Criminal-law lens · public evidence map

Does the evidence confirm, narrow or defeat one continuing enterprise?

This map tests the unitary thesis through finite questions and primary evidence capable of confirming, narrowing or defeating it; it does not assume the answer.

Attributed criminal theory · not a judicial finding. Gil Marer and Aweswell allege one continuing economic-criminal enterprise, advanced through successive adoption and divided functions. This describes a factual and investigative theory: it does not itself prove a statutory criminal organisation or group under Criminal Code Articles 570 bis or 570 ter, an original pact, any person’s participation or guilt. Each actor and each offence require separate proof of their historical elements, conduct, capacity or duty, knowledge, intent where required, causal contribution and contrary material. This is only a factual allegation of connection: it does not characterise the conduct as a continuing or permanent offence or alter completion, any participation window or limitation period for any specific offence.

Attribution rule. For any person or entity, the minimum sequence is: act → capacity/authority → authorship or instruction → knowledge → intent where legally required → use/reliance → prejudice → benefit → causation → correction or continuation after notice. Relationship, chronology, benefit, institutional error or an adverse decision, standing alone, do not prove concertation.

Evidence priority

The eight packages that allow the hypothesis to be tested without prejudging it.

Each package has a discriminator question. A legitimate documentary explanation must be incorporated even when it narrows or defeats a Por Derecho inference.

PKG-A · PP1041

Who actually authorised the withdrawal filed in LPB's name?

Identify instruction, author, signature, power, procurator, LexNET certificate, LPB hearing, insolvency authority and the contemporaneous estate-interest rationale.

Finite evidence question · not a criminal conclusion.

Open PP1041 →

PKG-B · debt → vote → authority

Was the debt used to affect voting rights legally and financially constructed?

Real service, payer, legal debtor, budget, allocation, due date, certificate, no duplication, voting exclusion, resolution and external use.

Document-by-document validation required.

Open Community record →

PKG-C · 7 June 2018

What instrument converted security or preservation into material control?

Security authority does not by itself equal locks, chains, keys, exclusion, intervention in private units, possession, works or operation.

Material event documented · legal characterisation contested.

Open 7 June dossier →

PKG-D · living hotel / funded exit

What genuine continuity and exit alternatives existed, and why did they fail?

Reconstruct ONA, financing, proposals, conditions, operating value, bookings, staff, suppliers and the event that causally defeated each route.

Economic counterfactual and causation to be proved.

Open ONA exit route →

PKG-E · 31 properties / non-validation

After the 24 October 2019 non-validation order, what happened to title, possession, fruits and money?

The question does not end with the order: it requires Registry, restitution, rents/fruits, consideration and estate-accounting reconstruction.

Signed order anchor · downstream consequences remain open.

Open judicial spine →

PKG-F · credit / EUR13,168,082.02

What signed bridge explains the amount's changing function through deed and accounts?

Separate competitive threshold, consideration, set-off, debt, interest, any EUR400,000 branch, payment, surplus and final accounts.

Judicial/accounting bridge not yet fully reconciled.

Open lender chain →

PKG-G · 2022 authority / project / bank

What originals supported the 2022 decisions and their downstream use?

Notice, powers, quorum, votes, denominator, signatures, project versions, bank powers, licences and property/owner-derived operating authority where required.

Located copy features · complete originals/authority package remains open.

Open 2022 traceability →

PKG-H · notice → later conduct

What happened after each documented notice?

For each actor or institution: proposition communicated, source transmitted, competence, date, later act, correction, repetition, preservation, benefit and causally linked prejudice.

Notice does not equal knowledge of truth or responsibility.

Open institutional record →

Missing proof

“Produce the bridge”: six questions that reduce thousands of pages to finite records.

1
CEXP → HNT / current operation.
Produce the valid CEXP dissolution, replacement or mandate-transfer act, or owner-by-owner mandates that make such a bridge unnecessary.
2
Security → material control.
Identify specific authority for each access, key, closure, exclusion, property, intervention and work.
3
Credit/specific properties → claimed whole-hotel authority before later title.
Produce the legal instrument covering the perimeter actually controlled or represented.
4
EUR13,168,082.02 → deed → accounts.
Reconcile legal function, calculation, set-off, payment, surplus and final accounts through signed records and ledger.
5
Non-validation → restitution/fruits.
Identify how the affected properties were restored or accounted for after the 24 October 2019 order.
6
Owners' Community → unified hotel operation.
Explain the documentary bridge across the legally distinct Community, CEXP, LPB, Matkator, third-party and operator positions.

Formal notice record

RedSARA can prove transmission and chronology; it cannot manufacture a conclusion.

360registrations in the analysed snapshot
80destination labels
319REG status “Recibido”
15REG status “Enviado”
26REG status “Rechazado”
Mandatory evidence limit. The snapshot covers 7 December 2025 to 15 August 2026. “Recibido” is a registry/exchange status: it does not by itself prove joinder to the competent file, admission, investigation, acceptance, endorsement or truth of the underlying allegation. The next evidential layer must link each entry to its receipt, filing text, annexes, trace and later response.
SENTDELIVEREDRECEIVEDACKNOWLEDGEDJOINEDADMITTEDINVESTIGATEDACCEPTEDENDORSEDPROVED

Adversarial control

Contrary evidence should sit beside the thesis, not be hidden at the end.

Control example: Provincial Court Order 804/2018

It is materially adverse: it confirmed provisional dismissal, treated much of the controversy as civil, questioned the criminally protectable possession asserted for CEXP and relied on the insolvency administrator's account. It must be published that clearly.

At the same time, it did not thereby adjudicate every later title, tax, RIC/RICPE, 2022 implementation, CAM→HNT segregation, Matkator/third-party right, current-operation or civil, tourism, Community and Registry issue.

Required page pattern: strongest contrary evidence → strongest innocent explanation → what record could narrow or defeat the inference → what genuinely remains open.

Final rule

The website should become more verifiable, not more accusatory.

The purpose of this architecture is to let prosecutors, judges, investigators, professionals, media and affected parties find the exact proposition, its source, contrary evidence and the missing discriminator quickly. A documented correction that narrows the thesis has the same methodological value as a confirmation.

Sun Park / MYND Yaiza — site and canonical record

MASTER MYND · photographs, attributed accounts and chronology