# JTP / ONA deep source sweep — 24 September 2026

**Control ID:** PD-JTP-SOURCE-SWEEP-20260924-01  
**Status:** connected-source retrieval audit; public-safe derivative; not a finding of criminal or professional liability  
**Scope:** Juan Tomás Parrilla Suárez (JTP), ONA / Clubotel funded exit, Stoneweg/Cuatrecasas integration, 4-Jan-2019 protective draft, 2020 counsel transition/fee sequence, AC 21-Jul-2021 liquidation report, and the alleged €400,000→€26,750 economic-source route.

## Method

A targeted retrieval pass was run on 24 September 2026 across the connected Google Drive corpus and the three connected Gmail accounts. Searches were deliberately split into supporting, contrary and source-closure lanes:

- JTP / Parrilla / 2020 fees / honorarios / IGIC / €25,000 / €26,750 / €40,000 / invoice / payment / transfer / account;
- €400,000 / CAM / Acosta Matos / Administrador Concursal / Santander;
- ONA / Clubotel / Stoneweg / Cuatrecasas / Concurso / May–June 2018;
- 4-Jan-2019 JTP draft / deed / complaint / fraud / nullity;
- handover / venia / successor-counsel communications.

This audit records proposition-level results only. Private message IDs, provider identifiers, private addresses, raw contact details and privileged/private source bodies are not reproduced.

## Findings closed or materially strengthened

### 1. JTP's own 4-Jan-2019 draft used a criminal / prosecutorial frame

The located five-page draft is directly titled as a complaint concerning alleged disloyal conduct and possible procedural fraud by the Administrador Concursal. It expressly seeks referral to the Ministerio Fiscal in relation to possible:

- **estafa procesal**;
- **alteración de la subasta / liquidación**; and
- **administración desleal**.

It also challenges the separate disposition of LPB assets, the ob-rem linkage and the alleged delivery of possession to CAM without title.

**Evidence state:** DIRECT_DOCUMENT.  
**Boundary:** the draft's existence/content are proved; filing of this exact broad draft remains unproved; no offence is established by the draft.

**Consequence:** criminal/prosecutorial framing is not solely a later reconstruction. It existed contemporaneously in counsel's own prepared work.

### 2. ONA / Stoneweg / Cuatrecasas and JTP were transactionally connected before and after 7 June 2018

The 29–31 May 2018 correspondence records a Cuatrecasas meeting with Stoneweg to advance the transaction, explain due diligence and move the investment process forward. The same chain expressly tracks the document JTP was expected to present in the insolvency proceeding.

The 18–19 June 2018 appeal chain separately records JTP, the owner-side team, Cuatrecasas and ONA counsel working in the same appeal / funded-exit context. The owner side proposed treating the CAM route as approximately €7m including the €400k common-area component, and JTP requested direct discussion with ONA counsel about legal drafting points.

**Evidence state:** DIRECT_EMAIL_CHAIN.  
**Boundary:** coordination on the transaction / appeal does not prove a criminal agreement, guaranteed closing or a single causal mechanism.

**Consequence:** the JTP workstream cannot fairly be analysed as if it were detached from the ONA-funded-exit architecture.

### 3. By 1 June 2020 successor counsel was already disputing JTP's authority / entitlement position

The full venia / handover chain records JTP saying he had already spoken with the new lawyer, had asked the procuradora to prepare the file copy, and that the AC knew of the counsel change.

Incoming counsel then:
- treated Parrilla as no longer LPB's lawyer;
- directed the fee issue into successor-counsel handling;
- disputed Parrilla's asserted legal entitlement theory;
- raised the risk of double payment if the same professional work had already been funded by the client side; and
- criticised direct approaches that bypassed successor counsel on the fee issue.

**Evidence state:** DIRECT_EMAIL_CHAIN / SUCCESSOR_COUNSEL_POSITION.  
**Boundary:** this does not itself adjudicate fee entitlement, double recovery or professional misconduct.

**Consequence:** the 28-May client-side exchange cannot be isolated and converted into continuing authority for a later estate payment.

### 4. The 12-Jun-2020 final fee proposal was expressly rejected

Daniel Jiménez forwarded Parrilla's final proposal stating it could not be accepted. Patricia answered that the client side agreed, considered it unacceptable, ended the discussions and would proceed toward the insolvency incident.

**Evidence state:** DIRECT_EMAIL_CHAIN.  
**Consequence:** rejection is documentary, not inferred.

### 5. The AC's 21-Jul-2021 liquidation report directly records the €26,750 payment

The located report records, in its table of paid claims against the estate:

**Juan Tomás Parrilla — 26750 — Jul-20 — Honorarios abogado concursada**

The same report separately records the €400,000 direct-sale component for the LPB locales / pools.

**Evidence state:** DIRECT_AC_REPORT.  
**Boundary:** the report proves what the AC reported; it is not a bank statement, invoice, tax record, payment authority or completed economic-source trace.

## Negative-search / open-proof result

The same targeted connected-source retrieval did **not** locate:

1. the underlying Parrilla invoice for the reported €26,750;
2. an executed LPB / estate authority specifically authorising the later payment;
3. the matching estate-account debit;
4. the recipient-account credit;
5. a complete estate ledger / opening-and-closing balance reconstruction sufficient to prove the source of the July-2020 payment;
6. a bank-complete trace from the CAM €400,000 component to the €26,750 JTP payment; or
7. dated primary evidence of an earlier assurance / arrangement that would allow the 2020 payment to prove a prospective inducement operating in January 2019.

**Classification:** TARGETED_NEGATIVE_SEARCH_RESULT / OPEN_PROOF.  
**Important:** failure to retrieve a record in this bounded search is not proof that the record does not exist.

## Criminal-first consequence

The strongest current formulation is therefore:

1. a materially developed ONA/Clubotel funded-exit architecture existed before 7 June 2018;
2. JTP's own later-2018/January-2019 work shows he understood the sale/possession dispute in terms capable of criminal/Fiscalía referral;
3. the broad 4-Jan-2019 draft remains unproved as filed, while a narrower deed-production route was filed and JTP gave a contemporaneous deed-first rationale;
4. by 2020 the representation relationship had broken down and successor counsel disputed JTP's entitlement/authority position;
5. the final June-2020 proposal was expressly rejected;
6. the AC later reported €26,750 as paid to JTP in July 2020; and
7. the exact economic-source, authority, recipient-bank and any earlier inducement bridge remain open.

This supports investigation of source, control, professional independence, knowledge, conditions, causal effect and benefit. It does **not** establish bribery, money laundering, corrupt agreement, criminal knowledge, common plan or a completed CAM→JTP transfer.

## Hostile-reader controls

Mandatory concessions remain:

- no direct CAM→JTP transfer is proved;
- LPB could in principle lawfully pay qualifying counsel costs from estate funds;
- the €400,000→€26,750 bank trace is incomplete;
- JTP performed protective work and represented LPB against adverse positions;
- client substitution was the formal immediate transition act;
- 2018→2020 chronology is not causation;
- the ONA exit was developed but not guaranteed to close;
- the 4-Jan draft's filing remains open;
- later lawful orders and approvals remain contrary evidence where relevant.

## Priority closure

P0 production remains:
- purchaser debit and LPB credit for the €400,000;
- complete estate statements / ledger and all material inflows/outflows;
- JTP invoice, IGIC, fee mandate and executed authority;
- €26,750 estate debit and recipient credit;
- complete AC↔JTP and AC↔incoming-counsel communications;
- complete court docket for the 4-Jan / 10-Jan-2019 sequence;
- actor-specific proof of any alleged earlier assurance, condition, knowledge or reciprocal professional act.

## Repository rule

This source sweep is additive. It strengthens the contemporaneous criminal-lens and non-consent / non-authority chronology while preserving all previously identified contrary evidence and open proof. It may not be used to upgrade the incomplete money route or any mens rea proposition into an established fact.