26 August 2026 · investigative hypothesis · facts, attribution and inference separated
From the 2011 Community intervention to the present.
A criminal-first reconstruction of Gil Marer's allegations and the Por Derecho corpus. The question is not whether an adverse sequence “looks criminal”, but where — if anywhere — actor-specific evidence moves beyond a civil, Community, insolvency or commercial dispute and can support reasonable suspicion of deliberate unlawful conduct.
Governing boundary: “hijacking”, “takeover”, “instrumentalisation”, “conflict”, “disloyalty”, “fraud” and “criminality” are used only as attributed allegations, investigative hypotheses or legal classifications to be tested unless a competent source has established the specific proposition. Association, sequence and benefit do not by themselves prove agreement or intent.
Starting point
2011 must be read in two stages.
This reconstruction avoids treating “2011” as one rhetorical event. 2 February records the governance/litigation intervention; 22 June records the debt, vote and authority mechanism. Their possible causal relationship is an investigative question, not an automatic conclusion.
Governance + litigation
The current control places Álvaro Campanario Hernández representing a substantial part of the later claimant perimeter, acting as secretary of the meeting, explaining pending litigation and proposing the Community's submission/settlement position. Officers were then elected and litigation powers authorised.
Proves: role continuity, knowledge opportunity and participation in the legal/Community architecture. Does not prove: debt design, knowing falsity or a criminal plan.
Debt → vote → authority
The controlled minutes record LPB with a much larger represented coefficient, but a separate list of those treated as entitled to vote because Community obligations were considered current. That voting perimeter approved debt/recovery, lawyers and administration/maintenance measures involving Pamanil.
Proves: the documented mechanism existed. Open: validity of debt, regularity of exclusion, who calculated what, and whether anyone knew a material proposition was false.
Unitary visualisation
The causal map that must be proved, not presumed.
Each node links to an existing evidence page. Solid lines show documented sequence; dashed lines show inference or open evidence.
Insolvency administrator
The stronger theory does not depend on an unproved friendship.
The investigation of Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte should be built on his own knowledge and acts. The test is: information received → source → verification → later decision → consequence.
Removal + remuneration thread
A notice-and-contradiction record, not a criminal verdict.
The now-integrated 50-record Judge/Appeal Court/LAJ and party corpus supplies the exact chain: initiating allegations → Administrator/insurer responses → court-office processing → standing dismissals → appeals → current evidentiary gaps. It is strongest as proof of notice, positions, procedural treatment and persistence; it does not itself prove fee illegality, disloyal administration, judicial wrongdoing or a shared plan.
Merits not fully adjudicated
Auto 1377/2025 rejected standing. The reconsideration order retained that gate and added a limited ex-officio “no indications” observation, which is material contrary evidence but not a ground-by-ground evidentiary trial. RPL 3304/2025^ and RPL 3319/2025^ were combined; no later signed merits result is located.
Exact pleading, incomplete ledger
The four pleaded components add to EUR 110,956.97. Judgment 4/2026 rejected standing and did not decide legality or quantum. The Administrator disputes payment propositions. The orders, invoices, tax, quarterly-report, estate-ledger and bank bridge remains open.
Separate routes retain separate effects
DP 1901/2026^ is the private-actor/CAM route; DP 1956/2026^ is the AC/Concurso criminal route; DIP 80/2026^ is professional discipline. Handwritten intake reference 22 remains a receipt locator until reparto is proved.
13 of 14 identities confirmed
The proceeding/institution layer is 92.86% caret-confirmed; ^ marks a reconciled exact proceeding identity. Preliminary Proceedings 459/2024 has no caret because the exact court and certified autonomous docket remain missing.
Mens rea
Do not jump from notice to agreement.
1Mistake / competing interpretation
2Notice of dispute
3Knowledge opportunity
4Actual knowledge strongly supported
5Deliberate continuation despite knowledge
6Improper purpose, concealment or concert supported by evidence
The criminal inquiry becomes stronger only when it can move through this ladder with actor-specific documents, not through proximity, adverse outcome or later benefit.
Actors and responsibility
Connected network, non-transferable culpability.
Álvaro Campanario
Documented pre-concurso role and prior insolvency experience; criminal purpose and a link to the later AC remain open.
Asunción Aizpurúa
Office and decisions must be reconstructed by minute, power, vote, knowledge and effect.
Francisco Mario Matos Matas
Community administration, documents, debt and later acts require item-specific attribution.
Esteban López Noriega / Juan Carlos Prieto Puente
Professional/corporate overlap is documented; mandate, conflict, waiver and handover remain to be closed.
Antonio Cogolludo / Shaila Cogolludo
Corporate and Community capacities must be dated without projecting later roles backwards.
Rodríguez-Batllori
The focus is his own knowledge, duty, verification, decisions and effects — not responsibility by association.
2018
A transition from documentary authority to material control?
That is the test, not the conclusion. The funded-exit package, valuations, David Espejo/eXW, Community meetings, CAM, locales, security, access and the 7 June 2018 event must be read together. Each act must be classified as affecting LPB assets, Matkator property, CEXP rights, common elements or third-party assets.
Master matrix
What each hypothesis still has to prove.
| Hypothesis | Base fact | Status | Missing proof | Innocent explanation to defeat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 Community intervention involved a serious conflict | Campanario role + elections + litigation | Documented | Complete powers, case files and client-by-act mapping | Legitimate reorganisation in a real dispute |
| Debt/vote were deliberately fabricated | 22-Jun-2011 ACTA mechanism | Inference | Ledger, accounts, invoices, calculation, author, knowledge | Disputed but genuinely asserted debt |
| Campanario sought/anticipated LPB insolvency | Prior insolvency experience | Attributed | Intent communications or causal acts | Unrelated professional practice |
| Campanario coordinated appointment of the AC | Attributed friendship/closeness | Open | Assignment, recommendation, email, common case, witness | Independent judicial appointment |
| AC acted disloyally after notice | Notice + later acts | To test | Knowledge→verification→decision→effect matrix | Defensible insolvency decisions or error |
| 2018 materialised an earlier architecture | Access/control + later convergence | To test | Exact authority, knowledge, coordination, benefit | Independent commercial/legal acts |
| Classification reversed causation | Attributed “truth inversion” theory | Attributed | Premise-by-premise source, omitted contrary material, knowledge | Legitimate adverse judicial assessment |
P0 evidence
Highest-value closing documents.
PROCEDURAL PROPAGATION CONTROL
JV 1260/AP 89 and the later Pink/AC chain are now bound without collapsing their actors.
The dedicated bridge separates direct citation, downstream use, shared factual dependency and inferred continuity, and maps the later proposition-specific adoption by the concursal court. It also preserves the hard boundary that later convergence does not retroactively prove a 2011 common plan.