Unitary dossier · 7 June 2018
The evidence describes Sun Park as occupied and registered as active shortly before 7 June, with guests and service and maintenance activity. That does not determine the lawful operator at that date or prove that Pink or CEXP retained operation or possession. This record explains how authority limited to LPB spread materially over a complex of fragmented titles.
The decisive distinction
The right question is not “who controlled the insolvency?” It is which property and powers were within Insolvency 36/2012, and which independent title permitted interference with each non-estate unit, the hotel operation, contracts, guests and common elements.
The alleged overreach begins where administration and supervision of LPB property became a practical bridge to a hotel that legally remained composed of different patrimonies and powers.
The insolvency administrator represented and administered LPB’s patrimony according to the procedural phase; the judge supervised and decided matters brought before the court. That authority required preservation and inventory, but did not create title to others’ property.
CEXP had its own collective provenance. But a signed CEXP–Monterecco notice of 1 February 2012 said it subrogated the activity and named Monterecco as the new operator; Monterecco/Pink obtained registration for 159 units and genuinely operated. No competent CEXP-body resolution or complete chain has been located proving transfer of the entire owner-derived mandate, third-party units or common elements. The 2014/2017 CEXP minutes support organisational continuity, not by themselves recovery of operation or possession in June 2018; Order 804 was adverse to CEXP’s asserted possession then.
Their properties did not belong to LPB and could not pass through LPB’s liquidation. Credit, Community majority, security, keys or unitary operation do not replace a deed, consent and property-specific title.
It administered expenses and common elements within its powers. No title has been located making it owner of the apartments or permitting it to dispose of the hotel business; a security mandate was not by itself an eviction, refurbishment or whole-site control mandate.
The 2008 asset sale—which Gil Marer characterises as a breach of the agreed transaction architecture—left one hotel operation spread across multiple titles. Certain properties remained within the dissident perimeter connected to Montelanza/Molina. Their later proceedings were property-specific: they did not by themselves decide extinction or succession of every operating right or turn restitution of 18 units into authority over the whole hotel. Who held each right after 2012 is a separate question.
The continuity Gil alleges between those owners, representatives or successors and later acquisitions within the Acosta Matos perimeter is a proprietary hypothesis to be proved, not automatic criminal succession. Gil Marer says the 2018 exit proposal was intended to address fragmentation through an operator, financing, agreements and owner-by-owner treatment—not manufacture ownership through the Community or insolvency.
Contemporary control
It needed investment and modernisation. That did not make it available for possessory self-help. This conclusion concerns the complex’s condition and activity; it is not a finding that Pink or CEXP was then the lawful operator.
A Las Palmas architect developed measurements, three-/four-star refurbishment and expansion options, technical studies, and a basic/execution-project route conditional on licensing. The plan was staged to preserve operations.
A specialist Tenerife contractor prepared designs and renders and received a 30% payment—€1,923.43—with the transfer reference “Reforma Piloto SPL”. Works photographs and emails connect it to commercial preparation and a tour-operator filming visit.
The contemporary instruction was explicit: refurbish “in phases” and avoid losing another tourism season. By early 2018 the objective was framed as a €1.5m repositioning to four-star level. That was a refurbishment objective, not a category already obtained.
The independent ECO valuation issued on 7 June described the property as completed and occupied, in good condition without apparent structural deterioration, registered as operational, and with some rooms already updated. Mortgage value: €25,647,179.50.
The live alternative
The file documents a contracted operator, proposed hotel continuity, bridge finance and two take-out routes. Conditions, verification, approvals and closing still remained.
How it worked
The ONA contract contemplated continuity of staff, reservations and maintenance. Bridge finance was to lead to bank funding or the integrated Elaia/Lagune sale/takeout route. Stoneweg's own 12 June email establishes that the binding conditional offer stage had closed before the Las Palmas meetings; owner ratification and transaction-closing conditions still mattered. That is why loss of access affected diligence, operation, security and closing. Open the mandate, billing and implementation reconstruction →
Preparation, authority and execution
On 18 May the insolvency administrator, representing LPB, asked that the Community retain security to control access and preserve areas. The minutes do not deliver possession to CAM or authorise exclusion of the onsite manager, guests, staff or persons asserting operational or possessory rights, entry into others’ property or complex-wide transformation.
Documentary conclusion: an eyewitness testified under a duty of truth that he saw the coded lock broken, chains and padlocks fitted, cylinders replaced and entrances closed. He attributed operational instructions to Laura Patricia Acosta Matos and made clear that José Daniel Acosta Matos was not present that day.
The order approved a transfer/sale route for LPB assets with publicity and competing offers. It did not order handover of the hotel, eviction, broken locks or operator replacement.
The same-day email reports that those arriving said they came to “take possession”, demanded keys, identified guests and told the onsite manager it was over. It is a contemporary account; police, CCTV and security logs must corroborate each act.
The onsite manager testified that access control kept him from his workplace from the 7th; he entered only with a notary and for a sanitation intervention. He said he could not retrieve tools and machinery.
A contemporaneous party note of a call attributed to the administrator said CAM entered only its own units and common areas. It was challenged immediately. That conflict requires a map of keys, properties, cameras and security incident reports.
Independent resident emails from June and July describe permanent guards, gate-level access decisions, lock removal, contacts routed to Acosta Matos and residents leaving. The complete guest, booking, luggage and refund record remains missing.
Judicial evidence supports exclusion of the onsite manager. Other communications report staff or operators absent or told to move. A universal expulsion should not be stated without payroll, rosters, statements and termination records person by person.
Residents and the ONA visit described non-operational pools and unmaintained gardens. The 9 July images establish visible condition, not authorship. They must be tested against the earlier valuation, incident reports, orders, suppliers and exact control period.
The documented access control affected apartment access and due diligence by the proposed operator ONA; the alleged effect on bookings, goodwill and continuity requires PMS, banking and accounting evidence.
He denied ordering the coded entrance broken, but admitted access, one forced door and general Community authority; as to locks broken to carry it out, he said he “accepts it as good”.
The images depict a visible condition on the date attributed to the dossier; by themselves they do not prove date, cause or authorship. They must be tested against metadata, access logs, maintenance records and the earlier Gesvalt inspection.
Fiduciary bridge and protection
The administrator had to preserve and represent LPB’s patrimony; the judge had to supervise the insolvency and decide applications. Neither was Sun Park’s universal manager. But that limit does not make them spectators where authority or a decision concerning LPB produces whole-hotel effects.
He requested the Community security item for LPB and admitted access authorisations. Once notified, the verifiable questions are which properties he identified as LPB’s, what inventory and activity he preserved, how he checked implementation, what he reported to court and what relief he sought if he considered the instruction exceeded. His authority did not, by itself, reach CEXP or non-estate properties.
The 16 April order did not grant CAM possession. The Irigoyen report places the finance-backed exit proposal before judge and administrator on 13 June, but needs corroboration. The record later contained disputes over the separate sale, works and inspection. The question is what effective protection was decided while the hotel, evidence and ONA route could still be preserved.
DI 1103/2018-00 → Preliminary Proceedings 1132/2018, NIG 3500443220180003508, were provisionally dismissed on 20 August. Order 804/2018 of 13 November, issued in Roll 1010/2018 by Section Two of the Las Palmas Provincial Court, rejected the appeals, treated the dispute as essentially civil and relied centrally on the administrator’s account and authority. Its reasoning was adverse to the criminally protectable possession CEXP asserted and treated Pink’s formal possession as delivered on 22 May 2017. It was not a civil or tourism-title trial and did not create CAM title. See the roll identity, panel, representation, limits and open gaps →
“I allege that authority over LPB was converted into a bridge to non-estate control: private actors executed; the administrator enabled or failed to correct the overreach; and judicial protection did not stop it in time.” — Gil Marer
This is an attributed accusation subject to proof. No direct evidence has been located of a clandestine agreement, illicit benefit to the administrator or judge, or a decision establishing criminal intent.
Decisive evidence: original instructions, notice timeline, property-by-property inventory, measures requested and decided, ONA communications and a reconciled loss-and-benefit account.
From control to project
The pilot does not establish by itself who commissioned it or with what authority. Its potential evidential significance arises from placing it between the 2018 material control, later party accounts of a whole-hotel proposal under “Lava Verde”, proposed complex-wide rollout and later investor representations.
Atilano wrote as “Atilano Sastre” under the professional presentation Inmoturismo Hotel Consultancy and as Essenthia’s Canary Islands Contract and FF&E delegation. Public sources of the period identify him as Inmoturismo’s CEO; its profile covered hotel expansion, management, rehabilitation and contract work. In this file he is an independent professional source, not an accused actor.
Boundary: his emails directly record his statement that the represented factory had manufactured and installed a pilot and that Sun Park was the establishment they knew as Lava Verde. They do not directly name CAM or identify the room, registered owner, consent, payer, order, licence or access authority. An unsigned party memorial dated January 2020 attributes the commission to the CAM perimeter around June 2019; it is not Atilano’s direct confirmation and requires corroboration.
In June 2020, Gil Marer met the then regional lead at his Santa Cruz de Tenerife office. The corporate appointment on 12 June, later arrangements at that office, Aweswell’s onboarding and the Works/Projects/Installations estimate establish a genuine engagement concerning an integral refurbishment.
Boundary: the CAM visit, four pilots and replication request come from a party memorial dated 12 June 2020, not a signed statement from the regional lead or El Corte Inglés. CRM, visit, drawings, request for proposal and internal project records remain to be produced.
The threshold did not end on 7 June
A continuing consequence does not automatically make the initial act a permanent offence or every later actor guilty. It does require every new act to be tested: who adopted it, under what authority, with what knowledge, over whose patrimony, for whose benefit and against which lawful explanation.
The minutes describe unanimity among those attending. None of the three corporate representations retained on the public page is LPB or Matkator; the remaining nominal list is redacted, and notice, powers, voting, abstentions and conflicts remain open.
José Daniel Acosta Matos chairs and explains the sole project, supplied by CAM. Laura Patricia Acosta Matos represents CAM; Javier Acosta Matos, whose identity is CAEPR-confirmed, represents the distinct CAEPR-confirmed Construcciones Acos-Matos, S.L.
The controlled annex reading attributes €1,199,729.12 Community debt and a €3,260,416.81 levy to LPB. The sum does not prove enforceability, double recovery or valid debt.
This is a derivation from the coefficient and the €4,467,793.26 budget, not a transcription of the withheld annex. It must be checked before evidential use.
The strongest lawful explanation appears in the minutes: they separate common works said to be “strictly necessary” for operation in the existing category—allocated among owners—from the additional four-star upgrade, which CAM offers to undertake at its own cost. A valid common work may also benefit the sponsor without becoming criminal.
The adverse hypothesis is more precise: if actors already developing the conversion knowingly classified project-enabling capex as a common expense, used invalid debt/voting machinery to impose it through 20.993% attendance, and shifted most cost to owners already deprived of use and income, the minutes may constitute a new patrimonial act. Proving that requires authority, debt, voting, technical cost classification, implementation, benefit and intent; sequence alone is insufficient.
The contradiction requires a title fork, not a sum: the minutes call CAM the principal interested majority owner, but the controlled annex still attributes LPB a 72.976% coefficient, €1,199,729.12 debt and €3,260,416.81 levy. If CAM was not yet the majority owner, test the truth and authority of that premise before deed no. 457; if CAM already was majority owner or economically controlled those properties, explain why LPB still bore the dominant quota and charge. Matkator was outside the insolvency and requires its own property-by-property chain.
No offence is proved by adding a €4.467m budget/levy, €6.57m of RICPE/RIC finance, a €3.44m subsidy, eligible investment, FEDER and revenue. They are different legal objects. The relevant proof is whether the same properties, works, invoices, jobs, availability or value were reused or described incompatibly; what each applicant disclosed about title, insolvency, third-party rights, related parties and other support; and which person knew, approved, certified, paid or used each proposition.
The unitary reading is: control/exclusion → loss or displacement of operation, guests, cashflow and funded exit → debt and reduced defensive capacity → voting/levy/project → title and CAM→HNT segregation → RICPE/RIC, regional incentive, FEDER and MYND operation. Each arrow requires its own proof; none automatically transfers guilt.
Omnidirectional bridge · 2018 → 2022 → later use
Gil Marer and Aweswell allege that preparation, selective exclusion, the meeting, resolutions, documentary closure, no direct communication and later use formed one enabling episode. The map displays that prosecution theory. It does not turn its arrows into proved causation or collective guilt.
Access and security, removal of guests, lost operation/cashflow, deterioration or works, frustration of the ONA exit and reduced defensive capacity are alleged as cumulative pressure from 2018.
7 June control →LPB was in insolvency and subject to insolvency administration and judicial supervision. Matkator was not estate property. No authority over LPB alone covered its units.
Active estate and limits →Debt, voting, notice, security, access, maintenance, banking and custody formed a functional apparatus. “Capture” and de facto administrator remain actor-specific legal characterisations to prove.
Audit Community–IA →Pilots, plans, the four-sibling image, RICPE promotion and 2021 filings justify production of project and board files. They do not alone prove knowledge of the call.
Pre-title project →The meeting and its resolutions are documented in a located copy. Deliberate recipient selection, common purpose and every causal use remain open.
Reading rule: each ⇄ means “bridge to prove in both directions”: fact → use/effect and result → document/custodian expected to explain it. It does not mean agreement, intent or causation has been proved.
Debt, loss of vote, absent-owner assent, challenge time, certification and collection depend on valid call and communication. A defective ACTA is not therefore a criminal falsehood.
LPH gates →The prosecution case must identify the false or omitted proposition, user, induced error or patrimonial decision, harm and benefit. The meeting preceded the deed by seventeen days; proximity is not causation.
2022 adjudication →Amounts are not added. Cross-match property, work, invoice, job, title/authority statement, other support, payment, certification and beneficiary to detect reuse or incompatibility.
Funds traceability →Segregation, works, operation and revenue permit value and benefit tracing. They do not automatically transfer intent, corporate crime or successor guilt.
Financial lives →This is Gil/Aweswell’s attributed umbrella label for sustained pressure on access, guests, operation, assets, evidence, funded exit and defence. It is not a standalone offence: each episode must, if appropriate, satisfy coercion, usurpation, damage, frustration, falsity, disloyal administration or another offence separately.
The accurate phrase is: LPB assets formally subject to insolvency-administration and judicial-supervision safeguards, whose practical effectiveness is disputed. That is a protection architecture, not a guarantee of outcome. Matkator remained outside it.
The record supports inquiry into de facto control of discrete functions. Legal status in relation to LPB requires stable autonomous management or habitual decisive influence, instructions followed, continuity, knowledge, benefit and the date-specific standard.
Official historical LPH consolidation applicable before the 4-February-2022 meeting →
| Horizontal Property Law on 4 Feb 2022 | What must be tested | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Arts. 3, 5 and 7 private property, quota and works | Title, statutes, property by property, consent and works/operation perimeter. | A Community resolution does not confer private title or universal hotel authority. |
| Arts. 9 and 10 expense, notice and necessary works | Notified address, attempts, returns, noticeboard/diligence; common, necessary, private or four-star character. | Necessary work can be mandatory; its label and notice route must match reality. |
| Arts. 13, 14 and 20 organs and administrator | Appointment, competence, instructions, custody, bank and implementation. | Representing the Community does not authorise disposition of every private property. |
| Arts. 15.2 and 16 debt, voting and call | Matured debt, challenge/consignment, disenfranchised-owner list, first/second call, agenda and service. | Debt may remove a vote; it does not remove notice, attendance and deliberation rights. |
| Art. 17 applicable majority | Classify each resolution and reconstruct owners, quotas, votes, abstentions and affected-owner consent. | 20.993% alone does not invalidate a second call; attendee unanimity is not always total-owner unanimity. |
| Arts. 17.8, 18, 19 and 21 absentees, minutes, challenge and collection | Valid citation, later agreement/minutes communication, dissent, diligenced book, certificates and debt proceedings. | Without proved citation and communication, absentee assent and the start of the challenge period cannot simply be assumed. |
Confirmation of the proposition under investigation: Gil Marer states that his relevant perimeter received no invitation or pre-meeting knowledge and no direct Community ACTA communication; the Thompson family forwarded the ACTA only after the meeting. Gil and Aweswell allege not isolated episodes but a wider sequence: prior knowledge and preparation → call design and recipient selection → selective service or omission → meeting, powers, conflicts and votes → debt, works, licence and operation resolutions → ACTA drafting/closing → no direct communication and third-party discovery → later use in title, collection, works, finance, public support or operation. This is a criminal hypothesis to test, not a judicial conclusion.
The native 4-February invitation and service package are not presently in the repository. The located ACTA proves what meeting and resolutions were recorded; it is not itself the lawful-recipient list, email, postal certificate, return, noticeboard posting or later ACTA-delivery ledger. The public nominal attendee list is partly redacted and cannot exclude an LPB or Matkator proxy.
Recipients must remain separate. LPB was an owner inside the insolvency and requires identification of the insolvency representative and LPH notice address; Matkator was an extraconcursal owner with its own route; Aweswell does not acquire direct LPH notice rights from shareholding alone; and Gil's 2022 representation must be proved capacity by capacity.
Pattern allegation from at least 2016: Gil alleges that certain other meetings or attempts were also kept from his perimeter. This must be tested event by event. The known and attended 26-April-2016 meeting is mandatory limiting evidence, so the repository does not say that every meeting from 2016 onward was concealed.
The preliminary eight-event scan presently contains one direct attributed no-preknowledge example (4-Feb-2022), known/participated counterexamples, unresolved notice routes and one recital-only 2018 event. It establishes the production denominator, not yet a repeated criminal method.
| Question | Controlled evidential answer | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| What does it prove now? | An ACTA recording 20.993% present/represented; three visible Acosta Matos representations; resolutions on debt, the sole CAM/JDAM project, works, licences and unitary operation; and a date seventeen days before deed no. 457. | It proves the recorded decision instrument and timing, not who was or was not called. |
| What does the Thompson relay add? | If authenticated, it can date actual knowledge after the meeting, prove a third-party rather than direct Community route, identify the circulated ACTA version and compare distribution to Thompson against LPB/Matkator. | It does not alone prove the lawful recipient, deliberate omission, what any actor knew or why direct communication failed. |
| What can prove deliberateness? | Known correct recipients/addresses; owner-list versions; native email/headers; certificates and returns; noticeboard records; instructions or admissions aimed at preventing attendance/challenge; a false recital; selective direct ACTA distribution; the authenticated Thompson/upstream chain; and coordinated downstream use. | The proof must attach to an identified person with knowledge, purpose and effect; a lone error, indirect receipt or LPH defect is insufficient. |
| What package would be capable of proving intent? | Convergence of unequal selection, conscious omission, internal purpose communications, later concealment and rapid use, together with reasoned exclusion of wrong-address, uncertain insolvency representation, delegated service and administrative-error explanations. | No future record can be guaranteed in advance to prove intent. The question is whether the whole package excludes innocent failure to the applicable standard. |
Decisive ledger: owner → property/quota → statutory address → issuer → method/time → delivery/return/noticeboard → call → debt warning → representative/power → attendance/vote → direct ACTA communication → third-party relay/actual knowledge → dissent → challenge → enforcement/use.
Gil identifies Javier as the younger person at the far left and Gerardo Zacarías as the bearded man at the far right. The caret confirms the named identities, not image positions. Controlled BORME records independently place all four within the corporate-governance perimeter, but do not identify pixels.
The image directs production of originals, metadata, photographer/editor records, laptop files, plans, document versions and board packs. If that material reliably ties the scene to Sun Park before the meeting, it may corroborate prior project knowledge and document custodians. The image alone does not prove the plans concern Sun Park, the capture date, invitation knowledge, deliberate exclusion, agreement or criminality.
| Track | Controlled anchor | Missing proof |
|---|---|---|
| Community | €4,467,793.26 necessary/common-works budget; not itself cash received by CAM/HNT. | Invoices, payers, contractor, bank, executed work and one-/four-star separation. |
| RICPE/RIC | €6,570,713.56 in the prospectus versus €6,573,703.10 in another controlled audited reconstruction; the €2,989.54 difference is a reconciliation target, not an offence. | Series F/G, investors/RIC, committee/board, waivers, drawdowns, use and repayment. |
| Regional incentives GC/836/P06 | HNT; €11,469,714.00 eligible/project investment, €3,440,914.20 subsidy and 60-job commitment. | Complete file, costs, other support, payments, jobs, controls and recovery. |
| FEDER | The permanent MYND plaque expressly identifies FEDER. | Programme, operation, percentage, declared expenditure, payments, audits and irregularities. |
| CAM→HNT→MYND | Economic-unit segregation and later operation. | Transferred properties/rights/liabilities, operator, revenue, EBITDA, refinancing and distributions. |
| Period | Controlled event | Additional effect to investigate | Mandatory limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7–20 Jun 2018 | Access control and exclusion; ONA continues an operating and funded architecture. | Loss of cashflow, guests, preservation and exit opportunity; possible coercion, usurpation, damage or frustration act by act. | Closing conditions, authorship, scope and precise non-closing cause remain open. |
| Jul–Nov 2018 | Post-event minutes; a 2022 recital says comprehensive redevelopment continued to be studied in November. | Possible ratification or institutionalisation of control and project. | The November original is not located; the later recital cannot replace it. |
| 2019 | Judicial non-validation of the separate 31-property / €400,000 branch. | Restitution, fruits, Registry, accounting and later reuse of assets. | Implementation and destination-of-money chains remain incomplete. |
| 2020–2021 | Pilots/project before title; works/estate warnings; expert inspection refused; CAM receives final approval after the third party does not attend/deposit. | Defensibility, evidence preservation, value, competition and use of practical availability. | A work inside a valid CAM unit could be lawful; the third party missed recorded steps; the 2021 order was reasoned. |
| 26 Jan–4 Feb 2022 | Judicial clarifications and Community meeting on project, licences, levy and unitary operation. | A new authority, conflict, debt, voting, cost and operation node seventeen days before the deed. | An adverse decision does not prove prevarication; the minutes are not the diligenced book or a certified copy. |
| 21 Feb–late 2022 | Deed no. 457 and later CAM→HNT segregation. | Formal title, economic continuity, finance, operation and benefit tracing. | Later title does not cure prior acts or automatically transfer guilt to HNT. |
| Actor / capacity | Additional 2018–2022 relevance | Individual proof required |
|---|---|---|
| Francisco Mario Matos Matas Community administration / Pamanil–Pamalexsha |
Continuity of debt, voting, records and administration; secretary-administrator and bank lane in 2022. | Appointment, contract, custody, accounts, certificates, bank, security, levy, instructions, knowledge and benefit. |
| Antonio Cogolludo Rojas Community chair 2017–2018 |
Authority and implementation of the security/access resolution preceding 7 June. | Title, powers, contract, provider, payer, instructions, spatial scope, reaction and office handoff. |
| Shaila María Cogolludo Ramos treasury, voting and administrative work |
Accounting, voting and access-rule lane during 2018 implementation. | Title, powers, bank/accounting functions, employment, communications and exact intervention. |
| José Daniel Acosta Matos project, 2022 chair and RICPE |
Chairs the meeting, explains the sole project and sits at the junction of design, licence, operation and later benefit. | Title at date, powers, conflict/abstention, retainer/fees, units, finance, instructions and benefit. |
| Laura Patricia Acosta Matos CAM representation |
Witness attribution of 7-June operative instructions and CAM representation at the 2022 node. | Mandate, communications, security/contractor relationship, voting, title knowledge and intent. |
Javier Acosta MatosPD-SP-P-0093 · CAEPR-confirmed identity · witness/document-first |
BORME identifies him as a CAM director in 2020 and Canarian Hospitality director in 2021; he appears for the separately CAEPR-confirmed Construcciones Acos-Matos, S.L. in 2022. This is an information channel to investigate, not proof of participation. | Power, properties/coefficient, actual vote by item, known notices/ACTA, board/project information, conflict, records and benefit. Only objective indications of his own act, knowledge and intent could justify considering investigated-person status with full rights. |
Gerardo Zacarías Acosta MatosPD-SP-P-0094 · CAEPR-confirmed identity · image/document-custody first |
Gil identifies him as the bearded sibling at the far right of the published image; BORME records place him in the corporate-governance perimeter. The located ACTA does not record him as a 4-February attendee. | Image original and metadata, connection of the plans to Sun Park, board packs, prior knowledge, communications, custody, implementation, conflict and benefit. Office or attributed image presence does not prove agreement or criminal participation. |
| Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte LPB Insolvency Administrator |
LPB representation, security/access, preservation, valuation, realisation and accounting bridge. | Specific duty, notice, practical capacity, act/omission, report to court, causation and lawful alternative. |
| Magistrate-Judge Alberto López Villarrubia of the then Commercial Court No. 1 of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria | Judicial supervision and decisions affecting preservation, evidence, competition and implementation. | Exact resolution or required act, available record, competence, objective injustice, historical mental element and effect. Adverse outcome is insufficient. |
| CAM → Hotel New Trend, S.L.U. (HNT) separate legal persons |
Credit/units/project/award and later segregation of the economic unit. | Eligible predicate offence, natural person, benefit, controls, transferred assets/passives/litigation and HNT's own conduct; no automatic successor guilt. |
Source control: the €4,467,793.26 total was visually checked against source page 7. LPB's individual amounts come from the controlled reading of the unpublished annex; nominal pages 5–6 remain publicly redacted. The Matkator figure is derived arithmetic and expressly awaits comparison. Method, counter-explanations and decisive evidence →
Unitary reading
The allegation is not an assortment of incidents. It is a continuing conversion: credit and partial units → Community and insolvency authority → physical control → project and pilots → image of hotel availability → adjudication, refurbishment, finance and operation.
Gil Marer alleges that LPB lost value and a competitive insolvency exit; that CEXP or its participants lost the residual or reconstituted operating rights they assert, as well as customers, reservations and goodwill; that Matkator and other owners lost control or fruits of non-estate properties; and that Aweswell lost the opportunity to execute the exit platform. The later record documents, through different entities linked to the Acosta Matos project, material control, later LPB title, redevelopment, RIC finance, a regional incentive award and operation as MYND Yaiza. Attribution of each benefit requires an entity-by-entity account.
That does not permit asset value, credit face value, loans, incentive and revenue to be added as one gain. Net enrichment requires entity-by-entity consolidated accounting: actual credit price, debt extinguished, assets received, own capital, loans and repayment, incentive actually paid, related margins, rent, EBITDA, refinancing and distributions.
Production capable of resolving the case
The unitary criminal hypothesis should be tested by attributing authority, act, knowledge, loss and benefit by date and property.
| Package | Missing record | Question answered |
|---|---|---|
| Security and access | Contract, instructions, authorised persons, rosters, reports, CCTV, Guardia Civil, keys and cylinder changes. | Who ordered what, over which spaces, and for how long. |
| Property-by-property map | Title, possessor, keys, use, works and consent at each date from 2018 to 2022. | Where LPB authority ended and non-estate effect began. |
| Operation and loss | PMS, reservations, guests, staff, payroll, suppliers, cash, maintenance and valuations. | Which business existed and what was lost, displaced or preserved. |
| ONA and finance | Conditions, proof of funds, diligence, committee decisions, 7–20 June communications and formal no-close reason. | Which condition failed and whether material control was causal. |
| Administrator and court | Original email, reports, 13 June diary, filings, service, measures, inspections and accounts. | What they knew, could do, decided and why. |
| Atilano / factory | Unit, order, renders, quote, invoice, payment, delivery, photographs, licence and access log. | Who commissioned and authorised physical execution of the pilot. |
| El Corte Inglés Empresas | CRM, CAM visit, four pilots, request for proposal, plans and redevelopment file. | Which perimeter was presented and with what title or availability. |
| Call, ACTA and image | Native call, owner/address list, service/returns/noticeboard, powers, votes and ACTA distribution; image original/metadata, laptop, plans and board packs. | Who knew the project, selected recipients, consciously excluded an interest, constructed or withheld the ACTA, and whether the published scene truly links to Sun Park. |
| Downstream benefit | Credit price, dación, CAM–HNT segregation, RIC, aid, capex, operation, debt, income and distributions. | What net value each entity obtained and from which source. |
Canonical proceeding identity · direct procedural lineage
Origin: the 2 May judicial record says the complaint received on 23 April originated as Diligencias Indeterminadas 1103/2018-00 and was processed as Preliminary Proceedings 1132/2018 under NIG 3500443220180003508 by Investigating Court no. 2 of Arrecife, formerly Mixed Court no. 7.
First instance: the court ordered provisional dismissal on 20 August 2018. Appeal: the Provincial Court of Las Palmas, Section Two, registered Rollo 1010/2018 and issued Order 804/2018 on 13 November. It dismissed both appeals, confirmed the provisional dismissal and stated that no further appeal lay.
Why the four references matter: 1103 is the documented origin reference; 1132 is the criminal-investigation file; 1010 is the appellate roll; 804 is the decision in that roll. They are interlinked, but they are not interchangeable labels. The shared NIG and express origin fields prove the procedural lineage.
Identity boundary: each displayed proceeding/reference is CAEPR-confirmed within one canonical family (PD-SP-R-0023) and the Master IDs LZ-JUD-003/LZ-APP-004. This frozen first-hop route states that result textually; the dedicated lineage register displays the four controlled caret markers. Identity confirmation does not prove conduct, knowledge, criminality, title, possession, liability or that the adverse reasoning was correct.
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