Updated notes and reading layer
8 September 2026
Gil Marer and Aweswell allege an organised, coordinated and continuing criminal mechanism: disputed Community authority was allegedly converted into minutes, debt and voting positions, access and physical control, procedural advantages, title, investment representations and funding. This is their direct allegation. The Puzzle tests it through the documents, the conduct of each person, the strongest contrary evidence and the links still to be proved.
Criminal → prosecutorial → investigative → forensic · civil/LPH · insolvency · property · regulation/public funds · recovery
The original visual document and later explanatory notes are different versions. The owner confirms that the approximately 50 MB Puzzle was used in the June Las Palmas proceedings. This reader preserves that history and labels later analysis by its own date; a new note is not proof of a new filing.
Start with the criminal and prosecutorial questions: what was represented, who knew what at the time, which document or act was used, who relied on it, and what harm or benefit followed? Civil, insolvency, property, regulatory and recovery questions use the same factual record while retaining their separate legal requirements.
Read forward: ownership and operating structure → disputed Community authority → debt, votes and documents → litigation and insolvency → access and control → title and financing → current operation, benefit and recovery.
Then read backwards: what earlier document, right or decision does today's position actually depend on? If that earlier premise is removed or corrected, which later rights or decisions still stand on an independent basis?
Every connection carries a written status. DOC identifies a limited documentary proposition; HIP an attributed hypothesis; OPEN an unproved dependency; NOTICE a receipt or routing event; CONTRARY a potentially refuting source or explanation; ADVERSE an actual adverse outcome; GAP a specified missing source. Arrows do not transfer knowledge, intent or guilt.
| Question | What the current control record makes necessary | Existing evidence obligation |
|---|---|---|
| Who had authority? | Trace appointments and mandates back through the actual meeting, notices, owners, coefficients, proxies, debt and votes. | PD-GAP-UCF-002/005/007/015 |
| What changed on 7 June 2018? | Compare preparation and the Community/security chain with the exact people, instructions, property and access effects. The principal witness excludes JDAM's physical presence that day. | PD-GAP-UCF-013/014/015 |
| What did non-convalidation change? | Trace the 2018 transaction and EUR 400,000 through the 2019 order, later possession, Registry, accounts and retender. Refusal to convalidate does not itself prove completed reversal. | PD-GAP-UCF-011/012/015 |
| Which representations produced funding? | Compare dated title, availability, works and project statements with actual disclosure, due diligence, decision, drawdown and use. | PD-GAP-UCF-009/012/013/015 |
| What proves overlapping finance? | Match the same invoice, work or job to each instrument, eligible cost, payment and compatibility record. An award or plaque does not complete that test. | PD-GAP-UCF-009/012/016 |
The adverse record remains part of the Puzzle. It includes the 2014 decision concerning 18 claimant apartments, the 2018 provisional-dismissal outcome, the 2019 Fiscalía archive, the 2021 refusal of inspection/protection measures and the surviving branches of the 2023 Calificación judgment. Each must be read within its actual scope. Those outcomes neither establish every underlying allegation nor automatically resolve every later property, funding or criminal question.
DP 1901/2026 and DP 1956/2026 remain separate. For DP 1901, the current controlled record identifies the 12 July 2026 request for Fiscalía's view on admission; the later signed report/order remains to be located. DP 1956 is provisionally dismissed; no filed reform/subsidiary appeal is established in the controlled record. Later evidence and revised notes do not themselves reopen a proceeding.
Keep five private people distinct: Francisco Mario Matos Matas, Antonio Cogolludo Rojas, Shaila María Cogolludo Ramos, José Daniel Acosta Matos and Laura Patricia Acosta Matos. The court-appointed insolvency administrator, Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte, and Alberto López Villarrubia, the magistrate holding seat no. 1 of the Commercial Section of the Tribunal de Instancia de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, have separate capacities and proof requirements.
A shared meeting, company, family assertion or benefit is not a substitute for a person's own act, knowledge and causal contribution. Valid authority, independent title, accurate disclosure, genuine due diligence, lawful costs and contrary testimony can narrow or defeat a proposed link. Substantive corrections should be displayed with the proposition they change.
PUZZLE 2024 · PRESERVED ORIGINAL + PUBLIC COPY + DATED NOTES
Historical allegation map. The native original remains intact and separate. This public copy has documented redactions and retains all 32 page positions; the opening overview is page 2.
Public reading copy · 32 pages · redacted
Download public reading copy · PDF · Updated notes · PDF · Gil Marer · injured party and public-interest reporting person
Focus the image: ←/→ changes page at 100%; +/− zooms; 0 fits; Home/End jumps to an end. When zoomed, arrows pan and Page Up/Down changes page.
Overview page 2. Use the PDF links below even when scripts are unavailable.
Current analytical layer · criminal-first hypothesis, not a finding
Gil Marer’s allegation is that community instruments, control of access, creditor positions, insolvency acts and later investment representations were used cumulatively to displace and consolidate control over Sun Park. The point of this interface is to test that cumulative account—not to reduce it to unrelated disputes, and not to presume that every connected person participated in wrongdoing.
Accountability spine: source → dated actor/capacity → information received → act or omission → use/reliance → consequence → benefit/harm → contrary record → legal element → missing proof.
2008–2012
Reconstruct the hotel as an economic unit without collapsing individual fincas, LPB’s estate, Matkator and other owners.
Boundary: The structure supplies the baseline; it does not prove a criminal plan from inception.
Open source-controlled track2011 onward
Test the creation and later use of meetings, offices, representation, debt, voting and exclusion.
Boundary: A claimed office or debt certificate must be tested against title, mandate, notices and the complete acta.
Open source-controlled track2012–2017
Trace Bankia/SAREB, HAYA, PH122, the 2017 Uría filing and the subsequent CAM position through dated instruments.
Boundary: Servicing is not title; a firm’s appearance does not prove every client, instruction or flow of information.
Open source-controlled track2018
Read the alleged 7 June displacement alongside access, security, clients, financing conditions and measures available to protect value.
Boundary: Distinguish the claimant’s sabotage allegation from proof of deliverable funding, causation and each actor’s knowledge.
Open source-controlled track2018–2022
Reconcile title, ob-rem effects, non-convalidation, credit amounts, restoration, competing offers and final accounts.
Boundary: Non-convalidation does not itself prove that every possession, registry or accounting effect was reversed.
Open source-controlled track2020–2023
Compare the 2020 presentation, July 2021 qualification, corporate decisions, RIC lines, HNT and the later MYND operation.
Boundary: Preserve lawful conditional/preparatory explanations and demand the original contracts, instructions and cash trail.
Open source-controlled track2022–2026
Follow the published GC/836/P06 award and ERDF plaque into beneficiary, eligible costs, jobs, actual payments and certification.
Boundary: Award, payment, certified expenditure, RIC materialisation and established loss are different facts.
Open source-controlled track2024–2026+
Test the attributed predatory-inclusion hypothesis: what was disclosed, omitted, adopted or relied on when new actors entered.
Boundary: New participants may have been uninformed or properly protected. Orion or other investment does not establish a Sun Park money flow.
Open source-controlled track2026 forward and backward
Read DP 1901, DP 1956, the separate judicial complaint, Fiscalía, civil proceedings and regulator tracks together without merging their status.
Boundary: Each allegation needs a dated act or omission, received information, relevant power, consequence, contrary record and finite production target.
Open source-controlled trackThe Orion record preserves Gil’s “predatory inclusion” and “shield and sword” allegation. Test: legacy exposure → duty or practical reason to disclose → material omission/misleading presentation → entry of a new actor or resource → actual reliance/effect → attributable benefit or harm. A name, adviser, sponsor or board connection alone does not complete that chain. Each participant may be an actor, witness, custodian, misled counterparty or affected party; those roles are not interchangeable.
Statement of position · Gil Marer. I publish this record as a directly interested injured party and as a reporting person acting in the public interest. My economic interest does not exhaust the issues raised: I have been alerting authorities to alleged conduct affecting property owners, creditors, investors, the administration of justice and the protection of public financial interests.
Aweswell Limited is a UK company and a foreign investor in Spain. Its legal personality and claims remain separate from my personal rights and from LPB, Matkator and Pink Canary Services.
I invoke the EU reporting-person framework and Spain’s Ley 2/2023; for German matters, the applicable Hinweisgeberschutzgesetz; and relevant UK protection where its requirements are met. This statement does not claim that nationality, investment, an acknowledgement or this website automatically grants protected status or immunity.
The current SNCA traceability page records a published GC/836/P06 investment of €11,469,714, a subsidy award of €3,440,914.20, a 60-job commitment and a permanent plaque identifying ERDF. These are existing repository propositions, not new independent verification by this repair. Actual payment, eligible/certified expenditure, cofinancing and any recoverable loss remain separate production and reconciliation questions.
The July companions’ limited source position stays frozen as July history. It must not suppress the later award/plaque record. Equally, the later record must not be backdated into those companions. RIC tax materialisation, private capital, participative lending, public grants and EU cofinancing must not be summed as if they were one fund or a proved loss.
The current record also separates the RICPE prospectus total €6,570,713.56 from the reconstructed audited-account amount €6,573,703.10: the €2,989.54 difference is an open reconciliation item, not proof of fraud or double financing.
Directive (EU) 2019/1937 covers defined breaches and work-related reporting, with separate conditions for public disclosures. Ley 2/2023 requires checking scope, reasonable grounds, channel and exclusions (arts. 2–3, 27–28, 35). Article 35.2(a)’s inadmission exclusion must be assessed against the exact decision and legal basis; a company-channel closure must not simply be equated to a competent authority’s decision. An exclusively interpersonal grievance is not the same as a substantiated wider public-interest report. Additional provision six requires a specific temporal check.
Germany’s HinSchG, particularly §§ 32–33, requires the relevant scope, reasonable grounds and reporting/public-disclosure conditions. UK guidance describes the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 / Employment Rights Act 1996 worker-based public-interest protection; British nationality or shareholding alone does not establish eligibility. Great Britain and Northern Ireland require separate statutory analysis. Nor does “foreign investor” alone establish a treaty claim or forum. No protection regime is presented as proving the reported wrongdoing.
Current publication wording prepared from Gil Marer’s 5 September 2026 instruction. This is not a replacement sworn statement or a court filing. Legal sources checked 5 September 2026; case-specific eligibility remains unadjudicated here.
Cross-track visualisation · 4 September 2026
The same people, firms, documents and dates viewed as one connected evidence graph—without turning proximity into proof.
The central object connecting title, insolvency, investment representation, due diligence and later production requests.
Administrador Concursal. Linked here to the reported 3 Jul 2015 contact and the insolvency record.
Uría Menéndez lawyer. Material documentary witness node; representation of the AC is not established by the reported contact alone.
Source of attributed 2020 project representations requiring independent title/encumbrance verification.
Legal-processing/advisory node. Scope, mandate, information flow and conflict screening remain documentary questions.
Due-diligence node described in RICPE materials, later qualified by the 20 Jul 2021 certification.
Investment and project-presentation node; issuer of the 20 Jul 2021 certification.
Source/ownership representation node requiring reconciliation with title, charges and insolvency records.
Chronology contact only. It does not itself prove a mandate, conflict or improper information flow.
Project-processing architecture and attributed statements including “libres de cargas” and Sun Park / €12m. Those are representations, not independent title proof.
Sun Park described as very early study/negotiation; complete legal/tax/financial/technical/insurance DD had not yet occurred because no letter of intent had been signed.
Recovered consolidated version requests reports/notes on title, encumbrances, suitability, risks and real project scope. Filing-receipt identity limits remain explicit.
Binary SHA-256: 241928ea649933609441644567dd50cb97b87d17bafac850c90aca3bbda37b80
Binary SHA-256: efda379e7b2ae0bfbbd80859a42332d5aae99ccd9644a04003760158b54b05fd
Binary SHA-256: 6741dcbfb1a2201c7773141bcfad292d101041560e599aac39178ea9530623c9
