The report, what was known then, and what happened later. Criminal-first analysis without promoting allegations into established facts.
9PDF121Page6Missing reports and coverage
2016–present is only Phase 1. The 2012 opening and all relevant earlier history, inside and outside the insolvency, remain in scope.
PARTIAL SERIES · OFFICIAL DENOMINATOR NOT CERTIFIED
Public redacted copies retain every page and searchable text. Originals remain private. Redactions protect identifiers, contacts, addresses, accounts and access codes; they do not validate signatures or certify identity with the filed bytes.
Reading method
Before attributing an offence: person/capacity, applicable power and duty, specific conduct, required knowledge and intent, causation and harm, contrary evidence and jurisdiction. An insolvency breach is not automatically a crime.
Complete PDF of this copy; does not certify every annex, cryptographic signature or exact identity with the filed document.
SOURCE → REPORT ASSERTION → ACTUAL NOTICE → OBJECTION → DECISION → APPEAL → IMPLEMENTATION → RECOVERY QUESTION. DISCOVERY DATE ≠ HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE. MATURITY DATE ≠ PAYMENT DATE.
Questions and links are present retrospective analysis, not an attribution of knowledge at the report date.
The “truth inversion” allegation: test each connection
Gil Marer alleges that attribution of conduct, evidence and harm was inverted in the classification proceedings. Compare the administrator’s assertions, the prosecutor’s position, the judge’s findings and the challenges separately. Institutional repetition does not itself prove a fact; disagreement does not establish an offence.
The AC sought deficit liability against Gil; the Fiscal separately requested deficit coverage. The judgment rejected that request for insufficient justification. It nevertheless retained culpable classification and a separate €3,032,010.34 damages award. Rejection of deficit liability was not complete exoneration.
The AC suggested that LPB effectively owed itself approximately 70% of €737,338.85. The judgment accepted expert evidence of a valid LPB receivable and rejected that construction, while retaining adverse findings about the failure to pursue recovery. This correction does not establish criminal intent.
Gil’s appeal advances grounds on recovery difficulty, profitability, accounting and collaboration. These are the appellant’s arguments; they are not presented as accepted by the appellate court.
Retrospective comparisons of the previously published public copies, distinct from the newly recovered annotated working copy. Judicial error induced under CP Article 250.1.7 and a knowingly unjust decision under Article 446 are distinct hypotheses requiring separate proof for each actor and decision.
The report records the 2012 opening and continuing activity. It also gives an adverse account of delayed document delivery. An administrator's assertion is not a judicially established fact.
Reconstruct the baseline from the 2012 application and opening order, inventory, creditors and earlier operations. The 2013 narrative does not replace 2008 deeds/contracts or 2010–2012 books.
2026-09-12 · context threshold; not a historical notice certificate
Criminal and recovery question
Which rights, income, receivables and obligations did the administrator actually know, when and from which documents?
Discriminating evidence and strongest alternative explanation
Original application/order; complete annexes; books; dated requests, deliveries and receipts. Distinguish absence, delay and availability through other sources.
The administrator invokes the 26 June stay and asserts a lack of funds and no payments during the insolvency. This is a dated assertion, not this page's finding.
The fourth report describes receipt of the November price and subsequent fee payments. Timing may explain the change: an earlier maturity date in a table does not prove an earlier payment.
2018-12-20 · context threshold; not a historical notice certificate
Criminal and recovery question
Did reporting, actual control and cash movements match after 7 June?
Discriminating evidence and strongest alternative explanation
Full statements and value dates; payment/fee orders; the stay and its material scope. A missing statement does not prove concealment.
PDF page 7 (printed 6) records the administrator's account of the 28 November 2018 sale for EUR400,000 and payment of his fees after collection. It attributes missing support for certain receivables to the debtor. The filename does not make this a one-page extract.
Compare the deed, ob-rem clause, plan/stay, 24 October 2019 non-convalidation decision and subsequent use. Non-convalidation alone does not establish actual restitution.
2019-10-24 · context threshold; not a historical notice certificate
Criminal and recovery question
Did the account to the court accurately reflect the scope of authority and lawful use of proceeds?
Discriminating evidence and strongest alternative explanation
Deed 2150/2018; plan and orders; cheque, statements, invoices, priority and authorisations. Test, rather than caricature, the explanation of action authorised by the plan.
Annotated working copy: 303 PDF annotations and their metadata were removed. Notes already embedded in page content remain; they are not automatically attributed to the administrator. Identity with the filed document is not certified. The procedural comparison also links the other previously published public copy.
At the time · the report’s assertion
The administrator's accusatory report/proposal in section six must be separated by person, period, conduct, evidence and requested relief. Receipt and the fiscal opinion are distinct acts; neither automatically turns assertions into truth.
The transparency ledger distinguishes rejected allegations and adverse findings in judgment 163/2023: partial rejection is not complete exoneration. Keep the 2019 oppositions, hearing, judgment and appeal as separate objects. Current appeal status was not verified in this intake.
2023-09-28 · context threshold; not a historical notice certificate
Criminal and recovery question
Was there a material falsehood knowingly used, or a disputed/rejected allegation without established intent?
Discriminating evidence and strongest alternative explanation
Statement–source–knowledge–use–decision–harm matrix, retaining contrary evidence and all adverse findings. Do not conflate insolvency intent, gross negligence and criminal intent.
The last page says it is prudent not to begin insolvency-credit payments before the appeal against the 16 April 2018 order is decided. Distinguish those payments from estate expenses and fees.
A different PDF is also labelled sixth report and already refers to terms set by the appellate court. Preserve both versions and establish which was filed and served.
2026-09-12 · context threshold; not a historical notice certificate
Criminal and recovery question
Are these successive versions, a correction or a labelling collision?
Discriminating evidence and strongest alternative explanation
Signatures and receipts with principal/annex hashes; court register and service. Different bytes do not prove criminal manipulation.
The last page refers to the electronic-signature date and disposal on terms set by the appellate court. Creation metadata dated 26 September 2019 do not prove signature, filing or third-party knowledge dates.
A liquidation-operations report, NOT a classification report. It says the 18 May 2021 order is not final; records the potential swap claim and attributes no response about its status to the debtor (LPB). The payment table contains a maturity-date column.
Compare the finality change with the October report and the actual decisions. Link swap recovery to earlier financing and both sides' requests and responses.
2021-10-25 · context threshold; not a historical notice certificate
Criminal and recovery question
Was a viable recovery claim preserved and explained, and was procedural status accurately reported?
Discriminating evidence and strongest alternative explanation
18 May/15 October orders; receipts; swap opinions; claim funding; authorisations and replies. A lawful procedural change may explain the difference.
The administrator asserts finality following dismissal of reconsideration on 15 October and says execution of the deed remains pending. It retains the swap claim and his no-response account. This assertion is not a court finality certificate.
January distinguishes that finality from other pending challenges to the 25 October court-office order. Register 7425/2021 must be reconciled as possible receipt of this report, not automatically counted as another report.
2022-01-25 · context threshold; not a historical notice certificate
Criminal and recovery question
Which specific decision, appeal and effect supported each finality assertion?
Discriminating evidence and strongest alternative explanation
Separate 15 and 25 October objects, challenge, service date and use in the deed; test the alternative of distinct decisions.
It links the pending deed to challenges to the 25 October office order and repeats the purchaser's assumption of costs and community charges. Community charges are excluded from the table by reference to the plan.
Link to the 31 January office order, register 547/2022, later decisions, deed 457/2022 and the April report still to recover. The email alone does not establish service on every creditor.
2026-09-12 · context threshold; not a historical notice certificate
Criminal and recovery question
Were the stated conditions performed, and who actually bore costs, charges and loss of value?
Discriminating evidence and strongest alternative explanation
Signed principal and receipt547; deed and settlements; purchaser payment evidence; April report; challenges and implementation. Distinguish contractual allocation, actual payment and harm.
This copy’s fingerprintba104fc2552888f0f5bb93dcf989bcfaded327a886f79b23d7013ef833bd8fb1Provenance and notice
Filing / service / actual knowledge: verification pending.
Copy recovered in this pass from an email dated 2 February 2022. Counsel transmission, not a certificate of service on everyone.
Missing reports and coverage
A reference or receipt is not the report’s contents. Missing from this package does not mean never filed. Close the series against the official docket, each principal, its annexes, receipt, service and subsequent treatment.
Bribery: includes insolvency administrators; identify and prove the applicable subtype under Articles 419–422, including, where applicable, a gift accepted in consideration of office. It does not make every administrator’s act a judicial act.