RIC Private Equity / A&G

27 AUGUST 2026 · SOURCE-CONTROLLED STATUS CORRECTION

The outward RICPE record closes the internal-channel communication; it does not identify the natural-person resolver.

The controlled 27 August certificate states that the “Responsable del Sistema Interno de Información” decided inadmission and closure. The outward record ends without a named natural person, office-holder signature, Board-minute reference or decision number. Its cryptographic communications certificate identifies the Ithikios platform provider rather than a named RICPE decision-maker.

The system history had recorded acceptance, assignment and processing and a request for RICPE’s own 20 July 2021 certification; the later closure does not establish that a full internal investigation, Board review, conflict-recusal analysis or native audit-log production occurred. Nor does the missing outward name prove that no authorised RICPE officer made the decision.

Finite control now: identify the formally appointed System Responsible Officer/delegate, every authorised user who accessed or changed the file, any reassignment/recusal/escalation, who authored and approved the resolution, and what preservation occurred. No unauthorised access or interference by any named person is asserted as fact without native logs.

Open the institutional/document-production programme →

The control thesis

One chain: source, authority, control, capital and benefit.

The unitary question: how did a legally fragmented hotel asset, subject to insolvency proceedings and third-party rights, come to be presented as an acquired, unencumbered and investment-ready Acosta Matos project; which controls did it pass; when was that picture qualified or corrected; what new evidence permitted its re-entry; and who ultimately obtained the operating platform, finance, support, income and value?

RIC is not a peripheral third party in this record. Its materials introduced Sun Park into a regulated investment perimeter and described financial, legal, fiscal, risk, executive and Board filters. The public question is what it received, independently verified, communicated and preserves.

Fact or document Actor representation Gil Marer allegation Inference Question to verify Official status

Documentary reconstruction · 2008–2022

2011: first located disputed matrix of the FMMM era.

The appropriate public term is “matrix minutes”, not “patient zero.” It does not claim that the Community began in 2011 or that every resolution was unlawful. It identifies the earliest located sequence in which debt, voting rights, administration, document custody and litigation authority were joined in one documentary architecture.

Open the canonical 2011–2022 minutes record →

Date	Located record	What changes or requires verification
2008 · prehistory	On 29 April, 84.988% of the complex was present or represented. Owners representing 74.90% of the entire complex approved the Exploitation Community to succeed Montelanza, S.L.; 10.01% opposed or reserved its position and the minutes described participation as voluntary. The statutes and contract dated 26 May—effective from 27 May—document transfer of the operation from Montelanza, S.L. to CEXP. The 15 and 25 July minutes distinguish CEXP from the Owners’ Community, with a maintenance contract between them.	This is the strongest located collective provenance; it is not unanimity, does not erase individual ownership and does not automatically resolve its reach against non-participating or dissenting owners.
2 February 2011 · threshold document	A new president was elected by 45 votes to 3 and empowered to hire an administrator and grant litigation powers. The minutes themselves declined to decide closure of the operation or the tourism licence because those matters were outside the Owners’ Community.	This begins the institutional phase; Francisco Mario Matos Matas is not yet named as administrator in these minutes. Authority to hire him is not a substitute for the contract, mandate, duration, remuneration, archive and limits that must be produced.
22 June 2011 · matrix minutes	Francisco Mario Matos Matas (“FMMM”) already acts as administrator. LPB appears with approximately 72% but is denied a vote because of attributed debt. Debts and claims are approved, the maintenance contract between the Owners’ Community and the Exploitation Community is terminated, and Pamanil is ratified for administration, maintenance, custody and litigation.	This is the first located disputed matrix for the later mechanism: debt → exclusion from voting → certification/claim → concentrated administration and archive. It is not Gil's alleged causal origin, which he places in actor-specific 2008 conduct. Terminating that maintenance contract did not by itself establish valid termination of CEXP’s collective hotel-operating title or succession by Monterecco/Pink as operator of the whole complex.
2012–2014 · disputed books and authority	August 2012 emails acknowledge the contested presidency and seek proxies; in December 2013 Monterecco’s then representative sought notarial delivery of Community records. In 2014 LPB/Gil convened a rival governance meeting based on its 72.976%, with notarial minutes and a different reconstruction of the statutes, operation and accounts.	The chain was not uncontested. The 2014 meeting and its resolutions must be labelled disputed authority, not automatic validation. Challenges and interim measures followed.
19 November 2015	The minutes record approximately 89.02% present or represented, but only Roque Prieto and Cristina Molina—0.770%—entitled to vote. FMMM reads the roll; the 2011 narrative is reaffirmed, reported debt reaches €3,641,456.50, and security, official complaints and access difficulties are recorded.	The exact attendance hundredth must be checked against the signed original. Attendance and voting power were radically different. The minutes acknowledge that charges were very high and propose a retroactive reduction.
26 April 2016	Of 89.727% present or represented, only 11.039% is listed as voting. The 2010–2015 accounts are not approved because the documents are incomplete. Pamanil becomes Pamalexsha and FMMM continues. The unit charge falls from €171.89 to €22.26 and is applied retrospectively to 2010–2015; debt, certificates and claims are recalculated.	The same organ acknowledges an incomplete archive while reconstructing historical debt and voting consequences. Originals, audio, statements, invoices, the Pamanil/Pamalexsha contract and a unit-by-unit calculation are indispensable controls.
7 April 2017 · CEXP	Separate universal minutes of the Operating Community: LPB, Matkator and Thompson attend through Gil and renew his presidency until April 2020.	Supports organisational continuity of CEXP; it does not determine rights against non-participants and must not be conflated with Owners’ Community minutes.
18 April 2017 · linked judgment	Judgment 91/2017 sets aside the €171.81 monthly charge fixed in May 2009 after the Community submitted to the claim, and notes that the 2016 meeting had already fixed €22.26.	This is a judgment, not minutes. It does not set aside every charge or validate the later chain; it confirms a material change in the quantitative basis.
12 June 2017 · primary minutes	87.098% is present/represented and only 6.545% listed as vote-qualified. The minutes record Antonio Cogolludo as president, Shaila Cogolludo as treasurer and FMMM as secretary-administrator; budget, fees, certificates, claims and banking are approved.	Completes the actor relay before 2018. The minutes, audio and annexes must be reconciled with a contemporary professional review saying the arrears report was not voted as such.
18 May 2018	The minutes show 86.715% present or represented but only Amenen/Shaila Cogolludo—0.385%—entitled to vote. Antonio Cogolludo is president, FMMM secretary-administrator and Shaila Cogolludo treasurer. Security costing up to €8,500 per month is authorised to control access; the file includes an email from the insolvency administrator asking the president to convene that resolution on LPB’s behalf as majority holder.	This is a documentary connection between Community, insolvency administration, debt, voting, security and access. The instruction, contract, payment, spatial limits and authority over units not owned by LPB must be produced.
5 July / 20 November 2018	For 5 July there is a notice and a file attributed to the minutes, pending verification; for 20 November only a later recital in the 2022 minutes about continued study of comprehensive refurbishment has been located.	A meeting notice or later recital is not published as proof of the original resolution. Book, audio, attendees, voting and final text are requested.
2019–2021 · no primary minutes located	No Owners’ Community/CEXP minutes were found. The 24 October 2019 non-validation, 2020 investor/works material and 2021 judicial/RIC events belong to separate lanes.	Absence does not prove non-existence. Those events cannot be used as retrospective Community consent.
4 February 2022 · convergence	With 20.993% present, three Acosta Matos companies vote; José Daniel Acosta Matos presides and FMMM is secretary-administrator and joint bank signatory. The minutes call CAM the principal owner but allocate 72.976% of debt and an approximately €4.468m levy to LPB and 0.770% to Matkator. They approve the CAM project, licences, unity of operation and works.	The same meeting uses two unreconciled ownership pictures. The exact project amount must be reconciled between minutes and annexes, together with title effective date, voting, liability and allocation of the four-star conversion.
After 2022	The mailbox review has not located a later primary set of minutes from this Community. Tourism, funding, incentives and 2023–2026 communications nevertheless reuse consequences attributed to the Community.	The located primary chain currently ends on 4 February 2022. Absence from the reviewed archive does not prove that no later minutes exist: the book, originals, audio, notices and resolutions through the present must be requested.

Perspective correction by Gil Marer and Monterecco’s then representativeWe arrived in late 2011 and early 2012. At first we naively regarded it as normal that minority owners outside hotel operation would pay a contribution for common expenses or hotel-service use. The 2008 minutes explain why that initial reading was plausible. Our later position is not “no charge ever”: every charge must rest on a valid budget, service, allocation and resolution; it must not be duplicated, backdated without support or turned into manufactured debt that removes votes or extends control over third-party units. We acknowledge that some early factual views changed as we obtained books, accounts, judgments and records we did not then possess.

Do not collapse two transfersThe located minutes do not establish a direct Montelanza, S.L.-to-Multimatrix sale. After the 18 June 2008 sale, the 15 July minutes place LPB with 171 apartments and 29 commercial units and Montelanza, S.L. with 11 commercial units. A separate contemporary email records a 1 December 2011 contract under which Gil’s vehicle bought LPB’s shares from Multimatrix, then subject to a Tel Aviv court controversy. The executed deed and complete share-purchase agreement must govern the final formulation.

Historical correction · collective title versus factual operation

Among the materials reviewed, CEXP is the only entity for which both a participating-owner collective resolution and a direct transfer from Montelanza, S.L. have been located.

Comunidad de Explotación del Complejo Sun Park — CEXP, tax ID H35997568: its provenance rests on the collective resolution of 29 April 2008—84.988% present or represented, 74.90% of the complex voting in favour and 10.01% opposing or reserving—and the reviewed Montelanza–CEXP statutes and contract, dated 26 May and effective from 27 May. The unredacted contract is withheld pending removal of identity, address and signature data. This is a source-bounded conclusion about documentary provenance, not lawful exclusivity, universal mandate, registry status or uninterrupted operation.

The 1 February 2012 cession exists and must be confronted: a joint signed and stamped notice from representatives of CEXP and Monterecco says Monterecco acquired title to the activity, that CEXP’s activity would be subrogated from that date, and asks counterparties to treat it as “the new operator”. The primary source has been reviewed; a public copy requires prior redaction of signatures and personal data. The 7 February tourism inspection placed Monterecco in the operator/title field and Cabildo’s 23–24 February notice, H-35/3/0034 and LZ/2012/000031, recorded 159 units and 477 beds. It is therefore unsustainable to say Monterecco/Pink was merely a name, never operated or had no succession instrument at all.

The open issue is authority and scope: no resolution of CEXP’s competent organ has been located authorising its director to convey the collective mandate, nor a complete chain extending that bilateral act to all participating owners, dissenters or third parties and every common area. Tourism registration proves an administrative position and declared perimeter; it does not substitute private title or universal delegation. AP 89/2014 also found possession and operation affecting claimant properties and applied veil-piercing: 159 units is the administrative/contractual baseline, not an absolute physical boundary.

Forced error, not a proved bank instruction: Gil Marer and Monterecco’s then representative now describe using it as an emergency response when trapped by Bankia maturities and demands and an already fractured governance structure. The reviewed record establishes financial pressure and a deliberate reduction from 220 to 159 units; no document located in this review establishes that Bankia or Garrigues directed Monterecco’s incorporation. The reviewed document’s face date and independently verifiable file metadata indicate later formalisation; that does not by itself establish fraud or falsity.

Controlling clarification concerning Garrigues: Gil recalls that Garrigues recommended the Monterecco route under that pressure, says that he came to regard the advice as wrong very soon, and asks that the firm be called as a witness and records custodian regarding matters within its knowledge. This is his recollection and legal position, not presently verified professional advice, acceptance of his account by the firm or a finding of liability. The first currently verified Garrigues activity is dated 28 March 2012, after the 1/6-February instruments; the earlier chronology bridge remains open. Authorisation to name the firm neither publishes nor indiscriminately waives confidential communications, which remain subject to document-by-document legal review. Read Declaration 007 and Declaration 008.

Order 804/2018: an adverse procedural decision, not a final declaration of title. On 13 November 2018 the Provincial Court affirmed the provisional dismissal of a criminal coercion investigation. Its order is final as an appellate decision, but it was not a civil, tax or tourism-law trial determining the lawful operator. In explaining dismissal it compressed a 12 May 2017 email attributed to Gil into the conditional statement that Pink “would already have abandoned” the premises. The original is more precise: Pink had ceased new commercialisation and was preparing an orderly exit, but continued servicing existing stays, supplies, services and maintenance while preserving commercial value; it said no keys had yet been handed over and that “Pink is still taking care of everything”. Formal delivery is separately placed on 22 May. “Abandonment” therefore does not mean total cessation of every activity, and “only old reservations” omits services, preservation and transition. The order also alternates between 22 May 2017 and 22 May 2018 and once dates the Monterecco contract in 2013 although the chronology places it in 2012. Pink’s separate January 2018 notarised response states operation until 27 April 2017 and residual management through 31 January 2018; other testimony refers to continuing guests, maintenance and activity. These are distinct sources and must not be collapsed. The order was also adverse to CEXP’s asserted possession at that time: it helps contest temporal attribution to Pink, not establish that the Court recognised CEXP as operator in 2018.

Control CR-058 · capacity separation: the email’s wording—that keys had not yet been “handed over”—is preserved because that is what the source says. A separate facially signed 22-May-2017 Pink→LPB instrument says Pink delivered access keys and LPB received possession; unless its authenticity, signatures, inventory, scope or function are challenged, it contradicts a universal no-key proposition. Gil’s narrower current position is that Pink never held CEXP’s maintenance/master set and never had lawful whole-hotel authority capable of transferring CEXP or third-party rights. Any custody or delivery requires identification of the key-set, holder, capacity, recipient, date and legal basis. Neither the email, instrument nor Order converts access into authority over the whole complex.

Source access: the control copies of Order 804/2018 and the 12 May 2017 email remain in private custody. Anonymous public copies have not been verified; any redacted public derivative remains subject to privacy, provenance and integrity review.

One financing relationship in 2012Contemporary records connect mortgage loans and a hedging product within the Bankia finance. That pressure explains the Monterecco/Pink context but does not establish that the bank directed its incorporation.

Two later frontsThe 20 October 2017 certificate records privileged claims assigned to Construcciones Acosta Matos. The financial product is litigated against CaixaBank in Valencia, PO 1859/2023. Gil Marer and Aweswell allege that the separation was unlawful and harmful; the Public Prosecutor has issued no merits decision declaring that.

Review scope: located primary minutes dated 29 April, 15 and 25 July 2008; 2 February and 22 June 2011; 2012–2013 communications; contested April and 28 August 2014 meetings; minutes dated 19 November 2015, 26 April 2016, CEXP 7 April and Owners’ Community 12 June 2017, 18 May 2018, a file attributed to the 5 July 2018 minutes, and 4 February 2022; statutes and the Montelanza, S.L.–CEXP transfer; the 1 February 2012 CEXP–Monterecco cession; 2012 tourism inspection and registration; Cabildo filing GE-014212/2014; the original May 2017 email and explanation; Order 804/2018 and underlying testimony; Judgments 89/2014, 268/2015, 91/2017 and 163/2023; and separately labelled notices, later recitals, contemporary authority/custody emails and annexes. The canonical record identifies where an original, audio recording, proxy, annex, complete book or final administrative act remains missing.

Control point · provenance before appearance

The name “Community” is not an authority audit.

This is the bridge the reader must stop and test. A document apparently coming from an owner community, or a person presenting as its president or administrator, does not by itself establish appointment, resolution, scope, representation of third-party units or power to produce the requested consequence.

The chain that must be proved

An appearance of authority cannot become legitimacy merely by circulating.

Downstream repetition can amplify an unverified premise. Every arrow requires its own independent, contemporaneous documentary bridge.

01 · sourceWhich community and organ?Legal identity, constitution, scope and minutes book.
02 · authorityWho was validly appointed?Office, term, conflict, mandate and limits.
03 · resolutionWhat was actually decided?Notice, attendance, shares, vote, quorum, text and signatures.
04 · unitsWhom did it bind?Property-by-property title and consent, especially Matkator and other third-party units.
05 · receiptWhat did each decision-maker verify?Document received, check, objection, cure and administrative or insolvency effect.
06 · propagationWhat consequence followed?Adjudication, operation, licence, RIC, ERDF, incentive, finance, income or valuation.

Record	What it establishes	What it does not establish
10 March 2026 · Cabildo · file 3791/2026	A broad request sought meetings, communications, permits, tourism planning and RIC/REF records concerning Sun Park–MYND and the private perimeter. Cabildo rejected it as generic and requiring a complex search.	The rejection did not determine title, Community authority or the truth of the representations used.
7–9 April 2026 · Cabildo · file 614/2026	Proposal PR/2026/2973, dated 7 April, preceded Resolution 2026-2735, signed and dated 9 April. The resolution granted access and reproduced Tourism Planning’s 13 March report, which identified files 3671/2022, 2984/2023, 17070/2023, 19995/2023, 7206/2024 and 4887/2025: all units, holder/name changes, refurbishment and four-star classification.	The existence or processing of those files does not by itself validate title, Community mandate, representation of every unit or the sufficiency of administrative verification.
18 June 2026 · Gil Marer communication to Cabildo	It formally demanded traceability: author, signature, office, mandate, exact community, units, verification, effect, funding and incentives; it requested preservation of originals, metadata and communications and specific examination of the Matkator units.	It establishes the content and scope of the claimant’s alert, not that Cabildo accepted the allegations, completed the checks or reached a merits decision.
4 June 2014 · GE-014212/2014 · H-35/3/0034	A filing asked Cabildo to record the Sun Park Owners’ Community, tax ID H76013184, as succeeding Monterecco for 159 units from 1 June. It did not identify CEXP, tax ID H35997568, as transferee.	The filing stamp proves submission, not that Cabildo accepted, annotated or validated the change. Conflating the two Communities can manufacture an appearance of consent, title and continuity which the document does not establish.
13 August 2026 · REGAGE26e00072883405	The RedSARA receipt proves submission of a writing referencing Cabildo file 614/2026 and requesting execution/re-delivery and access to specified files, including 3671/2022, 498/2020, 547/2020 and 21219/2021.	Allocation, admission and response have not yet been located. GE-014212/2014 is a party filing, not a proved registry entry.

Open institutional action · Cabildo / Tourism Planning / Yaiza

A name change, communication or use of the label “Community” does not by itself prove transfer of any CEXP mandate.

The site’s source-bounded assessment, not the conclusion requested from an authority: among the materials reviewed, CEXP is the only entity for which both a participating-owner collective resolution and a direct transfer from Montelanza, S.L. have been located. That does not establish lawful exclusivity, universal scope, continuous operation or registry status.

Cabildo: request authenticated copies or certified extracts of existing Cabildo-held entries, indexes and source acts for H-35/3/0034—also H-35-3-0000034; LZ/2012/000031—identifying separately, where the records do so, the establishment holder, operating undertaking, legal name, tax ID, units/beds, effective date and procedural status. Ask whether GE-014212/2014 caused any Cabildo entry or act; if so, request that entry/act, and if no corresponding record is held, request a formal or signed statement of that limited absence. For 3671/2022, 2984/2023, 17070/2023, 19995/2023, 7206/2024 and 4887/2025, request current status and any final act. The request is limited to Cabildo custody and competence; the 13 March 2026 report said only that 2984/2023 and 7206/2024 were pending then.

Canary Islands General Tourism Register / inspection: separately request certified copies or extracts of all existing entries and source acts for those identifiers, including Inspection Acts 027951/2012 and 35328/2016. Ask whether any entry made or effective in 2014 identified Montelanza, S.L.; CEXP H35997568; Monterecco/Pink B76564517; Owners’ Community H76013184; another entity; or no entity, and in what recorded capacity. Absence should be reported from the record, not inferred from a brand.

Yaiza: for 7043/2022, 7059/2022, 10356/2022, 1748/2022 and 5854/2022, request the existing document index and authenticated copies of applications, declarations, powers, minutes, titles/consents, technical or legal reports, checklists and decisions showing whether and in what capacity any entity was identified by the declarant or municipality, which properties were specified and what verification was recorded. If a specified document is not held, request a formal or signed statement of that limited absence. Municipal records do not decide tourism title or private operating authority.

Why it matters: conflating one entity with another, or substituting names without identifying the source act, can misattribute consent, possession, income, employment, tax, sanctions and liability. The request seeks existing documents and bounded absences, not a predetermined legal conclusion.

Propagation to auditCommunity → insolvency administrator and Court 36/2012 → Cabildo/Yaiza and tourism → title and operation of all units → RIC and investors → regional incentives/ERDF → finance, works, income and valuation.

Bounded conclusionAn isolated Community defect is not described as automatically criminal. The allegation is repeated propagation of unproved authority with proprietary and public effects, requiring independent reconstruction rather than deference to the label.

Primary legal framework: the Horizontal Property Act, Articles 13 and 19, identifies the organs, the president’s representation and minutes requirements; Law 39/2015, Article 5, requires representation for applications, declarations, communications and appeals made for another person to be proved and placed in the administrative file; the Consolidated Insolvency Act imposes diligence, efficiency, impartiality and independence on the insolvency administrator and provides liability for unlawful acts or omissions or lack of due diligence. None permits authority over a privately owned unit to be inferred merely from use of the name “Community”.

Three lines that must not be conflated

Corporate, promoter and professional genealogy.

Precision matters: successive names of the same SCR do not create legal identity with A&G Asesores; a historic professional relationship does not prove improper influence. They do define files, conflicts and disclosures that should be reconstructed.

Legal line · same SCR

A&G Capital Investment PartnersS.C.R., S.A. · incorporated 10 Jan 2019

↓

RIC Capital Investment Partnerssame SCR, new name

↓

RIC Private Equity Investment PartnersS.C.R., S.A. · CNMV no. 295

Sources: 2023 audited accounts and the CNMV register.

Promoter and service line

A&G Asesores Legales, Financieros y Tributariosseparate legal person

↓

Promotion of the RIC vehicleRIC’s history attributes identification and promotion of the opportunity to A&G Asesores

?

Orión / present custodyRIC says “currently, Orión Corporate Management”; legal mechanism and records remain to be established

Source: RIC’s published corporate history.

People and function line

Enrique GuerraA&G/RIC promoter · director general · secretary and legal adviser

Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batlloriarchived CV: associate at “A&G Asesores”, 2009–2010 · insolvency administrator in Concurso 36/2012

José AcostaRIC director · CAM/Sun Park project-side actor

Professional or functional proximity calls for a conflict check and disclosure review; it does not by itself establish an unlawful or undisclosed conflict.

proved name succession promotion, service or professional relationship ?unproved succession, custody or disclosure

Separate proposed-witness lane · not a fourth corporate genealogy

Fernando Aguiar Acosta^ and Laura Aguiar Acosta^.

Gil Marer identifies them as siblings and provisionally connects them to the Acosta Matos family perimeter. No located primary or reliable public source independently verifies either family proposition.

Attributed sibling edge
↔
independently unverified

Proof boundary. Both are proposed fact / records-custody witnesses, not adverse actors. The profiles justify bounded questions and record preservation; they do not prove kinship, direct Laura employment by RICPE, Meridian/IREA/Colliers knowledge, coordination, wrongdoing or liability.

Family page and provisional tree →Sun Park / MYND + Radisson evidence →

Present accountability

Current handling must be separated from the acts under examination.

RIC publicly identifies Enrique Quevedo as Director of Operations, HR and Compliance. No public record of the formally appointed Internal Information System Manager has been located. They should not be assumed to be the same person.

Visible functional recipient

Enrique Quevedo Gil

Initial registration, preservation and conflict screening through Compliance. His formal status as System Manager should be confirmed, not presumed.

Statutory role

System Manager

Spanish Law 2/2023 requires Board appointment, autonomy, freedom from instruction and diligent handling. If this is another person, that person should be identified.

Governance

President and non-conflicted directors

Unabridged receipt, preservation, abstentions, resources, independent investigator and a reasoned minuted decision.

Subjects and custodians

Guerra and Acosta

They retain defence and reply rights, but review of their own acts, certificates, representations or interests should not remain under their exclusive control.

Ten finite checks

What a documented response can resolve.

Identity, Board resolution and appointment date of the System Manager.
Independence, resources and historic relationships of the handler or provider.
Registration and preservation of every communication and attachment received.
Exclusion of examined persons from control of scope and evidence.
Complete, unfiltered delivery to the President and non-conflicted Board.
Individual interest, abstention and report-reliance declarations.
Existence, authorship, date, qualifications and circulation of the four described reports.
Appointment and mandate of a genuinely independent external investigator.
A reasoned, minuted Board decision and remediation measures.
Whether information supplied to shareholders, investors or authorities requires correction.

Public basis: RIC’s management team, published Board, Ethics Channel and Spanish Law 2/2023.

Do not conflate functions

Who audited, who reviewed a project and who advised the Board are different questions.

Invoking a firm’s name proves neither an engagement, its scope nor a conclusion about Sun Park. Each function should be tied to a contract, team, date, report, qualifications and custodian.

Function	Actor or representation located	What is recorded	Sun Park question
Statutory audit	PwC · 2019	CNMV audit register.	Financial-statement audit does not by itself equal project due diligence.
Statutory audit	Eudita · 2020–2023 and 2025	CNMV audit register.	What Sun Park information affected accounts, risks, related parties or subsequent events?
Legal/fiscal due diligence	PwC, according to the webinar	Public representation of function; no Sun Park engagement has been produced publicly.	Client, scope, version, qualifications, reliance and date.
Risk / valuation	Intermoney, according to the webinar and published NAV material	RIC describes external control and publishes portfolio valuations.	Did a Sun Park-specific report exist and what did it assume about title and availability?
Compliance	Enrique Quevedo	Current role published by RIC.	Formal appointment, independence, inherited-model review and preservation.
Board secretary / legal oversight	Enrique Guerra	Published secretary, legal adviser and director general roles.	Minutes, four reports, conflicts, July 2021 certificate and later corrections.

Sources: CNMV audit register, preserved audiovisual material and RIC’s corporate pages. A webinar mention proves the representation—not the engagement’s existence or conclusion.

Preserved RIC webinar material presenting Sun Park as a 220-apartment, 12 million euro project — **11 November 2020.** Sun Park enters the investor channel as a 220-apartment, €12 million project.

Preserved RIC webinar material containing the own-funds purchase and unencumbered-assets representation — **Title and encumbrance representation.** It must be reconciled with the later certificate and project file.

Decisive control · creditor does not mean owner

Between 2018 and 2020, the legal bridge assumed by the investor communication did not exist.

The sequence must be read from the legal position existing on each date. In insolvency proceeding 36/2012 CAM acted as assignee of mortgage claims and a creditor in relation to LPB, while also appearing as owner of some separate private properties. Neither the debt claim, physical possession, an acquisition expectation nor a deed that was not judicially validated transformed that partial position into ownership of LPB’s suspended assets or of the whole hotel.

Date	Primary document	Evidential effect for RICPE
26 June 2018	The order of Commercial Court No. 1 identified Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A. as a creditor and suspended realisation in its favour of LPB registered properties 8,537–8,540, 8,542, 8,544–8,545, 8,547, 8,549–8,556, 8,558–8,559, 8,561–8,563, 8,565–8,577, 8,579–8,580, 8,593, 8,600–8,602, 8,604–8,641, 8,656–8,698, 8,703, 8,711, 8,719–8,747 and 8,751–8,757 because the appeal could substantially alter the terms of the transfer in payment.	There was no completed authority to treat the suspended properties as CAM property. RICPE must produce any title note or reservation saying otherwise.
17–22 October 2018	The insolvency administrator requested certified copies of the orders of 16 April and 26 June; the court office directed that they be delivered on 22 October.	The documentary chain proves formal knowledge and availability of the suspension order before the later deed.
28 November 2018 · 20 March 2019 · 24 October 2019	LPB and CAM executed a deed separating registered properties from linked obligations and then selling them. The insolvency administrator requested judicial validation on 20 March 2019. The order of 24 October 2019 expressly ruled that the deed was not to be validated.	An executed but non-validated deed is not the bridge for claiming whole-property ownership. It must be explained whether it was registered, corrected or used before RICPE, auditors, the Board, investors or authorities, and with what warnings.
4 June · 11 November 2020	The brochure called CAM Sun Park’s “title-holding company”. The webinar said the three complexes had been bought with own funds, were unencumbered and were CAM property; it specified 220 apartments, €12m, works in Q1 2021 and funding by the end of 2021.	The label “under study” does not neutralise specific statements about purchase, ownership, charges, amount and timetable. The Registry source, legal report, reservations and approval for those words remain missing.
18 May 2021 · 26 January · 21 February 2022	Order 164/2021 of 18 May definitively approved CAM's proposal subject to its conditions. The two 26 January orders clarified later rulings and made no new award. The transfer-in-payment deed was executed on 21 February.	Later title does not make the 2020 statements retrospectively true or incorporate third-party properties. RICPE must identify what it corrected and when.

Court order of 24 October 2019 · 31 LPB properties

Releasing the ob rem linkage did not pay the debt: it separated assets while the claim remained alive.

This is the legal correction that makes the operation harder—not easier—to explain. Cancellation of a registered linkage is not a method of extinguishing a loan under Civil Code article 1,156. The documented problem is that the rule preventing separate disposal was removed while CAM continued to enforce the mortgage claim against LPB.

01 · registered ruleOne loan, one set

The 2010 registration linked reception, pools/solarium and mortgaged properties: they could not be disposed of separately while the loan remained, and each payment was allocated to the credit as a whole.

02 · deed 2,150Separation and sale

On 28 November 2018, during the stay, the insolvency administrator—exercising LPB’s estate powers—and CAM completed the release and separate sale of properties 8,508–8,536, 8,653 and 8,654.

03 · later validation requestAct first; seek permission later

The insolvency administrator sought validation on 20 March 2019. The order records that the Court was informed only after the operation had been completed.

04 · judicial response“No grounds to validate”

The order recognised that the separate sale contradicted the plan, that the Court’s own earlier partial stay had been erroneous, and that the whole process should have been stayed.

CAM and representatives

Consent to release, title obtained, payment, registration, possession and any use of the deed as proof of hotel availability.

Insolvency administrator

Why he acted first, informed later and sought validation of an operation the order held contrary to the unitary sale and liquidation plan.

Court

The order itself recognises the error in the partial stay. It must identify what act materially restored the properties, competition and estate—or why that did not occur.

Public Prosecutor

What file it received concerning the deed, non-validation, continued registration, economic use and possible loss; and what documented investigative steps and conclusion followed.

7 June 2018 · authority, possession and force control

There was no judicial possession order. There were chains, replaced locks, access control—and a private authorisation from the insolvency administrator invoked afterwards.

Documentary conclusion: the file records a material takeover of control of the complex. We have located no order directing delivery of Sun Park to CAM, eviction of the operator, breaking of locks or exclusion of staff. The CAM involvement attributed in the evidence is specific: the eyewitness testified under a duty of truth that Laura Acosta Matos gave the orders; he also made clear that José Daniel Acosta Matos was not present on 7 June.

16 April 2018 · Insolvency 36/2012

Authority for a future disposal, not delivery of possession

The order approved a proposed transfer/sale route for LPB properties but required publicity, ten days for improved bids and a possible auction between bidders. It did not direct handover of keys, eviction, replacement of locks or CAM’s immediate possession of the hotel.

7 June · direct eyewitness

“They were going in, whatever it took”

Miguel Ángel Barreiro testified on 25 June that he saw the coded-access lock broken with a tool; chains and padlocks fitted to the access, reception and buffet doors; two cylinders replaced; a uniformed gatekeeper posted; and the entrances closed. He said Laura Acosta Matos gave the orders and the Guardia Civil identified those who remained.

7–25 June · continuing exclusion

De facto control, not a visit

The witness said that from the 7th the access staff prevented him entering his workplace; he entered only on the 21st with a notary and on the 22nd to empty the cesspit. He added that he could not retrieve tools and machinery and had taken photographs and video. The judicial statement records that he had previously entered peacefully with his keys.

26 June 2018 · stay

The transfer had not even been completed

The Insolvency Court stayed the realisation process for the LPB apartment properties covered by the proposed transfer. That reinforces the difference between approving a method of realisation and having transferred title and possession of the whole hotel.

What does not appearPOSSESSION / EVICTION ORDER IN CAM’S FAVOUR

What was later relied uponTHE INSOLVENCY ADMINISTRATOR’S AUTHORITY TO THE COMMUNITY TO CONTROL ACCESS AND ENTER LPB PREMISES

In the reasoning affirming provisional archive, Order 804/2018 recounted the insolvency administrator’s statement that he had authorised the Community to control access and enter LPB premises for maintenance, even accepting lock-breaking if necessary. It also relied on the civil character attributed to the dispute and shortcomings in title, possession and proof. It did not grant CAM a possessory title or determine, with civil effect, the validity or property-by-property scope of that authority. Nor could it make CAM owner of the whole of Sun Park or, without more, extend to non-estate properties belonging to Matkator, Thompson or other owners.

CAM / Laura Acosta Matos

Identify the exact mandate under which a CAM representative could issue operational orders in a complex still open to competing bids: date, signatory, properties, limits, access contractor and destination of keys, files and property.

Insolvency administrator

Produce the full instruction predating 7 June, explain why maintenance authority resulted in continuing exclusion, and identify the safeguards for inventory, operations, guests, LPB properties and non-estate rights.

“Community”

The 18 May minutes recorded LPB (72.976%) and CAM (13.034%) as present but without a vote; only 0.385% remained entitled to vote. Notice, resolution, competence and property-by-property scope of the authority used on 7 June must be proved.

Courts and prosecution service

The criminal dismissal was a procedural decision based on the authority attributed to the administrator and the civil character assigned to the dispute. It must be separated from the documentary question that remains: what authority permitted control of the whole hotel and interference with third-party spaces, assets or units?

Control rule: neither a mortgage claim nor a prospective disposal authorises possessory self-help. Civil Code article 441 prohibits violent acquisition of possession while an opposing possessor remains; article 446 requires possession to be respected and protected; and Criminal Code article 455, where all its elements are established, criminalises arbitrary enforcement of one’s own right.

Canonical event dossierLive hotel, ONA proposal, guests, staff, pilots and alleged insolvency overreach

Webinar 11 November 2020 · material-falsehood control

An earlier “under study” label does not neutralise a later categorical statement.

The record must be read by date, audience and the words actually used. The webinar did not say “we may buy”. José Acosta said that all three complexes had already been bought with own funds, belonged to the company, were unencumbered and that Sun Park was in the portfolio with a defined amount and timetable.

4 Jun 2020Brochure

“Under study” + “title-holding company”

The stage label already coexisted with a specific attribution of title to CAM.

11 Nov 2020Investors · on camera

Bought, company-owned and unencumbered

220 apartments; €12m; works Q1 2021; finance by end-2021; “we have purchased” and “product purchased in the company’s ownership”.

19 Jun 2021After the alerts

“Various units” and finality pending

Enrique Guerra’s article now made refurbishment conditional upon the order awarding “various units” becoming final.

20–21 Jul 2021Court / certificate

54 properties; no LOI; no full due diligence

CAM acknowledged that LPB remained registered owner and that its position over those assets was as creditor. RICPE described preliminary study, future ownership and removal from the website.

21 Feb 2022LPB title

The transfer came later

The deed conveyed the enumerated LPB properties—not privately owned third-party properties.

Documentary conclusion

As applied to Sun Park, the claims of whole ownership and absence of encumbrances made in the webinar on 11 November 2020 were materially false when spoken. That conclusion arises from CAM/RICPE’s own later version and the fact that the LPB title was not conveyed until February 2022.

Reality for investors

Completed acquisition, company-owned assets, no encumbrances, project in portfolio, €12m and fixed timetable.

Reality for the insolvency court

CAM sought exclusion of Aweswell’s chronology, denied portraying itself as sole owner and said it held only 54 properties and creditor rights against LPB.

Reality certified by RICPE

No LOI, no comprehensive due diligence, project removed from the website, success dependent on a future acquisition.

The question is no longer whether a caveat existed: it is who approved each version, what they knew, which audience received it, whether the four favourable reports existed, and why the investor audience did not receive a correction of equal clarity and reach.

61registered properties listed in the JSP → LPB tranche

18bungalows in the former seller bloc’s eviction case

JSP units / Montelanza, S.L. perimeter · operation is not ownership

The Sun Park case itself already held that “hotel” and “unity of operation” do not erase property-by-property title.

The private reconstruction of the 17 June 2008 deeds identifies 61 registered properties in the JSP, S.A. → LPB tranche—the schedule records 59 participations—and a combined consideration. In parallel, members of the former seller perimeter retained units. The unit-by-unit sale, rather than a sale of the shares in Montelanza, S.L., created the PropCo/OpCo vulnerability: property owner, hotel operator and Community could be presented as though they were the same authority when legally they were not. Gil distinguishes that vulnerability from the root cause he alleges: non-completion or breach of the 2008 transaction by the perimeter associated, in specific acts, with Montelanza, S.L. and Molina-linked owners and its relevant later acts or omissions. The 22 June 2011 minutes record the first located disputed governance mechanism operating within that vulnerability; Bankia’s enforcement and scheduled auction were the documented immediate timing trigger for the 2012 insolvency filing. This is a party causal position, not a judgment or collective attribution; each seller, property, obligation, act and effect requires individual proof. Read Declaration 008.

Las Palmas Provincial Court 89/2014

18 units, seven claimants

Acciones Canarias, Muruga, Roque Prieto, Amenem, Tengolf, Miguel Molina Betancor and Francisco Luis Molina Molina proved title to 18 bungalows.

Hotel possession

Keys and operation were neither ownership nor succession to the collective mandate

The Court held that the Exploitation Community and Monterecco Sun Park possessed or operated the units and ordered them returned to their owners. That finding of possession or factual operation did not decide that Monterecco had validly succeeded CEXP as whole-complex operator.

Reversible rule

The same architecture binds CAM

If individual title allowed that bloc to recover its bungalows from the operator, CAM, the Community and an LPB award-holder could not convert unitary operation, keys, security or a Community majority into title over Matkator, Thompson or other third-party properties.

Show the 61 properties listed in the JSP → LPB tranche

8,540, 8,541, 8,544, 8,547, 8,549, 8,575–8,580, 8,607–8,621, 8,633, 8,634, 8,640, 8,662, 8,664, 8,667, 8,671, 8,683–8,684, 8,687–8,690, 8,694–8,698, 8,725–8,739, 8,751 and 8,752. The list is published as a deed-reconstruction schedule and must be checked against an authorised copy and historic Registry records property by property.

Patrimonial and criminal-law alarm · four non-estate units Named-owner knowledge documented before the RICPE offering

Four units. Four known owners. One title question PwC, RICPE and CAM must answer property by property.

At the meeting of 26 April 2016 at Hotel Princesa Yaiza, three PwC professionals represented three privately owned units, while LPB’s then representative represented the fourth unit and also LPB. Carlos Saavedra specifically represented the Thompson unit —bungalow 708, registered property 8,557. PwC was listed as RICPE’s auditor in 2019, and the 2020 webinar invoked PwC legal and tax due diligence while presenting Sun Park as an acquired, whole and unencumbered hotel.

Editorial chain · Matkator 1

Bungalow 511

Named owner: Mariano Palacios Fernández
Documented representative: LPB’s then representative, who also represented bungalow 511
Status: Privately owned, outside LPB’s insolvency estate

Editorial chain · Matkator 2

Bungalow 507

Named owner: Juan Carlos Fernández Cox
Documented representative: Miguel Hernández Lorenzo · PwC
Status: Privately owned, outside LPB’s insolvency estate

Editorial chain · Matkator 3

Local 1

Named owner: Víctor Fernández Cox
Documented representative: Elena Santos Ramos · PwC
Status: Privately owned, outside LPB’s insolvency estate

Thompson unit · property 8,557

Bungalow 708

Named owner: Simon Peter Thompson
Documented representative: Carlos Saavedra Rodríguez de Palacio · PwC
Status: Privately owned, outside LPB’s insolvency estate

What is documented

The minutes identify unit, owner and representative. The investor presentation described the complex as a whole. That contradiction exists independently of any inference about intention.

PwC’s exceptional position

Carlos Saavedra had direct knowledge of the Thompson/8,557 unit; two other PwC professionals represented 507 and Local 1. PwC then appeared as RICPE’s auditor and was presented as participating in due diligence. Conflict controls, internal information flows and title work are first-order questions.

The answer required

For every property: owner, representative authority, deed, date, price and payment, registration, possession, hotel use, consent, entry into the RICPE/CAM perimeter, and treatment in audit, due diligence and investor communications.

The Registry layer must not be falsified through editorial labels: Matkator deeds document registered properties 8,584 and 8,588; a preservation email of 9 July 2019 identifies Cox/Matkator properties 8,797 and 8,498 as bought and paid for but awaiting registration, and Thompson property 8,557 as awaiting formalisation. Only the 708/8,557 correspondence is directly established in the material reviewed. “Matkator 1–3” is an editorial investigation guide, not wording from the minutes. This does not reduce the alarm: it defines exactly the missing documentary map.

Factual and legal analysis · Montelanza, S.L. / Molina perimeter

Selling a unit one truly owned could be lawful. Turning isolated units into the appearance of hotel ownership could not.

18 Nov 2016
Deed no. 2,026 executed by Montelanza, S.L.’s liquidator did not sell directly to CAM. After three failed auctions it proposed an allocation subject to two suspensive conditions: acceptance by the cited creditors and approval by the general meeting.
Conditional destination
Property 8,499 was allocated to the Sun Park Community; 8,500 in percentages to Yaiza Council, José Luis Molina Marrero and José Miguel Molina Petit. The instrument reviewed does not by itself prove fulfilment of both conditions or a later transfer to CAM.
18 Apr 2017
The preserved Registry records still showed Montelanza, S.L. as 100% owner of properties 8,499 and 8,500. Property 8,498 likewise remained in Montelanza, S.L.’s name, with a pending entry linked to a deed dated 2 June 2016.
26 Apr 2018
The title schedule in Cuatrecasas’s report then identified CAM as owner of 8,499 and 8,500, while 8,498 remained attributed to Montelanza, S.L.. The bridge that must be produced is acceptance, approval, onward deed, price/payment and registration connecting those states.

Properties 8,499 + 8,500 · standalone alarm

This is not an administrative gap: it is a jump in title that produced economic power.

The 2016 instrument subjected allocation to two conditions; the Registry still attributed both properties to Montelanza, S.L. in April 2017; the April 2018 schedule attributed them to CAM. Between those points there must be—or be missing—acceptance, approval, a deed, legal cause, price/payment and registration. The “Community” could not turn itself into a universal transferor or substitute each title-holder’s will.

Personal statement by Gil Marer: “I report this jump as a standalone act of patrimonial displacement and documentary laundering of an appearance of ownership, later capable of use for Community authority, possession, investment and finance. I require CAM, the liquidator, the conditional beneficiaries, the insolvency administrator, the Court and the Public Prosecutor to show what document each knew, what effect it enabled and what investigation followed.”

Molina / “dissident” branch: what the record already establishes

The Registry schedule dated 26 April 2018 attributed to CAM, in addition to 8,499 and 8,500, registered properties 8,706 and 8,710. The contemporaneous communication sent to counsel on 12 June 2018 identified the investigated provenance as Cristina Molina Petit → CAM (8,706) and Acciones Canarias → CAM (8,710). The same schedule retained José Luis Molina Marrero on 8,594, 8,655 and 8,712, and Manuel Molina Climent on 8,644. The evidential conclusion is concrete: specified isolated properties became concentrated in CAM; the whole hotel was not conveyed.

Legal review of 8,706 and 8,710 requires their deeds, authority, price, payment, tax treatment, registration and every Community resolution later used to convert those partial titles into operational control. A sale granted by the true owner with capacity and consent can convey the property sold; it cannot transfer LPB, Matkator, Thompson or other owners’ assets, or validate a whole-hotel representation to investors. The investigation must not atomise each purchase: it must test whether the partial acquisitions were used in coordination as a platform of appearance, occupation, finance and benefit over other owners’ assets.

Legal conclusion applied to this record

Article 3 of Spain’s Horizontal Property Act permits the true owner to dispose of an individual unit. A valid CAM acquisition of a particular property would therefore establish ownership only of that property and its inseparable common share: it would not transfer LPB, Matkator/Thompson units, common assets or the hotel as one business; nor would it alone authorise works, occupation, hotel operation or representation over another owner’s property. Articles 7 and 17 constrain acts affecting the structure, common elements, constitutive title or by-laws.

The strongest evidential formulation is not “CAM owned nothing”. It is this: CAM later appears as owner of some isolated properties, while the investor offering converted that partial position into a picture of whole, unencumbered acquisition and control before the remaining property-by-property chain existed —or was produced.

For 8,499 and 8,500, legality here turns on concrete documents: satisfaction of both suspensive conditions; power and title of every onward transferor; consent; the real price and payment. No one can contract in another’s name without authority (Civil Code art. 1,259), and registration does not validate a void act (Land Registry Act art. 33). Any registered-third-party protection requires an onerous purchase, good faith, reliance on the Register and registration (art. 34).

Disposition without sufficient authority

If anyone disposed of or contracted over property while claiming a power they did not possess, concealed burdens, or presented another’s asset as their own, the specific criminal-law test is Criminal Code article 251. The proof is the deed–authority–payment–Registry–use chain.

Disloyal administration

If a liquidator, Community officer, administrator or manager of another’s assets exceeded authority and caused loss, the test is Criminal Code article 252. The issue is who administered which assets and for whose benefit.

Majorities, minutes and documents

If apparent authority depended on false corporate documents or fictitious majorities, articles 290 and 292 require testing against every notice, authority, vote, minute and book.

Insolvency boundary

These privately owned units lay outside LPB’s insolvency estate. The plan in proceeding 36/2012 could order only LPB estate assets under articles 148 and 149 of the applicable Insolvency Act; it could not become title over third-party properties.

Documentary base reviewed: minutes of 26 April 2016; Montelanza, S.L. deed no. 2,026 dated 18 November 2016 and its Registry records; Registry records dated 18 April 2017; Cuatrecasas title schedule dated 26 April 2018; contemporaneous communication to counsel dated 12 June 2018; Matkator deeds and records; preservation email dated 9 July 2019; RICPE brochure and webinar from 2020. The complete chain is demanded, and a complete documentary response from PwC, RICPE, CAM and any transferor will be incorporated.

Preserved primary sources: order of 26 June 2018; insolvency administrator’s request of 17 October and direction of 22 October 2018; deed of 28 November 2018 and order of 24 October 2019; RICPE brochure of 4 June 2020; webinar of 11 November 2020; minutes of 26 April 2016; Matkator deed and Registry records; email of 9 July 2019; orders of 26 January 2022 and deed of 21 February 2022. The recorded working meeting of 10 June 2016 in Las Palmas is distinct from the Princesa Yaiza meeting; its later derivative transcript retains the 11JUN2016 label, while authentication, attendance and capacity remain open. Open the complete index of 176 contextual statements attributed to FMMM and Juan Carlos Prieto.

Version control · figures that must not be conflated

From “220 apartments and €12m” to the opened hotel: each figure belongs to a different stage.

The reconstruction shows changes in title, scale, timetable, finance and audience. A later figure does not automatically cure an earlier representation: a documentary bridge must explain what changed and who was told.

Date and source	Published version	Documentary comparison	Outstanding question
4 Jun 2020 · RICPE brochure	Sun Park appears with CAM as “sociedad titular”, while the project is described as “under study”.	The stage caveat does not resolve the concrete title representation required of the target company.	Origination file, Land Registry evidence, legal reservations and approval supporting “sociedad titular”.
11 Nov 2020 · RICPE/CAM webinar	220 apartments, €12m investment, works in Q1 2021 and completion by year-end 2021; all three complexes were described as bought with own funds, unencumbered and owned by CAM.	In July 2021 CAM acknowledged 54 properties; RICPE’s certificate identified 190 LPB properties and 18 third-party properties, with no LOI or completed due diligence.	Script, four reports, title and encumbrance sources, minutes and investor correction.
2021 accounts · 2022 plan	The Mynd Yaiza target was €10m, originating in a letter of intent dated 24 Dec 2021.	The same document refers to €16m as the vehicle’s general post-Covid annual investment target, not the Sun Park/Mynd Yaiza project amount.	Complete LOI, conditions precedent and reason for the change from the €12m stated in 2020.
16 Dec 2022 · RICPE portfolio	RICPE places opening on that date, describes 298 rooms and reports €1,598,849.32 for refurbishment plus approximately €3.5m estimated for employment creation.	“16” also appears as the opening day. It must not be converted into a €16m investment claim without an original document expressly saying so.	Full-resolution OCR of the 3 Jun 2022 Meeting Point brochure and reconciliation with contracts, bank records and RIC files.
2023 · audited accounts and brochure	The accounts record €6,573,703.10 materialised and lent; the brochure publishes €6,570,713.56.	A €2,989.54 difference, alongside a €3,440,914.20 regional award against €11,469,714 of approved investment.	Brochure–accounts–bank–employment–award reconciliation and a property–use–consent map.

Public sources: 2021 accounts and management report filed with CNMV, RICPE’s current Hotel MYND Yaiza page and Order HFP/521/2023. A OneDrive memory record establishes the existence and filename of the 3 June 2022 Meeting Point brochure, but not yet a full-resolution evidential reading of its text.

2020–2023 · from promotion to RIC materialisation and public support

The investment, RIC materialisation and grant award are no longer hypotheses.

Read with the benefit of the later record, the sequence does not end with the 2020 brochure or the defensive qualification of July 2021. It continues through a Sun Park-linked capital resolution, insolvency adjudication, segregation to Hotel New Trend, two participating loans, two RIC-materialisation share series and a regional-incentive award. The question is whether each decision-maker received the complete truth about title, control, litigation and third-party rights.

Unitary thesis · public interest

This exceeds a private dispute: contested patrimony became the substrate for finance, tax materialisation and public aid.

Gil Marer alleges that harm to LPB, Aweswell and Matkator was used as the asset-base for a chain of appearances: control of the complex, investor presentation, adjudication, segregation, RIC materialisation, refurbishment and employment finance, regional aid and hotel operation. Each layer supplied resources and legitimacy to the next. The investigable hypothesis is that the chain converted an anticipated representation of ownership and availability into a later economic reality without first reconciling the full proprietary and extra-insolvency perimeter.

The test is not a label of neutrality: it examines the acts and effects of the private perimeter, CAM’s defence, the insolvency administrator, the court, the RIC vehicle and public authorities. Functional convergence is documented by dates and outcomes; any clandestine agreement, intent and individual liability must be proved separately.

Prior notice · extra-insolvency title · current harm

The whole-title picture was formally challenged before adjudication, and Matkator titles remained live afterwards.

Documented regulatory notice On 13 January 2021 a CNMV filing identified the brochure, webinar, Sun Park, CAM and the alleged use of third-party property; on the same day AEAT issued a receipt for a tax complaint concerning “RIC PE investor fraud”. CNMV opened reference ED/36/2021, referred the filing to the competent department and, in 2026, confirmed that supervisory actions had been carried out. It also confirmed that the material obtained in those actions did not contain RICPE’s 20 July 2021 certificate or CAM’s 21 July court filing enclosing it.

Insolvency-court knowledge Aweswell’s 11 February 2021 filing told the Insolvency Court about the CNMV report, reproduced the investor presentation and supplied webinar and website material; it sought suspension, asset protection and an end to the public ownership attribution. Its 28 June filing added RICPE’s 19 June press item. Responding on 21 July, CAM asked that this new material not be incorporated while also saying it had never presented itself as sole owner and acknowledging 54 properties. The 28 February 2021 public post time-stamped the same warning; it proves contemporaneous notice, not by itself the truth of every accusation it contains.

Matkator title Deeds dated 26 June 2015 and 1 June 2016 document Matkator’s purchase of registered properties 8,584 and 8,588. Land Registry notes issued on 30 January 2025 still show Matkator holding 100% full title to both. A 4 March 2026 Cadastre response separately identifies three references associated with Matkator’s access position; Cadastre and registered title must not be conflated. The 2022 insolvency deed did not convey those two Matkator properties.

Continuing exposure The official MYND Yaiza website continues to market rooms, services and day passes and describes the Sun Park modernisation as co-financed by the European Union. Without a property–use–consent map, risk to possession, use, income, value and control of extra-insolvency units is current, not historical; so is exposure affecting RIC investors, taxpayers, public/EU funds, jobs, suppliers and guests.

Bounded conclusion: the answer to whether the integrated ownership-and-availability picture presented in 2020 was complete is no on the later documentary record itself. What remains open is the complete file received by each later decision-maker, what corrections were made, and the knowledge, intent or responsibility of each person. That requires the CNMV, RIC/AEAT, GC/836/P06, municipal, works and operating files.

2021 alert · before adjudication and title

What was communicated, who received it and why this was not merely a private dispute.

This was not one identical email sent to everyone. It was a connected sequence of reports, complaints and court filings, using overlapping source material, that placed the same central incompatibility before the regulator, tax authority, criminal channel and insolvency proceeding.

In plain language

The investor promotion presented Sun Park as an asset already acquired by the promoter, unencumbered and available for an approximately €12 million refurbishment. The alert said that picture conflicted with title and the insolvency record: LPB still owned most units, third-party rights existed and CAM was then a secured creditor owning only part of the complex. The exact split—54 CAM units / 190 LPB / 18 third-party units—was then confirmed in material supplied by CAM/RICPE’s own side in July 2021.

Direct receipt established

CNMV

13 January 2021

Electronic complaint and receipt no. 2021002141. It requested suspension and forensic investigation of the use of regulated status, the RIC tax incentive and third-party property in an investor-facing offer.

Tax registration established

AEAT

13 January 2021

ZZ061 tax report: “Possible investor fraud through RIC materialisation.” The registry entry identifies the filing and its attached detailed complaint.

Filing and service established

Insolvency 36/2012

11 Feb · 28 Jun · 8 Jul · 7 Sep

The February filing connected title, RIC capital raising, damage, estate value, finance and bidding competition. The June update added RICPE’s 19 June press item; the parties were served in July and the file was placed before the judge in September.

Criminal filing and referral to the Public Prosecutor established

Arrecife investigating court / Public Prosecutor

10 Feb · 12 Mar · 22 Mar 2021

The LexNET receipt —IdLexNet 202110386579133— proves submission to the Arrecife duty court. Its own index establishes that exhibits 14–16 contained web extracts, the webinar and RIC material. The 12 March order opened DP 616/2021 and directed that the Public Prosecutor be informed; after allocation, the 22 March order in DP 668/2021 directed that the proceedings be sent to the Public Prosecutor before provisional dismissal. This establishes institutional communication of a file containing the RIC allegations; it does not identify the individual prosecutor or prove a substantive prosecutorial assessment.

Seven facts and risks placed on the record

Fragmented title: the integrated-owner picture conflicted with ownership alleged and documented in the insolvency case.
Premature promotion: a project was being offered over property not yet fully adjudicated to the promoter.
Investor and tax risk: third-party capital, RIC materialisation, refurbishment and asset solvency were being connected.
Bidding risk: public ownership claims could deter bidders and alternative finance, reducing competition.
Estate and creditor harm: demolition, devaluation and reduced creditor recovery were alleged.
Circular risk: the promotion could help produce the insolvency outcome later used to validate that promotion retrospectively.
Urgency: investigation, preservation, asset protection, correction and suspension or safeguards were requested before irreversible effects.

Who was formally reached

Insolvency judge: Established Filed in the case; on 7 September the court officer placed the record at the judge’s disposal.
Insolvency administrator: Established Named as a served party; his 20 July filing proves receipt and response.
CAM and personated parties: Established Article 270 LEC service and the LexNET record identify CAM, LPB, Aweswell, AEAT, the Canary administration, the municipality and other personated parties.
Public Prosecutor: Referral established DP 616/2021 directed that the Public Prosecutor be informed and DP 668/2021 directed that the proceedings be sent to that office. The individual prosecutor, personal receipt and any substantive report or assessment remain unidentified.

The decisive question is not “did they receive a complaint?”

It is whether any decision-maker reconciled, before adjudication, deed, registration, RIC materialisation, finance or public aid, unit-by-unit ownership, extra-insolvency rights, investor representations, works, flows and the risk to bidders and creditors. No contemporaneous integrated reconciliation has yet been identified.

Primary basis reviewed: CNMV complaint and AEAT entry dated 13 January; criminal LexNET receipt dated 10 February; 12 and 22 March orders in DP 616/2021 and DP 668/2021; insolvency filing dated 11 February; 28 June filing; 8 July order and LexNET recipients; AC and CAM filings dated 20–21 July; and 7 September 2021 order. The 28 February 2021 public notice preserves contemporaneity but does not replace official proof.

Formal knowledge · decision · registered effect

From attempted exclusion to operative title: the record fixes who received the chronology and what followed.

Precision correction It would be inaccurate to say CAM’s defence physically prevented the court from seeing the documents. The filings and exhibits reached the proceeding. The documented point is more precise: CAM asked the court not to admit or treat Aweswell’s new chronology as an integrated part of the decisional record while introducing its own certificate and a materially narrower proprietary account. The insolvency administrator also sought exclusion and reduced the harm to a hypothesis.

28 Jun–21 Jul 2021
The chronology entered formally and met two convergent oppositions.
Aweswell supplied RICPE’s 19 June publication as later material. The 8 July order gave the parties notice under Article 270 LEC. On 20 July the insolvency administrator opposed admission, said he “knew nothing about it” and treated as hypothetical any harm from CAM pre-marketing the assets in anticipation of adjudication. On 21 July CAM sought exclusion of Aweswell’s filing, denied ever presenting itself as sole owner, acknowledged 54 properties and simultaneously offered its RICPE certificate as an “illustrative” document.
7 Sep 2021
The file reached the judge.
The court office joined five filings and placed the case before the judge so that the new documents might, “where appropriate”, be considered when deciding the reconsideration challenge to the 18 May order. From this date, an account based on the court’s material ignorance is untenable.
15 Oct 2021
Two orders issued on the same day described the decisive event incompatibly.
One dismissed the challenge as having lost its object because the auction had been held and the properties awarded to the best bidder. The other said the bidding “did not even take place” because the improving bidder failed to attend and insisted it was not an auction. Both preserved the CAM-favouring outcome.
25 Oct 2021–26 Jan 2022
The contradiction was challenged; the insolvency administrator opposed correction.
LPB and Aweswell sought clarification and raised the omission of the new documentary material. On 2 November the administrator maintained that the orders contained no obscurity or error requiring correction. On 26 January the judge acknowledged the contradiction, said it was cured by relabelling the event a “bidding appearance”, confirmed that the July documents had been admitted and held them irrelevant; the order added that the court had exhausted transparency safeguards “to the point of exhaustion”.
8–21 Feb 2022
The corrected decision became a conveyancing instrument while challenge continued.
On 8 February CAM requested certified copies “with full formal effect”. The court office issued them on 14 February with a statement of finality. Aweswell challenged that step on 16 February, alleging no stated purpose and disputed finality. A later Land Registry note records a dation-in-payment deed to CAM authorised on 21 February 2022.
20–26 Apr 2022
Registration preceded resolution of the challenges to the certified copies.
The Land Registry note issued on 6 May fixes entry 21 in CAM’s favour on 20 April. Decrees dated 26 April then dismissed LPB’s and Aweswell’s challenges, holding that identification of the recipient was enough for issue of the copies and that the orders were final for all purposes.

Attributed personal statement · Gil Marer

“I do not regard it as credible that the insolvency administrator and judge were external, passive or uninformed.”

I, Gil Marer, take personal responsibility for this conclusion: CAM’s defence sought to prevent the decision-maker from treating a connected documentary chronology as one record and sought to replace it with a narrower and materially misleading account. The insolvency administrator and judge were formally notified. The administrator opposed admission, minimised harm and later opposed correction of contradictory decisions. The court selected the relevance and procedural frame, preserved the outcome and produced the orders that became the operational bridge to deed and registration. Because of those acts and omissions, I do not treat them as neutral or external observers: I allege functional alignment with the CAM-favouring result that requires independent investigation.

Legal boundary: this chain establishes knowledge, decisions, omissions, contradiction and practical effect. It is not by itself a judgment proving a clandestine agreement, bribery, criminal intent or a knowingly unjust decision. Individual criminal liability requires separate investigation and proof; the absence of such a judgment does not erase the documented conduct.

Source control: contemporaneous correspondence with counsel shows that the risk of closure, the need to preserve the chronology and the urgency of institutional action were identified in July 2021. But the 29 July draft was never filed, as the November correspondence itself confirms. It is not used as court notice. Formal knowledge rests on the 11 February and 28 June filings, July notice and responses, the 7 September joinder and later decisions. Confidential correspondence is not published.

Documented alert · two legal planes

Evidential exclusion, a duty to react and a protected reporting channel are not the same question.

The distinction: the 2021 filings were submissions within Insolvency Proceeding 36/2012; they were not reports to today’s SIINF@GOBCAN, and Law 2/2023 does not automatically turn a court exhibit into admissible evidence. Where its material, personal and procedural requirements are met, it does protect reports about acts or omissions after the Directive entered into force; reasonable grounds for believing the information true are required, not conclusive proof.

What occurred was not simple silence: the insolvency administrator opposed admission and minimised harm; the court received the chronology, later confirmed admission and held it irrelevant. The stronger question is which substantive response reconciled title, third-party units, promotion and impact on the estate before the court produced the bridge to deed and registration.

Verifiable duties in 2021: where a civil proceeding reveals a fact appearing to constitute an offence prosecutable ex officio, Article 40.1 LEC requires the civil court to notify the Public Prosecutor. Articles 80, 82 and 94 TRLC required diligence and loyalty from the insolvency administrator, placed the office under judicial supervision and addressed liability for harmful acts or omissions lacking due diligence.

Court

Produce any order or certified referral sent to the Public Prosecutor under Article 40.1 LEC, and the decision reconciling the proprietary alert; or state that no such record has been located.

Administrator supervision

Produce any Article 82 TRLC request or specific report addressing advance marketing, private units, control, works and estate risk; or state that no such record has been located.

Current channels

Law 2/2023 sanctions obstructing reports or frustrating or delaying follow-up. Canary Islands Decree 91/2024 requires acknowledgment, an admissibility decision, a response within three months —extendable by three for special complexity— and immediate referral to the Spanish or European Public Prosecutor where applicable.

Bounded inference: the absence of an identified reconciliation, combined with the administrator’s opposition, the judicial irrelevance ruling and continuation to title, supports documented optics of functional alignment requiring independent investigation. Neither silence nor an isolated procedural failure proves collusion by itself. The law itself recognises authority collusion as a circumstance capable of justifying public disclosure, but its conditions and the presumption of innocence, privacy and third-party rights still apply.

The CGPJ internal channel is limited to information obtained in a labour or professional context with the Council itself and expressly excludes external complaints about courts, tribunals and their personnel. It should not be presented as a substitute for appeals, prosecution, the competent disciplinary route or a legally suitable external channel.

Media · public notice · preservation

Public exposure operates as a flywheel of knowledge and accountability; it does not replace registry or judicial protection.

Legitimate function Each dated update preserves the chronology, enables authorities, investors, funders, purchasers, advisers, media and witnesses to locate the records, opens a right of reply and makes a later narrative of ignorance harder to sustain. Publication reconnects harms that procedural fragmentation treated separately and can generate new evidence or institutional correction.

Registry boundary General website publicity is not automatically personal notice and does not by itself destroy every future acquirer’s good faith. Articles 33 and 34 of the Spanish Land Registry Act require an individual analysis: registration does not validate a void transaction, while an onerous third party may be protected where it acquires in good faith from the person shown by the Register as entitled and then registers. Public exposure therefore complements—but does not replace—current certifications, targeted notice, interim measures, nullity or rectification proceedings and specialist registry advice.

Open property workstream Gil Marer alleges that further Matkator units were affected by unauthorised transfers. That allegation will not become a generic public list: each property will be added only after checking historic and current title, transfer instrument, entry, possessor, use, income, notice recipients and available remedy. The priority is to prevent further harm without confusing exposure with adjudication of guilt.

Date and instrument	Documented fact	Representation or control problem	Closing evidence
Jun–Nov 2020 · brochure and webinar	Sun Park was presented as a 220-apartment, €12m project; CAM appeared as “sociedad titular” and the audience was told that all three complexes had been bought with own funds and were unencumbered.	An “under study” caveat does not neutralise specific statements about purchase, charges, scale and title to an investor audience.	Original video, recipients, versions, questionnaires, minutes and the title/charge records used by the investor channel.
13 Jan–28 Jun 2021 · CNMV, AEAT, public notice and court	The CNMV filing and AEAT receipt predated adjudication; the 11 February filing brought the CNMV warning and investor evidence into the insolvency case; the 28 February public notice and 28 June court filing kept the contradiction visible.	The sequence proves contemporaneous notice to the regulator, tax authority and court. It does not prove the merits by itself; it does prevent the title objection being treated as a late reconstruction.	ED/36/2021 file, AEAT complaint and exhibits, ruling on the court filings, corrective communications and recipients.
20–21 Jul 2021 · RIC certificate and CAM filing	CAM told the court it had never presented itself as sole owner and held 54 units. The certificate identified 159 apartments and other assets still in LPB, 18 third-party properties, no LOI or full due diligence, and website removal in January.	CAM’s defence asked the court to exclude Aweswell’s new material while offering this narrowed account. It is not an exculpatory endpoint: it must be reconciled with the earlier promotion and later financing.	Complete filing and exhibit, ruling on admission, defence instructions, investor correction and re-entry file.
29 Dec 2021–11/12 Mar 2022 · capital	RICPE’s 11 February 2022 notice later recites a 29 December 2021 capital-increase resolution connected with Sun Park and called shareholders to decide proposed execution or revocation; it also proposed capital authority up to €1,617,577.40.	The notice proves the wording of a later recital and a proposed March agenda before the 21 February 2022 deed. It does not prove the December meeting/resolution, March service or occurrence, voting, outcome or implementation.	Primary notice, minutes and resolution of 29 December; complete March service, attendance, proxies, minutes/resolutions, votes, abstentions, board report, share series, subscribers and conditions.
21 Feb 2022 · insolvency deed	The deed conveyed LPB’s enumerated registered properties to CAM by setting off €13,168,082.02 of secured credit.	It did not convey the 18 third-party properties or by itself turn the whole physical complex into insolvency property. Acquired title must be mapped against what was presented, refurbished, financed and operated.	Property–owner–use map, €400,000 free assets, possession, consents and exact works/operation perimeter.
1–16 Dec 2022 · suitability and first materialisation	RICPE’s audited accounts state that Mynd Yaiza obtained a Canary Government suitability declaration on 1 December; they record a €1,598,849.32 participating loan to HNT, Series F of 253 shares for the same amount and “materialisation” in 2022.	It is no longer accurate to say no Sun Park allocation or disbursement is shown. The question is what title, authority and litigation file the Government, RICPE, its Control Unit and investors received.	Full declaration, binding report, due diligence, contract, drawdowns, bank account, invoices, works certificates and Series F communications.
26 May 2023 · regional incentive	Order HFP/521/2023 awarded Hotel New Trend, file GC/836/P06, €3,440,914.20 against €11,469,714 of investment and 60 jobs.	The award is documented; it does not by itself establish full payment. The individual file must show title/availability representations, eligible costs, other finance, certifications, payments and any control or recovery action.	Application, individual decision, project memorandum, finance, payments, inspections, employment milestones, EU source and incidents.
Jun–Jul 2023 · second materialisation	The audited accounts record a second €4,974,853.78 loan to HNT, Series G of 785 shares for the same amount and 2023 RIC materialisation for employment creation; drawdowns were €2,818,523.76 and €2,156,330.02.	With the first line, audited materialisation totals €6,573,703.10. The September brochure reports €6,570,713.56: a €2,989.54 difference that requires reconciliation.	Brochure–accounts–bank–employment reconciliation; Series G investors; five-year maintenance; corrections and tax status.
Sep 2023 · RICPE brochure	The brochure identifies HNT/Mynd Yaiza, says the project was originally called Sun Park and that the company “has financed two distinct components”.	The product itself explains that share subscriptions serve to materialise RIC and consolidate tax savings. What remains non-public is investor-level tax returns—not the vehicle, issuances, loans or project materialisation.	Investor–series–RIC mapping, subscription records, risk information, anonymised tax evidence and any correction.

Conflict documented in audited accounts

RICPE financed a borrower 100% controlled by CAM while CAM was a shareholder and director of the vehicle itself.

The accounts state that CAM disclosed the conflict and abstained at shareholder and board level; they also state that the Control Unit gave a favourable opinion because obligations, interest and security were considered standard-market and in the interests of the company and investors. That establishes a declared procedure, not the completeness of its inputs. The record must show whether the Unit received the insolvency file, limited deed, 18 third-party properties, Aweswell/Matkator objections, 2020 investor communication, 2021 qualification and real operating map.

Good-faith third parties · attributed hypothesis

Investor and public-authority exposure ceased to be hypothetical.

Gil Marer’s allegation The alleged mechanism now has verifiable economic infrastructure: project-specific share series, RIC materialisation stated in audited accounts, €6.57m of participating loans, a suitability declaration reported by RICPE and a €3.44m public award. It should be investigated whether those controlling the project knew of title or authority defects yet enrolled investors and administrations in a way that socialised risk asymmetrically, increased reversal costs and produced cumulative economic and institutional anchoring. This hypothesis attributes no knowledge, participation or complicity to investors, prospective investors, advisers, intermediaries or public officials merely because they were exposed.

Exact boundary: vehicle- and project-level materialisation is documented. Individual tax returns are not public and no judgment has found tax, investment, procedural or insolvency fraud. Knowledge, coordination, the truthfulness of the materialisation file and any responsibility remain investigable questions requiring comparison of each representation against title, the RIC/AEAT file, regional-aid file, flows and internal communications.

Established

2020 promotion; 2021 qualification; Sun Park capital resolution; limited deed; two share series; €6,573,703.10 materialised and lent to HNT; declared CAM–HNT–RICPE conflict; suitability reported in accounts; €3,440,914.20 public award.

Decisive records pending

Complete RIC/AEAT and GC/836/P06 files; 2021–22 minutes; due diligence and Control Unit report; title/use matrix; final bank flows; grant-payment status; anonymised investor tax evidence.

Central hypothesis

That adjudication and later controls were used to make real and legitimise the proprietary picture anticipated in 2020, converting private harm into RIC capital, public aid, income and value within the Acosta Matos perimeter.

Third-party exposure · traceability and remedy

Audience map and reasoned notification decision.

Identify internally, with data protection, shareholders and subscribers in the series connected with Sun Park/HNT/MYND Yaiza, their exposure period and the information they received.
Reconstruct the categories and number of prospective investors, attendees at seminars or in-person and virtual meetings, advisers, intermediaries, organisers and institutional interlocutors exposed to the marketing, without publishing private identities absent a lawful basis.
Prepare a representation–date–channel–recipient–qualification–correction matrix showing who received each version concerning title, charges, availability, insolvency, third-party properties, LOI, due diligence and timetable.
Preserve invitations, recordings, CRM, questionnaires, distribution lists, data rooms, presentations, minutes, follow-up communications and evidence of any correction.
Put before the non-conflicted Board a reasoned decision on what correction or notice is required for investors and other recipients who remain exposed, and whether CNMV, AEAT, the Canary Government, the grant authority, Concurso 36/2012 or another competent judicial or prosecutorial body should be informed.
Publish only the aggregated, anonymised procedural outcome of that review, preserving personal data, supervisory secrecy, tax information and defence rights.

Boundary: this request does not presume an identical notification duty to every person or authority. It requires RICPE to identify the applicable rules, document its materiality analysis and adopt a verifiable decision instead of fragmenting the exposure by function or recipient.

Primary sources: 13 January 2021 CNMV filing and AEAT receipt; CNMV’s 20 January 2021 ED/36/2021 response and 22 January 2026 response; insolvency filings of 11 February and 28 June, notices and filings of 8–21 July, the 7 September order and orders of 15 October 2021 and 26 January 2022; 28 February 2021 public notice; Matkator deeds and 30 January 2025 Land Registry notes; 4 March 2026 Cadastre response; September 2023 RICPE brochure; RICPE 2023 audited accounts listed in the CNMV register; 11 February 2022 RICPE notice; CAM filing and certificate of 20–21 July 2021; 14 February certified-copy order, 16 February challenge, 21 February deed, 20 April registration and 26 April 2022 decrees; and Order HFP/521/2023. CNMV states that responsibility for prospectus content belongs to the self-managed vehicle and that CNMV does not verify that content.

January 2025 · May 2026

Publication stopped, incompatible accounts and preliminary professional review.

The record separates Javier Romera's direct words, the claimant's contemporaneous written recap and the exact status of the ICALPA files. That separation prevents a grave inference being converted into an unproved fact.

Date	Preserved record	Evidential reading
14–16 Jan 2025	Romera confirmed that he had the material, was preparing the piece and considered the fund had to be named because it “contributed money and is the basis of everything”.	Establishes editorial preparation and the journalist's understanding; it does not replace banking or corporate proof of Sun Park use of funds.
17 Jan	Romera expressly rejected the description of censorship and wrote that he had been asked to wait until Monday for court orders.	Establishes a request to wait and the stated reason. The email does not itself identify who made the request.
19 Jan	In a contemporaneous written recap sent to Romera, the claimant recorded that Laura Acosta Matos had allegedly asked for no publication, promised an ownership order, denied a commercial agreement with Meeting Point and at the same time acknowledged that Meeting Point had marketed the hotel as a tour operator.	This is a party's recap of calls, accompanied at the time by WhatsApp audio files that are preserved but not yet independently transcribed and authenticated.
19 Jan	The same recap attributed to Meeting Point representatives a denial of any CAM relationship and hotel operation, alongside knowledge of Canarian Hospitality and an account that Club SEI marketing was contemplated but not performed.	If confirmed, this conflicts with the admission attributed to Laura about Meeting Point marketing. Speakers, recordings, contracts, inventory, bookings and flows should be identified.
20 Jan	Romera wrote that he had received an order declaring the insolvency culpable and disqualifying Gil, and that the outlet therefore could not publish.	Establishes the immediately communicated reason for non-publication. It does not establish who sent the order, whether it was the only editorial reason, or a coordinated “sabotage”.

Attributed conclusion under adversarial test

Legitimate editorial intervention, strategic use of an order, or sabotage?

Gil Marer alleges that the sequence—counterparty warning, request to wait, incompatible accounts and delivery of an adverse order that stopped an already prepared piece—functioned as sabotage of publication. The direct record supports saying that the piece stopped after the order was received and that a prior request to wait was made. It does not yet support stating as fact who alerted CAM, who sent the order, whether Meeting Point coordinated with anyone, or that Romera lacked independent editorial judgment. El Economista, Romera, CAM and Meeting Point are invited to identify the speakers, communications and their complete account.

DIP 79/2026 · 27 MayICALPA opened preliminary information proceedings on the complaint against Carmen Ramírez de Prada and appointed Raúl Galván González as rapporteur. Preliminary opening; no professional breach found.

DIP 80/2026 · 27 MayICALPA opened preliminary information proceedings on the complaint against Francisco Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte and appointed Luis Alejandro Guerra Rodríguez as rapporteur. Preliminary opening; no professional breach found.

The public relevance of DIP 79 and 80 is procedural: it confirms that two distinct complaints were registered for study. It does not corroborate the allegations. Substantive inconsistencies must be resolved through CAM's filings, the liquidation plan, orders, bidding record, deed, accounts and communications—not the mere existence of an information file.

2019–2021 · alert, intermediation and continuity of advice

Sony Ganwani, the 2021 alert and residual channels with Íñigo de Luisa after Aweswell’s procedural change of counsel.

Gil Marer’s attributed position The 26 May 2020 record documents a specific change: SLJ requested and received the venia “in this matter” to assume Aweswell Limited’s procedural representation in Concurso 36/2012. That change preceded the 2021 messages and could not have been caused by them; nor does it by itself establish a global end to every relationship or residual channel. Gil makes the narrower allegation that the 17 March 2021 message in which, according to him, Íñigo referred to “our friend Sony” and presented himself as a messenger may have affected residual channels of trust, confidentiality or assistance during a critical period. This communication, influence and causation hypothesis requires proof; it is not a judicial conclusion or an allegation of unlawful conduct by Íñigo de Luisa or Cuatrecasas.

Scope correction · 14 August 2026. An earlier version attributed general scope to the 26 May 2020 record and overstated the possible causal effect of the later message. This is corrected: the record establishes the change in Aweswell’s procedural representation in that matter, not a global termination; any later effect on residual trust, confidentiality or assistance remains an allegation requiring proof.

Date	Preserved record	What it supports	What it does not support
19–29 Jul 2019	Preserved email metadata records Sony Ganwani’s introduction as a possible finance provider, his proposal to engage with Cuatrecasas, circulation of material to him and his introduction of an insolvency adviser.	A direct functional connection existed between Sony and Gil’s finance/advisory circle before the RICPE alert.	It does not prove a RICPE mandate, agency relationship or instructions concerning Gil, his lawyer or the insolvency proceeding.
4–7 Oct 2019	Project correspondence involving Sony was contemporaneously forwarded to Íñigo de Luisa.	The Sony–client–lawyer connection was not first reconstructed in 2021.	It does not establish the content or purpose of any later third-party communication.
26 May 2020	SLJ requested and received the venia “in this matter” to assume Aweswell Limited’s procedural representation in Concurso 36/2012.	It establishes the prior chronology and the specific scope of the procedural change, almost ten months before the 17 March 2021 record.	The 2021 message could not have caused that earlier change. The record does not by itself establish a global termination or resolve which residual channels remained.
8 Mar 2021	Gil sent a confidential alert package to Íñigo de Luisa’s professional Cuatrecasas address, attaching six RICPE/CNMV-related records and referencing the steps before CNMV, AEAT and Concurso 36/2012.	It establishes transmission of a structured, contemporaneous warning to the professional address used by the legal-defence side.	It does not prove that the email was read or that it or the attachments were passed to Sony, RICPE or anyone else.
17 Mar 2021	The preserved WhatsApp record contains an 86.102-second voice note attributed to Íñigo de Luisa and a contemporaneous line placing Sony back in the sequence. According to Gil, Íñigo referred to “our friend Sony” and presented himself as a messenger. The original file and its cryptographic fingerprint are preserved.	It warrants authentication, context and production of the communication chain explaining why Sony reappears nine days after the alert package.	The audio and full/working transcript are not published; only the short phrase needed to delimit the allegation is reproduced. Neither the voice attribution nor Gil’s characterisation has been independently authenticated; the record proves no mandate, Sony authorship or that Sony acted for RICPE.
20–21 Jul 2021	Enrique Guerra, RICPE’s secretary and legal adviser, issued an institutional Sun Park certificate on 20 July which CAM filed the following day in Concurso 36/2012.	It establishes that an institutional RICPE document entered the proceeding after the alert and requires identification of its origin, instructions, information inputs, recipients and purpose.	It does not prove advance knowledge of the alert, a mandate to Sony, contact with the defence or unlawful interference.
Later period	Gil states that the message may have affected residual channels of trust, confidentiality or assistance with Íñigo during a critical period.	It defines a narrower personal allegation capable of testing against chronology, the scope of any residual assistance, decisions, communications and a counterfactual.	Sequence alone proves no pressure, authorship, RICPE knowledge, leak, altered legal act or different procedural outcome.

No mandate established

This page does not assert that Sony Ganwani was retained, instructed or authorised by RICPE, or that he complained on RICPE’s behalf. The relationship—if any—requires contracts, instructions, payments, email, call and diary records, and evidence tested through reply.

Temporal scope · protection is not automatic

The 2021 events and reports predate Spain's Law 2/2023 and are not retrospectively turned into infringements. But the Sixth Additional Provision extends protective measures to communications about Article 2 acts or omissions occurring since Directive (EU) 2019/1937 entered into force. The analysis must separate: date and subject matter reported; person, reasonable grounds and channel; later adverse act; detriment and causation. The 25 July 2023 hearing and Judgment 163/2023 post-date the Law, but chronology does not turn them into retaliation. The hypothesis and Article 38.4's conditional presumption are examined in the classification record →.

CNMV and governance relevance

RICPE is recorded as a self-managed SCR in the CNMV register under no. 295. Its own Ethics Channel publishes confidentiality and good-faith non-retaliation commitments. That makes the Board and Compliance response material; it does not mean that CNMV has found an infringement.

Concurso 36/2012 · causation to prove

The question is not only who spoke to whom, but what demonstrable effect followed for the legal defence.

The record should establish the scope of any residual channel after Aweswell’s specific 26 May 2020 procedural change of counsel; whether any outside communication reached Íñigo; whether it altered trust, confidentiality, assistance, evidence, filings, challenges or timing; what RICPE, Sony, CAM/HNT and each professional knew; and whether there is a serious procedural counterfactual. No specific order or outcome is attributed to RICPE or Sony without evidence of a residual channel, contact, leak, filing, causation and counterfactual. An outcome Gil regards as adverse or unjust does not by itself prove interference.

Board governance

President and non-conflicted directors

Confirm unabridged receipt, preservation, conflict recusals, resources and the reasoned response. Appointment alone is not evidence of guilt.

Legal governance

Secretary / legal adviser

Identify custody, Board circulation, advice and certifications relevant to notice, correction and project continuation; answer only for role-specific acts and omissions.

Protected handling

System Manager and Compliance/Operations

Identify the formal channel officer, preserve access records, separate conflicted handlers and assess any proved post-2023 conduct under the applicable framework.

Capital and disclosure

Investment, risk, finance and investor relations

Identify what each function received, relied on, disclosed or corrected concerning title, alerts, project re-entry, financing and investor communications.

Finite right of reply

Eight questions that could close the issue.

Have relevant email, messaging, calls, calendars, CRM, data-room records, minutes and reports been preserved from July 2019 onward?
What relationship, mandate, payment, instruction or contact existed between Sony and RICPE/A&G, CAM/HNT or their advisers?
Who knew of the 8 March package, and what later communications mentioned Gil, the blog, CNMV/AEAT, Cuatrecasas or Concurso 36/2012?
Why does Sony reappear in the 17 March record, and did anyone contact him afterwards?
What originated Enrique Guerra’s 20 July certificate, who requested it, on what sources and for what use in the insolvency proceeding?
What residual channels of trust, confidentiality or assistance remained after Aweswell’s specific 26 May 2020 procedural change of counsel, did outsiders contact Íñigo, and what concrete effect does the evidence establish?
What reported act or omission falls, if at all, within Article 2 and the Sixth Additional Provision; what later adverse measure is alleged under Articles 36 and 38; and what are its date, actor, reason, detriment and causal link?
Will RICPE accept independent review and a documented response, and publicly correct any verifiable error?

Full perimeter; individual responsibility. The request reaches the company, Board, Secretary/legal adviser, Compliance, System Manager, Control Unit, investment/risk/finance/investor-relations functions, project decision-makers and third-party custodians only for their own duties, acts, omissions and communications. The map prevents institutional atomisation; it does not create guilt by office or association. Sony Ganwani, Íñigo de Luisa, Cuatrecasas and RICPE are expressly invited to provide their account, deny any mandate or pressure and correct the record with verifiable documents.

Basis of this chronology: preserved email metadata dated 19–29 July and 4–7 October 2019; the 26 May 2020 record of Aweswell’s procedural change of counsel; the 8 March 2021 sent-message record; the 17 March WhatsApp file and metadata; RICPE’s 20 July certificate and CAM’s 21 July filing in Concurso 36/2012. Private originals are reserved for authentication and production through a competent channel.

Reply or submit a verifiable correction See the public-response fields

Patrimonial perimeter · controlled attribution

The alleged harm does not end with LPB or the real estate.

The public record permits four legal and economic levels to be distinguished. They should be tested within one causal chain, not reduced to disconnected pieces; at the same time, each entity, act, harm and causal link retains its own evidential burden to prevent double counting or collective blame.

Documented perimeter

The LPB insolvency estate, Matkator and other third-party properties, hotel operation and the wider business platform preceding June 2018 are separate levels. Harm to the estate, a proprietary right, operating income or the wider business does not automatically prove harm to the others.

Attributed allegation

Gil Marer alleges that RICPE decisions and omissions after the 2021 alert and documentary qualification—including project re-entry and later financing—contributed to maintaining or aggravating persistent, unrepaired harm across those four levels. This is an allegation about causation and responsibility, not a judicial finding.

Inference to test

The documented sequence warrants investigation of whether later capital, controls and governance decisions increased the duration of harm, reversal costs or the migration of income and value. That inference can be sustained only through a counterfactual and decision-and-flow traceability.

Open question

What duty, knowledge, decision or omission is attributable to RICPE at each date; which specific interest was reasonably foreseeable; what would adequate controls have changed; which intervening causes existed; and what preservation, correction or mitigation steps were taken?

Anti-atomisation rule and publication boundary. A meaningful RICPE response cannot isolate LPB, the properties, operation, capital or platform and omit their documented connections. Nor does this page publish a damages figure or attribute every group loss to RICPE: each level requires its own holder, period, counterfactual, flow, mitigation and causal analysis. Private-witness identities, the audio, full/working transcript and any other private or privileged lawyer content, unnecessary personal data and live procedural strategy remain excluded.

Public response register

Procedural facts—not inferences from silence.

After a verifiable communication, this register may publish only the date, recipient class, acknowledgment, preservation, handler role, Board delivery, conflict declaration, response and correction. It will not publish the confidential communication or convert non-response into guilt.

CommunicationVerified date and reference AcknowledgmentReceived · pending · not located PreservationConfirmed · qualified · unanswered ConflictDeclared · incomplete · not supplied BoardUnabridged delivery confirmed or unverified ResponseFull · accurate summary · justified restriction · none located CorrectionAccepted · rejected with reasons · under verification

Evidence status and right of reply

Legitimate pressure depends on not exceeding the evidence.

RIC, its directors, officers, advisers, former professionals and anyone mentioned may provide corrections, documents or a reasoned response. Verifiable responses will be incorporated with equivalent prominence.

Established

The corporate sequence; the 2020 promotion and webinar; the July 2021 court position and certificate; the Sun Park capital resolution; the limited deed; two share series and €6,573,703.10 of materialisation/loans to HNT; the declared conflict; and the €3,440,914.20 regional award.

Not yet established

The complete suitability, AEAT and aid files; what each decision-maker knew; individual tax returns; final grant payment; conscious falsity; coordinated agreement; improper influence or criminal liability.

Procedural boundary

A complaint, registration, referral, closure, silence or transparency response does not decide the merits. The public register will state its exact effect.

This dossier does not publish the confidential maximum-accountability annex. It excludes internal strategy, investor data, privileged communications, unredacted tax or criminal material, raw email chains, unnecessary personal data and any reputational countdown.

2018–2019 Registry / ob rem chain Submit a verifiable correction or source Return to the recovery summary

Connection to the Valencia banking claim

This dossier connects to the chronology, documents or rights considered in Aweswell v CaixaBank. The banking claim, credit chain and each actor’s conduct retain their separate scope. Read both litigation positions, then return to this dossier; no common liability is inferred.

CaixaBank Valencia · Claim and defence

Sun Park / MYND Yaiza — site and canonical record

Hotel / physical site: Sun Park · MYND Yaiza — PD-SP-O-0042.
Calle Janubio 3, Playa Blanca, Lanzarote 35580, Spain. This identifies the establishment and site, not a corporate owner or determination of title. Canonical address and source variants · Actors, proceedings and evidence.

MASTER MYND · photographs, attributed accounts and chronology

The outward RICPE record closes the internal-channel communication; it does not identify the natural-person resolver.

One chain: source, authority, control, capital and benefit.

2011: first located disputed matrix of the FMMM era.

The name “Community” is not an authority audit.

Corporate, promoter and professional genealogy.

Fernando Aguiar Acosta^ and Laura Aguiar Acosta^.

Fernando Aguiar Acosta^

Laura Aguiar Acosta^

Current handling must be separated from the acts under examination.

Enrique Quevedo Gil

System Manager

President and non-conflicted directors

Guerra and Acosta

What a documented response can resolve.

Who audited, who reviewed a project and who advised the Board are different questions.

Between 2018 and 2020, the legal bridge assumed by the investor communication did not exist.

CAM and representatives

Insolvency administrator

Court

Public Prosecutor

Authority for a future disposal, not delivery of possession

“They were going in, whatever it took”

De facto control, not a visit

The transfer had not even been completed

CAM / Laura Acosta Matos

Insolvency administrator

“Community”

Courts and prosecution service

“Under study” + “title-holding company”

Bought, company-owned and unencumbered

“Various units” and finality pending

54 properties; no LOI; no full due diligence

The transfer came later

Reality for investors

Reality for the insolvency court

Reality certified by RICPE

18 units, seven claimants

Keys and operation were neither ownership nor succession to the collective mandate

The same architecture binds CAM

Bungalow 511

Bungalow 507

Local 1

Bungalow 708

What is documented

PwC’s exceptional position

The answer required

Molina / “dissident” branch: what the record already establishes

Legal conclusion applied to this record

Disposition without sufficient authority

Disloyal administration

Majorities, minutes and documents

Insolvency boundary

From “220 apartments and €12m” to the opened hotel: each figure belongs to a different stage.

The investment, RIC materialisation and grant award are no longer hypotheses.

The whole-title picture was formally challenged before adjudication, and Matkator titles remained live afterwards.

From attempted exclusion to operative title: the record fixes who received the chronology and what followed.

Public exposure operates as a flywheel of knowledge and accountability; it does not replace registry or judicial protection.

RICPE financed a borrower 100% controlled by CAM while CAM was a shareholder and director of the vehicle itself.

Investor and public-authority exposure ceased to be hypothetical.

Audience map and reasoned notification decision.

Publication stopped, incompatible accounts and preliminary professional review.

Legitimate editorial intervention, strategic use of an order, or sabotage?

Sony Ganwani, the 2021 alert and residual channels with Íñigo de Luisa after Aweswell’s procedural change of counsel.

The question is not only who spoke to whom, but what demonstrable effect followed for the legal defence.

President and non-conflicted directors

Secretary / legal adviser

System Manager and Compliance/Operations

Investment, risk, finance and investor relations

Eight questions that could close the issue.

The alleged harm does not end with LPB or the real estate.

Procedural facts—not inferences from silence.

Legitimate pressure depends on not exceeding the evidence.

Notices, sources and decisions — individual registration

Connection to the Valencia banking claim

Sun Park / MYND Yaiza — site and canonical record