ACCOUNTING · 10 JUN 2016 · PWC · COMMUNITY · CLASSIFICATION
Jonathan Simó: the accounting trail that reached the recorded meeting
Jonathan Simó matters here for documentary rather than biographical reasons. Primary sources trace his involvement from LPB accounting and an operational channel to the insolvency administration, through expense reports and PwC review, to the recorded meeting of 10 June 2016 and his later identification as Witness 5 in classification-evidence preparation.
2012: accounts and IA
An original 18-Jul-2012 chain sends Jonathan/CLS instructions originating from Rafael Franco on supervision of annual accounts by the insolvency administration.
2016: reports + PwC + meeting
A signed 22-Apr-2016 report, the native v3 dated 31-May and created/modified on 6-Jun, PwC review emails and a same-night carrier email have now been recovered.
2023: actual testimony
The preparation file identifies him as WITNESS 5. The complete 25-Jul-2023 hearing is still required before publishing what he actually testified.
PRIMARY CHRONOLOGY
The sequence no longer depends on later reconstruction
Jonathan at CLS Consultoría receives the forwarded Rafael Franco instruction that annual accounts should be supervised by the insolvency administration and that the tax/accounting adviser could contact him directly.
Jonathan signs the Analysis of the expense structure of the Sun Park Exploitation Community and its coverage of Owners' Community expenses, then focused on 2008–2011.
The recovered DOCX expands the analysis through 2015. Its metadata identifies “Jonathan” as author and last modifier, with creation/modification on 6-Jun-2016 and revision 3.
Miguel Hernández Lorenzo replies: “Nos parece bien. Tiremos con esta versión.” He adds that the Community would likely ask about the support and detail for the expenses.
PwC had scheduled the meeting for that Friday at 12:00 at Juan Carlos Prieto's office. At 22:45 that night, an email to Juan Tomás attaches Jonathan's report and says it was “el que se llevó a la reunión de hoy” — the report taken to today's meeting. This contemporaneous evidence fixes the meeting date as 10-Jun-2016.
The email to Carlos Saavedra and Miguel Hernández refers to what “you, Jonathan and Cristo” had reported and proposes taking the debt issue and economic report to the insolvency administrator.
In a preserved email Jonathan says he is attaching “el informe ejecutivo que se le entregó en su momento a la Cdad de propietarios en Las Palmas” — the executive report previously delivered to the Owners' Community in Las Palmas.
Witness preparation identifies Jonathan as Witness 5. We do not publish anticipated answers as actual testimony without the complete hearing recording/transcript.
10JUN2016.amr. Contemporary emails schedule the meeting for 10-Jun, and the 22:45 carrier email confirms the report had been at “today's meeting.” Later derivative transcripts labelled 11JUN2016 are preserved as misdated derivatives rather than silently renamed or erased.RECOVERED REPORTS
What Jonathan concluded — and what the reports cannot prove alone
Signed report · 22-Apr-2016
It analyses 2008–2011 using the records supplied and attributes most common-area maintenance and supplies to the Exploitation Community. Its table includes annual figures of €454,096.38 (2008), €678,265.40 (2009), €741,685.02 (2010) and €635,301.45 (2011).
V3 · 31-May / 6-Jun-2016
It expands the analysis to 2008–2015 and states a total of €1,918,532.40 classified as integral-maintenance expenditure borne on the exploitation side. Text totals include €414,697.10 maintenance, €860,036.14 water/electricity, €70,487.20 rubbish/taxes and €573,311.96 maintenance-linked personnel.
PINK economic report · 2012–Apr-2014
A separate Jonathan report attributes approximately €634,632.61 of analysed expenses to PINK, on invoices, Modelo 190 and trial balances. It also mentions assumed staff seniority liabilities said to exceed €900,000. It is a professional report based on company records, not an independent audit.
These documents establish what analysis Jonathan performed and what source material he said he used. They do not alone decide the legal validity of quotas, the absence of every owner obligation, the validity of a recognised insolvency claim or the commission of any offence. Those questions require the underlying records, contracts, ACTAs, IA treatment, judicial rulings and the classification hearing.
PWC AND THE MEETING
A report reviewed before the participants entered the room
The email sequence matters because it prevents the meeting being described as an improvised conversation. Jonathan sent the modified version and source material; PwC reviewed it, anticipated questions about evidential support and detail, and coordinated attendance. That establishes knowledge of this specific workstream by the recipients. It does not, by itself, establish a PwC institutional conclusion on fraud, criminality or legal debt validity.
Gil's account that Cristo activated the recorder and later delivered the recording to Gil/Patricia remains labelled as a direct first-hand witness account. The 2021 digital-custody chain separately proves later possession/transcription of two AMR files; it does not substitute for proof of the physical act of recording in 2016.
CLASSIFICATION
“Witness 5” is still not a transcript of the hearing
TESTIGOS Y PREGUNTAS CALIFICACION identifies Jonathan Simó Morales as tax adviser to LPB/PINK and as TESTIGO 5. It is a retrieval map for records and proposed questions concerning accounts, the Community, BDO, restructuring and the 2016 report. It does not prove that every proposed answer was given in court.
Recover the complete 25-Jul-2023 hearing and compare: 2016 reports → 10-Jun-2016 recording → actual 2023 testimony → IA report → Prosecution → Judgment 163/2023. The comparison must preserve matches, qualifications and contradictions, not merely favourable passages.
STATUS MATRIX
What is fixed and what remains open
| Proposition | Status | Source / next step |
|---|---|---|
| Jonathan was involved in LPB accounting in 2012 and received the IA-supervision instruction. | Verified | Original 18-Jul-2012 email chain. |
| Jonathan signed an expense analysis in April 2016 and produced an expanded v3 before the meeting. | Verified | Signed 22-Apr-2016 PDF + native v3 DOCX. |
| PwC reviewed the version and prepared the meeting. | Verified | 6–10 Jun 2016 emails. |
| The recorded meeting occurred on 10-Jun-2016. | Verified | PwC scheduling + 10-Jun 22:45 “today's meeting” carrier email + AMR filenames. |
| Cristo activated the recorder and later delivered the audio. | Direct account | Gil Marer's first-hand account; independent transfer/metadata corroboration remains sought. |
| Which exact physical report/version and annexes were explained at the meeting. | Open | Reconcile v3/v4, delivery email, source materials and audio. |
| Proof that Borja/Rafael Franco/the IA received and read the report after the meeting. | Open | Initial direct search produced no match; broaden through intermediaries, forwards and court filings. |
| What Jonathan actually testified on 25-Jul-2023. | Open | Recover complete audio/video/official transcript. |
Evidence update: 17 August 2026. Primary facts, direct witness accounts, inferences and open questions are kept separate.
PRIVACY AND RELEVANCE
Professional history belongs here only when it proves something
Primary correspondence already places Jonathan at CLS/Luis F. Simó Consultoría in La Laguna. Other recollections concerning the family practice, personal disagreements, deaths or business succession are not published from memory alone. Any professional-history point material to authorship, custody or documentary continuity will be added only after independent verification.