When the allegations reversed, did the scrutiny reverse too?
A documented reconstruction of what Spain's Public Prosecution Service knew, what it did, what changed later and what remains unanswered. We do not ask readers to adopt our theory; we ask for a process whose independence, scope and reasoning can be verified.
The story in 60 seconds
The turning point: reversal of roles
2013
Information/economic theory from the insolvency-side context
↓
Public Prosecution Service
↓
Gil / Patricia investigated
2018
Gil / Aweswell complain about conduct involving the insolvency administrator / CAM / private perimeter
↓
Public Prosecution Service
↓
What independently verifiable scrutiny did the reversed hypothesis receive?
The question is not whether different complaints had to produce the same outcome. It is whether the direction of scrutiny could change when the direction of the allegations changed.
Two causal explanations that should be capable of comparison
Was value improperly displaced from LPB?
The complaint constructed a criminal hypothesis around the LPB–operator relationship, rent/consideration, corporate structure and possible prejudice to LPB and creditors.
What caused or aggravated LPB's economic weakness?
Gil/Patricia's complaints focused on Community governance, voting exclusion, debt attributed to LPB, hotel-wide operating costs, unitary exploitation, access/keys and minority-owner interference.
Is there a document showing that the prosecution service genuinely compared these two explanations of the same economic deterioration?
The standard: knowledge → response → consequence
“No response identified in the reviewed record” does not mean “no response existed”. “Happened afterwards” does not mean “was caused by”.
One number that requires a caveat
97 registrations do not mean 97 investigations
The reconstructed institutional register documents dozens of submissions to prosecution bodies, including a 97-entry matrix for December 2025–June 2026. That demonstrates breadth of notice/registration, not that every annex was personally read or that every matter received substantive investigation.
RECEIVED ≠ EXAMINED ≠ INVESTIGATED ≠ DECIDED ON THE MERITS.
The institutional route
Las Palmas / Arrecife
DI 248, DI 113, DI 22 and later territorial referrals form part of the historical core.
Canary Islands Superior Prosecution Office
DIP 2/2026 and later communications raise questions of correction, scope and supervision.
FGE / Anti-Corruption
Superior and specialist communications demonstrate institutional activity; the public question is what cumulative examination each route actually produced.
GUB 86/2026
The Audiencia Nacional prosecution office dealt with competence and referred the matter to Arrecife. We describe this as routing, not a merits decision.
Territorial competence may be legally correct while leaving a separate question open: who ensures that accumulated evidence is reviewed as a whole?
What this message does not ask readers to ignore
Prosecutors considered there was a sufficient basis to bring the 2013 complaint. The 2014 complaints used highly accusatory language and some legal characterisations may have been weak or contestable. Prosecutors are not obliged to perform every investigative measure requested. Territorial referrals can be legally correct. There is a materially adverse first-instance insolvency culpability judgment under appeal. And later adverse decisions do not themselves prove bias, capture or collusion.
Our question survives those concessions; it does not depend on concealing them.
Ten questions that can be answered with documents
Seven rules for reading the record without converting questions into accusations
REFERRED ≠ INVESTIGATED
ARCHIVED ≠ VALIDATION OF EVERYTHING BEFORE IT
RELATED ≠ IDENTICAL
INSOLVENCY CONTEXT ≠ EVERY ASSET IS INSOLVENCY PROPERTY
LATER ≠ CAUSED BY
INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE ≠ PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE BY EVERY PROSECUTOR
The public thesis
We do not assert as established fact that the Public Prosecution Service was “captured”. We ask whether an early allocation of credibility, repetition of inherited frames, fragmented files and territorial return could produce functional instrumentalisation even if no individual intended that outcome.
The strongest institutional answer would not be a simple denial. It would identify the review, record, investigative measures and reasoning through which the system can show that it corrected its own frames when the evidence changed.
Formal open letter
Read the full message
We do not ask for a favourable outcome; we ask for a verifiable process
This letter does not ask the Public Prosecution Service to believe our account. It asks it to test our account and to test with the same rigor the accounts, conduct and documents of every other relevant actor.
We do not say every complaint must proceed, every requested step must be performed or every territorial referral is improper. We ask that “the same facts” be tested by date, actor, conduct, asset, injured party and evidence; that LPB, Matkator, the Community and operators not be conflated; and that earlier decisions not turn their factual premises into propositions immune from later evidence.
We do not ask prosecutors to believe us. We ask them to scrutinise us rigorously—and to scrutinise those we identify with the same rigor.
The first frame and the reversal of roles
In December 2013 the Public Prosecution Service filed a criminal complaint against Gil Marer and Patricia Domínguez arising from DI 273/2013. In March 2014 those same accused parties submitted an extensive documentary counter-narrative to the Arrecife prosecution office concerning Community governance, minority owners, debt, voting, exploitation and costs. That file was archived in May 2014. In 2018, while the earlier route remained alive, Gil/Aweswell complained about conduct attributed to the insolvency administrator, CAM and other actors.
Can the Public Prosecution Service demonstrate that when the direction of the allegations reversed, the direction of scrutiny reversed with it?
New evidence, new events and distinct perimeters
“Same facts”, “civil/insolvency” and “already judicialised” can be legally correct categories, but they require demonstration. A 2022 transaction could not literally have been investigated in a 2019 archive. Matkator property does not automatically enter LPB's insolvency estate because it sits within the same complex. Community authority over common functions does not itself establish authority over every private space.
Relationship between facts is not identity of facts.
Territorial competence and reconsideration
Territorial competence may legitimately explain many referrals back to Las Palmas/Lanzarote. But deciding which office is competent does not necessarily answer whether later evidence and contradictions received cumulative and independent assessment.
Unity of action should not become unity around an uncorrected factual premise. Hierarchical dependence should not mean hierarchical inheritance of error.
What we ask
We ask for an identifiable and documented review of the complete route; an identity matrix before any renewed “same facts” conclusion; certified reconstruction of DI 248/2018; the final DP 332/2014 order; primary review of the 25 April 2019 rent expert report; identification of treatment after the DIP 2/2026 correction; the prosecution report and subsequent order in DP 1901/2026; follow-through after GUB 86/2026; express separation of LPB, Matkator, Community and operator perimeters; and an answer to the cumulative institutional question.
An invitation to contradict us with documents
If an investigative step we have not located exists, identify it. If a referral included substantive examination, identify it. If facts we regard as distinct are legally identical, explain the identity by comparing their elements. If a contradiction was corrected, incorporate the correction.
We do not want to preserve errors because they favour our position. We want the record to be more accurate than any competing narrative.
The final question
Can prosecutors demonstrate that evidence arising after an archive was examined as new evidence when it truly was new?
We seek no privilege and no immunity. We seek legality, objectivity, impartiality, traceability and verifiable reconsideration.
The strongest answer to a concern about capture or instrumentalisation is not a declaration that it does not exist. It is a process through which that can be verified.
Verify before concluding
The Justice Map contains the institutional chronology, routing, evidence statuses and open questions. The public thesis is designed to be correctable as primary documents are added.
Project Sun Rock / Por Derecho · updated 15 August 2026.