Established
The controlled public record identifies the EU/ERDF connection for the MYND/GC/836/P06 project.
INVESTMENT → REORGANISATION → PROJECT → INCENTIVES → TRACEABILITY
Sun Park / MYND Yaiza: follow the structure and the funds, layer by layer.
The relevant sequence is not one transaction. The record must separate the statutory RIC from RIC Private Equity, the 2020–2021 investor presentation phase, the later CAMSA-to-Hotel New Trend segregation and subsequent public-support files, including GC/836/P06.
Evidence boundary. The coexistence of private financing, RIC/idoneidad, regional incentives or possible EU funding does not prove double funding, fraud or illegality. The verifiable question is whether each layer can be reconciled by date, beneficiary, title, eligible cost and source/use of funds.
ERDF / FEDER · evidence → traceability → action
ERDF / EU funds: what is established, what remains open and what to do next
How to use this page. RICPE/HNT/GC836 bridge: reconstruct beneficiary, availability, costs, finance, controls and closure without conflating instruments.
Still to produce
Exact operation and percentage, eligible expenditure, invoices, payment/certification, verifications, audits, corrections and recovery.
Keep separate
RIC tax relief, RICPE investment, Regional Incentives, State aid and FEDER/ERDF are not one funding source.
Minimum production needed to close the ERDF question
- operation identifier and programme/fund
- beneficiary and title/availability record
- eligible-cost schedule and invoices/supporting records
- funding sources and other aid declared
- certifications, payments and verified employment
- verifications, audits, issues, corrections or recoveries
Directive (EU) 2024/1260 · FEDER/ERDF · EPPO/OLAF: Editorial action-routing aid; it does not establish fraud, corruption, duplicate funding, EU-budget loss, a PIF nexus, EPPO/OLAF competence or individual liability.
1. The chain that must be reconstructable
Sun ParkRICPE / investmentCAMSAHotel New TrendMYND YaizaGC/836/P06 / public support
Reading rule: a later corporate reorganisation does not retrospectively prove title, authority, availability or eligibility at an earlier date.
2. RIC is not RIC Private Equity
RIC
Reserva para Inversiones en Canarias. A statutory tax mechanism with its own legal requirements and administrative records.
RIC Private Equity
A separately named regulated investment vehicle. Its name does not make it the statutory RIC mechanism and does not imply CNMV endorsement of each underlying project.
Why the distinction matters
The chronology must separate materialisation/investment, ownership, project financing and public aid/incentives.
3. Documentary chronology
The repository controls RIC Private Equity as the vehicle used in the investor-facing phase. Sun Park / the future MYND Yaiza project appears in project material before the later 2022 segregation into Hotel New Trend.
The evidence architecture contains investor-facing material and a physical reform chronology. The question is what rights, costs, dates and availability were represented at each stage.
The BORME segregation record reproduced in the source corpus identifies Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A. as the segregating company and Hotel New Trend, S.L.U. as beneficiary of the hotel economic unit for transformation and later operation as MYND Yaiza.
The repository separately controls Decree 224/2022, the RIC/idoneidad route, RICPE Series F/G and regional-incentives file GC/836/P06. The exact relationship between costs, aid, employment, payments and any EU/ERDF component requires the primary files.
4. GC/836/P06: what the file should establish
Beneficiary and availability
Applicant, beneficiary, project holder and the title/availability document relied upon.
Eligible cost and finance
Eligible budget, start dates, financing, declared other aid, invoices and proof of payment.
Control and closure
Certifications, inspections, payments, employment commitments and checks, closure, corrections or recovery.
Open question, not allegation: if EU/ERDF financing existed, identify the operation, programme, percentage, managing/intermediate body, certified expenditure, verifications and any corrections. Until then, this page does not state that HNT/MYND received EU funds.
5. Treasury and Internal Audit: custody map, not verdict
Resolution 90/2026 of the Canary Islands Treasury and Financial Policy Directorate-General, reviewed in the source corpus, granted access to the requested framework and stated the absence of formally approved protocols of the type requested within that Directorate-General, relying instead on the identified normative framework. The formulation must remain narrow: it does not mean that procedures, controls or records did not exist.
The later Internal Audit sequence, culminating on 19 August 2026, similarly delimited its remit and clarified that its earlier response was not a general certificate that no other aid, regional incentives, EU/ERDF financing, payments, certifications or files existed.
Practical consequence: each authority should identify the native file and competent custodian. The objective is to reconcile sources and uses, not replace files with inference.
6. What remains to close the reconciliation
- complete GC/836/P06 file;
- application, memorandum, reports, grant act and amendments;
- eligible-cost base and other-aid declaration;
- financing and proof of payment;
- works and employment verification;
- closure, correction or recovery act;
- independent identification of any EU/ERDF operation;
- reconciliation with RIC/idoneidad and Series F/G.
Public RIC route: comparator, not a proved HNT source
The Canary Treasury raised €250m in 2024–2025 RIC bonds for public investment. That route shares the RIC tax architecture with RICPE, but no flow to HNT / MYND Yaiza has been identified. The dates exclude those bonds as the original source of the 2022–2023 loans; subscriber matching remains open.
25 October 2026 · documented source and procedural update
Gil Marer’s filed account addresses document recovery, access and grant conditions
In Madrid supplement REGAGE26e00091804140 and CTBG supplement REGAGE26e00091804303, Gil Marer states that he recovered five document categories after the 24 October morning filings and describes a later CSV-bearing report occurrence, the April–June access record and distinct criteria versions. His filed account no longer maintains current non-obtainment of those copies. The receipts establish registration and inventory; they do not independently establish that recovery history. Historical availability and complete delivery remain open.
The individual actilla places the proposed ownership condition at the grant-validity endpoint; it does not transfer civil title or prove the condition met. The 7 June 2022 Ministry entry is not proof of the first valid regional application. Exclusion of demolition costs is a verification question, not proof of funded demolition or payment. The Dyrecto corporate channel is not proof of a person’s mandate or knowledge. Laura Patricia Acosta Matos remains the canonical identity.
The supplements preserve contrary April–June records and adverse judicial/fiscal decisions, maintain NO DESISTO in the independent CTBG claim and seek finite verification. Receipt and attachment identity do not establish admission, investigation, eligibility compliance or criminal responsibility. The complete dated correction is linked below; prior narrative remains as historical context.