27 · 09 · 2026

Protective mandate, remuneration and later relationships

Gil Marer alleges that the mandate's protective purpose was defeated and raises a possible reversal of loyalty encouraged by later economic relationships. The question requires entity, team, date, mandate, work, fee, payer, conflict and information-use evidence. The December 2014 change of billing recipient to Matkator was requested by the client and accepted by email: it does not prove a unilateral PwC change or determine the economic terms of every Sun Park engagement.

The 2016 record documents protective work, client warnings and knowledge of the client's criminal thesis. PwC's reply also explained the civil challenge it was preparing and its concern about the deadline. These records must be read together. No independent PwC finding of criminal liability against identified persons is attributed.

The RICPE first-quarter 2021 report, page 11 records PwC tax due diligence on Construcciones Acosta Matos's Merlín project. This is a specific later relationship on another project; it does not itself identify the 2016 team, precise retainer, payer or misuse of the Sun Park file. The requested investigation must test whether safeguards were preserved, abandoned or compromised and by whom.

Inter-Bar examination: mandates, fees and incentives

URGENT INSTITUTIONAL UPDATE · 21–22 SEPTEMBER 2026

RPL 3304 update sent; canonical entity name corrected; documentary response remains open.

Finite action: preserve and identify the 2015–2016 engagement file, matter/workspace custodians, conflict and former-client searches, the Legal/Risk/Compliance trail, the exact scope of Carlos Saavedra's work, direct insolvency-administrator contacts and any later overlapping mandate or information barrier.

2 · A single 2016 sequence

The instructions, legal response and insolvency contact must be read together.

Protective-shield question: once PwC knew the client was characterising the conduct as potentially criminal and asking for the penal route, what risks did PwC identify, escalate, refer, preserve or decline—and where is the professional record of that decision?

FAIR COUNTERCASE · WHAT THE INTERNAL RECORD MAY SHOW

An innocent PwC explanation is capable of documentary proof.

The outstanding records may show that later events belonged to legally distinct PwC firms, separate teams and unrelated assets; that effective former-client/conflict and independence checks were run; that historic Sun Park files were appropriately restricted; that information barriers or recusals operated; that no Sun Park confidential information was transmitted or used; that no later Sun Park mandate or Sun-Park-derived remuneration existed; and that the electronic burofax had an independently justified purpose fixed before the 18 September notice.

Why this matters. Those are not concessions or presumptions. They are falsifiable explanations. The purpose of the preservation and finite-document request is to allow PwC's primary records to establish them if they are true.

4 · Why the sequence creates a concrete conflict problem

Earlier adverse information and later professional opportunity cannot be analysed in separate boxes.

The question PwC should be able to answer directly: after the 2016 Sun Park team had received the client's express penal-route instruction and accumulated detailed strategic information, on what documented conflict-management basis was later professional work with the overlapping Acosta Matos / RICPE private-equity perimeter accepted, and what safeguards protected the former client's information and interests?

6 · Six finite questions for PwC Legal, Risk and leadership

8 · OPEN QUESTION TO THE ADMINISTRACIÓN CONCURSAL, FISCALÍA AND THE CONCURSO COURT

Why was Carlos Saavedra's evidence not heard at the vista de calificación?

MISSING-WITNESS / EVIDENTIAL-COMPLETENESS QUESTION
Carlos Saavedra was a documented custodian of contemporaneous evidence potentially relevant to allegations of criminal conduct, third-party responsibility, the Administrador Concursal's own knowledge and alternative causation within the concurso. The surviving 2016 record places PwC inside the legal response, records direct notice of allegations regarded by the client as potentially criminal, an express request for the penal route, and PwC contact with the Administrador Concursal.

The finite question: if Carlos was proposed, admitted, summoned, expected or otherwise positioned to give evidence in the calificación proceedings but his testimony was ultimately not heard, who requested, agreed to, acquiesced in or otherwise caused that procedural outcome, on what basis, and where is the documentary record explaining it?

Precision control: this page does not state that the judge, Fiscalía or Administración Concursal deliberately suppressed Carlos's evidence, nor that his later PwC/Acosta/RICPE convergence explains why he did not testify. Those propositions require actor-specific proof of the procedural decision and motive. The public demand is for the record: who caused the non-practice, why, what was known at the time, and what evidence was thereby lost?

Further open question: did the court, Fiscalía or AC know of or later consider Carlos/PwC's documented professional convergence with the RICPE / Acosta Matos perimeter, and if so what relevance—if any—was attributed to it when evaluating his evidential position, independence, credibility or the completeness of the calificación record?

See the full PwC public-question record →

10 · ^ register · people, entities, events and evidence

The finite first-hop census is complete; total identity reconciliation is not.

PARTIAL — NOT ALL IS^

What ^ means: it confirms a reconciled identity only. It does not prove conduct, dated capacity, mandate, knowledge, conflict, information use, causation, benefit, liability or wrongdoing. Events and evidence are registered and interlinked but do not receive ^.

Reconciled people

• Gil Marer^{^}
• Patricia Domínguez^{^}
• Francisco Mario Matos Matas^{^}
• Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte^{^}
• José Daniel Acosta Matos^{^}
• Francisco Luis Molina Molina^{^}
• Carlos Saavedra Rodríguez del Palacio^{^}
• Miguel Hernández Lorenzo^{^}
• Elena Santos Ramos^{^}
• Alejandro Perera González^{^}
• Jonathan Simó Morales^{^}
• Simon Peter Thompson^{^}
• Juan Tomás Parrilla Suárez^{^}

Confirmed entities, structures, institutions and proceeding

• Aweswell Limited^{^}
• Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U.^{^}
• Matkator, S.L.U.^{^}
• Comunidad de Propietarios Sun Park^{^}
• Comunidad de Explotación Sun Park^{^}
• Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A.^{^}
• Hotel New Trend, S.L.^{^}
• Canarian Hospitality, S.L.^{^}
• RIC Private Equity Investment Partners SCR, S.A.^{^}
• MYND Yaiza^{^}
• Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira, S.L.P.^{^}
• Landwell-PricewaterhouseCoopers Tax & Legal Services, S.L.^{^}
• PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores, S.L.^{^}
• Grupo Acosta Matos, S.L.^{^}
• Socios Inversores Canarios, S.L.^{^}
• Commercial Court No. 1^{^}
• Ministerio Fiscal / Fiscalía^{^}
• Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores^{^}
• Insolvency 36/2012 — LPB^{^}

Pending — no ^: The controlled PwC Canary Islands perimeter; the PwC UK Legal/Risk channel; and the PwC Spain Legal/General Counsel channel. The exact legal/audit firms and similarly named companies remain separate; each pending object retains its specific required source in the census.

Interlinked events and evidence

Decisive gaps: the exact entity/capacity of the PwC Canary Islands perimeter and the two 2021 PwC channels; executed litigation powers; the native Jonathan report v4 body and proof of delivery to the AC; engagement, conflict/independence and information-barrier records; the procedural act concerning Carlos's unpractised evidence; and full audio authentication/alignment remain missing. The page therefore does not publish an “ALL IS^” certification.

11 · 18 SEPTEMBER 2026 · FRESH REPORTING / PRESERVATION NOTICE

Electronic burofax notification received; its contents had not been retrieved when PwC was put on fresh notice.

On 18 September 2026, an automated electronic notification identified Pablo Fernández Guerra / PricewaterhouseCoopers Tax & Legal, S.L. as the sender of an electronic burofax to Gil Marer. When the follow-up institutional email was sent, the burofax had not been opened, accepted, rejected or retrieved. Its contents were therefore unknown. This record does not characterise the unread document as a threat, retaliation or legal action.

What the fresh notice says

The email asks PwC to treat it as a fresh reporting / whistleblower communication and preservation notice, to the extent the relevant statutory regimes are engaged. Gil Marer states that he is reporting in good faith alleged economic crime and corruption potentially affecting European funds, tax incentives, regional incentives, public support and associated investment structures. That is the reporting capacity asserted in the communication; this page does not transform it into an adjudicated legal status.

The notice makes the traceability point that, after receipt, any later affirmative PwC decision to re-notify, reissue, pursue or insist upon the communication would be a separately identifiable institutional act. Any legal, professional or regulatory significance would depend on the actual document, purpose, actors, evidence and applicable law.

Professional / deontological and responsibility-chain questions

If a later communication were actually shown on evidence to be an improper retaliatory escalation, the notice states that review could extend beyond the signature to who instructed, drafted, reviewed and authorised it; what evidence was considered; what former-client/conflict issues were checked; and whether Legal, Risk or Compliance reviewed the step. Where regulated lawyers were involved, applicable professional and deontological duties could require examination by reference to their actual professional status and regulator.

No disciplinary, civil or criminal liability is asserted merely from the notification. Any such consequence would require the relevant factual and legal elements to be established individually.

Cross-border / jurisdiction reservation

The notice was sent for and on behalf of Aweswell Limited, described as the UK holding company and foreign investor in Spain, and by Gil Marer in his asserted reporting-person / whistleblower capacity. It expressly says that requesting authentication, receiving a communication or engaging in discussion is not intended to constitute acceptance of service, submission to Spanish jurisdiction, waiver of forum/service objections, or agreement that any new dispute must be determined in Spain.

Band 2 — documented economic accumulation

Visual scale markers only: not labelled fraud proceeds, not additive; group sales are not MYND Yaiza hotel revenue.