiscal report sought archive. Source: the 14 September Auto. Request: signed report, author, assignment, corpus and index.
Ref.21/Ref.24 and 9 July private-actor material: produce official allocation, incorporation and transmission history; do not promote contemporary corroboration into official certification.
DIP2: address competence, the March correction and the material received by each Fiscal.
Fiscal Superior: preserve the notice’s actual status; attribute knowledge only after proved receipt.
Individual accountability, economic context and preservation of value: identify act, capacity, knowledge, duty, effect, beneficiary and contrary explanation.

Immediate supervening incorporation into Inspection does not replace the E.G.745 merits response. The 12 September predecessor draft requires updating.

One economic chain; distinct powers and proof

Gil Marer/Aweswell’s attributed hypothesis connects Community authority and minutes, debt/voting/exclusion, procedural use, insolvency and supervision, control/title, RIC/RICPE, works/HNT/MYND, incentives/FEDER, operation and income. It is a criminal and patrimonial hypothesis to test, not a guilt finding. Later participation or instrumental inclusion of third parties does not establish knowledge or intent.

Preserve first → trace value → determine merits → recover or restitute where legally available. Each authority receives a request within its powers. No indiscriminate confiscation is sought; portfolio sales, management-company turnover and asset values are not added together.

Control 19/09/2026. Publication describes the programme; filing requires the exact submitted bytes and official receipt. These notices do not suspend the judicial remedy period.

SUPERVENING EVENT · DP 1901/2026 · 14/18 SEPTEMBER

The prosecution report is no longer hypothetical: a court order records its date and requested dismissal.

New controlled fact. The 14 September 2026 order in DP 1901/2026, received in copy on 18 September, records that the Public Prosecution Service, in a report dated 29 July 2026, sought dismissal of the case. The same order treats DP 1901 as a proceeding for alleged judicial prevarication and orders final dismissal/archive.

What changes in E.G. 745

The controlled 12 September reconsideration draft asked for the DP 1901 report's author/content if the report existed. That condition is superseded: there is now a dated prosecutorial act and requested outcome. Author, full text, source corpus, assignment, reasoning, review/instruction and transmission remain open.

Control 21 / daily reference no. 24 collision

The record preserves two autonomous complaints: Control 21 against private actors and daily reference no. 24 concerning the judge. July records treated DP 1901 as the private route; the 12 July order linked it to DIP 2/2026; the 14 September order treats it as prevarication. No formal bridge explaining joinder, reassignment or segregation has yet been located.

Boundary. A prosecution request for dismissal does not by itself prove capture, prevarication, coordination or bad faith. Assessment requires the full report and the file/corpus given to its author. It does, however, convert a previously hypothetical intervention into a concrete dated prosecutorial act that is actor-specifically identifiable from Fiscalía's own records.

Open the full DP 1901 update →

1 · PRIMARY RECORD

The complete text and the privacy-controlled replacement visual are live and deployment-verified.

Official visual facsimile

The raster-first three-page visual derivative is LIVE_VERIFIED. Page 1 masks only the recipient's personal email address; the institutional text, dates, Decree and signatures remain visible. PR #1274 merge 6dc04a8a35c4a096631ca1852ec5fbee96c4965f was deployed by Pages run 33411821984, and readback run 33413265941 matched all 32 release-changed public files byte-for-byte.

Open the live-verified three-page viewer →

Complete English translation

The response package publishes a convenience translation of pages 1–3 directly inline. The Spanish native source and controlled Spanish transcription prevail in case of discrepancy.

Read the full English translation →

Native source: OFICIO Y DECRETO EXP. 745-26.pdf, 3 pages, 1,111,997 bytes. SHA-256 1e09c8eb3bce26e28dc5f22e5d6ebad3f458212cf8d85f5920e869fa42554abe. Inspection registration receipt REGAGE26e00070235775, SHA-256 33f7b47418062a0bc4993f424e459af18fa2d334acc8bafc4c2e40750f171f97.

2 · SOURCE-TO-DECREE COMPARISON

A finite review question, not a motive finding.

Decree proposition	Registered source	Controlled review issue
The filing is “confusa e incoherente” and insufficient under Article 66.1(c).	The Inspection registration contains a substantive statement, express scope delimiters and 12 numbered requests.	Identify the particular fact, reason or request said to be unintelligible or insufficient; structure alone does not prove legal sufficiency.
No irregularity attributable to a particular prosecutor in a particular matter was concretised.	The source expressly identifies DI 248/2018, DI 113/2022, DI 22/2026, DIP 2/2026, EG 49/2026 and DP 1901/2026 and asks Inspection to identify who performed specified functional acts from institution-controlled records.	Individual functional attribution was itself an evidential object requested from the institution; that does not predetermine personal liability.
Lack of clarity leads to archive.	The source asks for recovery, connection and cure/subsanación if a necessary item is missing.	Because the Decree itself relies on Article 66, the prepared review asks for an express answer on Article 68 cure and, if inapplicable, the rule displacing it. This is a review argument, not an existing judicial holding.
The Decree refers to an email received 3 August.	The matching Inspection-specific REG-AGE registration was presented/registered late on 2 August.	Request internal routing evidence explaining the path from REG-AGE to the email/source described in the Decree; do not infer concealment or manipulation without evidence.

Evidential boundary. The comparison does not establish bad faith, obstruction, prevarication, coordination or an automatic duty to open an investigation. It identifies review, production and preservation questions for competent determination.

3 · ACTIONS BEING TAKEN / PREPARED

Open status ledger — no upgrade without a receipt.

Action	Current status	Closure proof
Elect merits route: optional reconsideration or direct Supreme Court contentious review	OPEN / CRITICAL	Dated route decision + counsel control + effective-notification verification
Reconsideration	PREPARED / OUTSTANDING — NOT VERIFIED FILED · 12 SEP version requires successor for DP 1901 event	Updated final version + signature + exact filed bytes + REG-AGE/equivalent receipt + timestamp
Complete E.G. 745 expediente, controlled/certified index and copies	Protective draft prepared	Receipt + production or reasoned refusal
Native/searchable/verifiable Decree and metadata	Protective draft prepared	Receipt + native/verifiable source or explanation
Preservation of institutional email, headers, attachments, routing/allocation and applicable system traces	Protective draft prepared	Receipt / acknowledgement if issued
Official actor-by-actor functional identification	Outstanding production architecture	Official role/routing record or reasoned refusal
Identity of the 2 August registered attachment against the signed 31 July master	CLOSED / VERIFIED 31 AUG	Exact SHA-512 match; binary identity proved. This is not reconsideration filing proof.
Supreme Court litigation-preservation/preparation bundle	Preparation only	Counsel control note; judicial receipt only if later filed

Open the complete public action and transparency ledger → · Historical 29 August action diary →

4 · REVIEW ROUTES AND DEADLINE CONTROL

One merits fork, with parallel protective work.

A · Optional reconsideration

Seek revocation/reopening or, alternatively, formal cure. Main grounds: actual structure of the source, identified proceedings, requested institutional attribution, Article 68 against the Article 66 framework selected by the Decree, and specific reasons for any claimed lack of clarity.

Working backstop: Monday 28 September 2026, subject to legally effective notification verification and any special rule. File ASAP if elected and substantively approved; the backstop is not the target date.

B · Direct contentious-administrative review

Alternative initial merits route before the Supreme Court's Contentious-Administrative Chamber as stated in the Decree. Exact deadline, standing and Article 128 LJCA interaction remain COUNSEL VERIFY BEFORE FILING.

C · Access / native copy / preservation

Request the complete file/index, native/searchable/verifiable decision, institutional routing and finite preservation of relevant records. These protective actions are not treated as suspending the merits deadline.

D · Separate-route triage

Superior-FGE, disciplinary, criminal, civil/patrimonial or State-liability routes remain route-specific. No automatic criminal filing recommendation arises from an archive decision or sequence of adverse acts.

5 · SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND CONTEXT

Every public proposition should lead to its source or control record.

Context control. The wider Fiscalía/calificación record is relevant where primary sources support it. Cross-linking does not create a procedural connection and does not itself prove receipt, knowledge, coordination, shared intent or personal criminal responsibility.

6 · ADVERSE POSTURE · PARALLEL MULTITRACK RESPONSE

E.G. 745/2026 is not challenged in isolation.

Current operating position: Gil Marer and Aweswell Limited treat Ministerio Fiscal/Fiscalía—especially the Canary Islands/Las Palmas offices—as an adverse institutional actor for preservation, notice, recovery and procedural risk. They allege that the criminal threshold had already been crossed before or, at the latest, at the 25 July 2023 hearing. This is an attributed accusation, not adjudicated guilt.

1 · E.G. 745 reconsideration

Merits review of the 26 August Decree. Prepared / outstanding; not verified filed.

2 · Access and preservation

Complete file, index, corpus, routing, allocation, native decision and finite system traces. A draft is not a filed request.

3 · DP 1901 production

Signed Fiscal report, author, received corpus and later judicial decision. Connected through evidence, not merged into E.G. 745.

4 · Actor-specific accountability

Act, duty, knowledge, reason, mechanism, counterfactual and contrary evidence for each prosecutor or office. Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo record →

5 · Appeal and recovery

RPL 2523/2025, preservation and owner-specific harm continue in parallel without double counting.

6 · Public notice and response

Publication, service, receipt, personal access and response are recorded as separate states. Open full notice →

Not executed by this publication. No reconsideration, access request, complaint, criminal filing or authority communication has been made as an automatic consequence of this update. Every external act requires a final package and separate authority.

CAEPR IDENTITY · E.G. 745/2026 BOUNDARY

Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo^{^}

E.G. 745/2026 belongs to the wider institutional context, but the visible decision is signed by María José Osuna Cerezo and the communication by Olalla Vázquez Moraga. No act in that file is attributed here to Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo.

^ verifies identity only. Open the complete census and coverage status →