{ "schema": "por-derecho.sun-park-actua-gesvalt-forensic-comparison.v1", "control_date": "2026-09-10", "status": "SOURCE_CONTROLLED_COMPARISON_NOT_FINDING", "purpose": "Place ACTUA and GESVALT evidence on one auditable comparison surface and use the conflict as an evidentiary bridge across historic Montelanza/Molina-linked unit/governance issues, the CAM perimeter, the Insolvency Administrator and the court, without treating different valuation purposes as directly interchangeable.", "comparison_policy": { "same_physical_asset": true, "same_valuation_purpose": false, "raw_value_divergence_proves_fraud": false, "valuation_dispute_is_the_whole_issue": false, "required_focus": [ "purpose and date", "perimeter", "inspection and access", "occupation and condition", "sample and information provenance", "depreciation/method", "historic owner/controller and Community-governance context", "continuity or discontinuity between Montelanza/Molina-linked unit conditions and later CAM-side inputs", "circulation and institutional use", "actor-specific knowledge, act/omission, mental element and causation" ] }, "actua": { "date": "2018-01-15", "requester": "Construcciones Acosta Matos S.A.", "purpose": "advice / stated fair value", "perimeter": "262 independent registry properties treated as one functional unit", "occupation_source_literal": "SITUACIÓN Y OCUPACIÓN: Se desconoce", "occupation_boundary": "Unknown occupation must not be rewritten as unoccupied or empty.", "whole_complex_eur": 9776003.13, "physical_depreciation_pct": 57.14, "cam_offer_159_units_eur": 7065384.42, "ac_plan_ap_159_units_eur": 6607551.87, "same_159_perimeter_difference_eur": 457832.55, "counter_report_date": "2018-04-03", "counter_report_ref": "438_2018", "access": "ACTUA says it could not access the interior of 100% of the complex.", "supplied_information": "Existen al menos 61 que se encuentran sin reformar conforme se nos informa", "supplied_information_boundary": "Provider and exact 61-unit schedule unresolved; located text does not identify Blocks 4-5.", "photos": { "substantive_count": 13, "clear_apartment_interiors": 3, "apartment_identity_status": "UNLOCATED", "record_character": "MIXED_NOT_UNIFORMLY_NEGATIVE", "positive_or_mixed_indicators": [ "landscaped/intact common areas", "cafe/bar area appearing capable of use", "people visibly present in reception/common area", "intact-looking reception/front office" ], "negative_or_mixed_indicators": [ "restricted-looking exterior", "clutter/stored items", "worn/dirty bathroom", "partly stripped/damaged kitchen", "worn/damaged living area" ], "boundary": "The visible photo appendix does not prove a Blocks 4-5 sample. Earlier strong wording that it consisted largely/wholly of negative Blocks 4-5 imagery is weakened/falsified as stated." }, "use": [ "CAM acquisition/dacion offer pathway", "Insolvency Administrator Liquidation Plan pathway" ] }, "gesvalt": { "rics_2017": { "date": "2017-06-30", "purpose": "RICS Red Book market value", "method": "10-year discounted cash flow", "whole_complex_eur": 26400000, "perimeter": "whole hotel / integrated economic unit", "condition_boundary": "Some rooms refurbished/renewed; good structural repair/condition assumed without structural survey." }, "critical_report_2018": { "date": "2018-03-01", "signed": "2018-03-07", "type": "professional expert criticism, not a new market/mortgage valuation", "approx_poor_condition_units": 44, "remainder": "usable", "criticisms": [ "uniform 57.14% depreciation across the functional unit", "physical-condition/general-reform narrative", "hotel-rate and valuation inputs", "land/reversion inputs", "lack of property-by-property depreciation" ], "conclusion": "ACTUA not suitable to calculate Sun Park market value", "objectivity": "Article 335.2 LEC objectivity statement included" }, "eco_2018": { "date": "2018-06-07", "inspection_date": "2018-05-23", "applicant": "Aweswell", "purpose": "ECO/805/2003 mortgage-purpose valuation", "whole_complex_eur": 25647179.50, "condition": "Terminado", "occupation": "Con ocupante", "perimeter": "262 independent registry properties as one exploitation unit", "boundary": "Later inspection/valuation; not proof that every January factual premise was identical." } }, "magnitude_only": { "actua_as_pct_of_gesvalt_rics": 37.0303148864, "actua_as_pct_of_gesvalt_eco": 38.1172640446, "actua_lower_than_rics_pct": 62.9696851136, "actua_lower_than_eco_pct": 61.8827359554, "boundary": "Magnitude comparison only. Different purposes, dates and methods prevent a simple apples-to-apples conclusion." }, "count_reconciliation": { "working_60": "2017 acquisition/minority working reconstruction; native source still to recover", "actua_at_least_61": "unrefurbished, based on supplied information", "party_61_two_blocks": "17-Apr-2018 client-side characterization; not ACTUA proof of geography", "gesvalt_approx_44": "professional opinion: poor-condition units", "blocks_4_5_exact_44": "architectural capacity under corrected block map", "boundary": "Do not equate any of these counts without source proof. The two-block/61 statement cannot literally describe Blocks 4+5 as architectural apartment counts." }, "historical_to_contemporary_evidentiary_bridge": { "classification": "UNITARY_PROSECUTORIAL_CONTINUITY_HYPOTHESIS_NOT_FINDING", "why_more_than_numbers": "ACTUA versus GESVALT is used to test whether a historically concentrated and contested subset of units/owners/Community power supplied, controlled or was used to construct a whole-hotel distress premise, whether that premise then migrated into the CAM offer and AC Plan, and whether institutional acts or legally relevant omissions allowed the premise to affect control, competition, title and downstream benefit.", "historic_montelanza_molina_layer": { "integrated_rights_position": "Project Sun Rock alleges that the 2008 transaction injured an integrated bundle of apartment title, company/facility interests, exploitation/governance rights, income and liabilities; deposited records state 220 participaciones at the relevant 2012 reporting date, but permanent apartment-share linkage and every claimed transfer obligation remain instrument-specific and partly unresolved.", "owner_concentration": "22-Jun-2011 historic owner/representation map: 40 apartment references, 29/40 (72.5%) in the 400s and 500s.", "boundary": "Concentration does not prove that each owner in Blocks 4/5 was a dissident, Molina/Montelanza-linked, acted unlawfully or shared intent. Owner -> finca -> meeting role -> act must be proven individually." }, "transition_to_actua_cam": { "question": "Did any Montelanza/Molina-linked or later Community-side actor control, withhold, deteriorate, close, describe, select, grant access to, or supply information about a limited unit subset that materially influenced ACTUA's whole-functional-unit condition/depreciation premise?", "must_identify": [ "exact units shown/inspected", "owner/controller of each unit at the ACTUA date", "historic and contemporaneous Community role", "who held/provided keys and physical access", "who supplied the at-least-61 information and any schedules/plans", "actual operating/maintenance status", "relationship, if any, between source providers and CAM/Acosta Matos perimeter" ], "proof_ceiling": "Historic disputes, geographic concentration, later CAM alignment or common interests do not by themselves prove a coordinated plan." }, "institutional_migration": { "private_to_ac": "Trace ACTUA engagement/instructions -> CAM offer -> exact material delivered to the Insolvency Administrator -> AC verification/reconciliation -> Plan selection/recommendation.", "ac_to_court": "Trace exact Plan/annex/objection/valuation material before the judge before each ruling; distinguish mere filing/notice from adoption or reliance.", "court_to_control_title": "Test each judicial gate for what it authorised, what it did not authorise, what protection/supervision followed alleged material control, and what causal effect the order/refusal/legally relevant omission had on the next irreversible step.", "downstream": "Trace 7-Jun material-control allegations -> ONA/finance counterfactual -> 2019 non-convalidation/restoration -> 2021 competition -> Protocol 457 -> Registry/title -> CAM/HNT/RICPE/RIC/public-support/MYND benefit without double counting.", "boundary": "Sequence and institutional contact are not criminal participation without actor-specific knowledge, duty/power, act or causally equivalent omission, offence-specific mental element and causal contribution." }, "continuity_questions": [ "Which specific Montelanza/Molina-linked persons or entities controlled which units and Community votes at each relevant date?", "Which of those units were closed, withheld, unrefurbished, deteriorated, non-operating or photographed, and by whom?", "Who supplied ACTUA with access, unit selection, plans, owner lists, keys and the at-least-61 proposition?", "What did CAM know about the rest of the operating hotel and the contrary GESVALT/TINSA/ONA evidence when using ACTUA?", "What did the AC receive, verify, reconcile, reject or omit before embedding ACTUA-linked figures and the CAM route in the Plan?", "What exact valuation, title, access, operation and finance material was before the judge before each approval/refusal, and when did the accumulated record objectively require an integrated explanation?", "Did any private, AC or judicial act/omission materially change the counterfactual outcome once unsupported distress premises are removed?" ] }, "institutional_causation": { "administrator": { "role": "verification / Plan / security-access / implementation / accounting gate", "tests": [ "what ACTUA material and source data he received", "what he verified independently", "how he reconciled GESVALT and the EUR457,832.55 159-unit mismatch", "what he did with ONA/funded-exit alternatives", "what authority/control consequences followed", "whether later deeds/accounting were lawfully and completely closed" ], "proof_ceiling": "Documented acts and open omissions do not by themselves establish deliberate deception, disloyal administration, necessary cooperation or common plan." }, "judge": { "role": "recognition / approval / supervision / preservation / competition / implementation gate", "tests": [ "what material was actually before the court before each order", "what neutral verification existed after requested review/inspection was refused", "what protection/restoration followed the 7-June dispute and 2019 non-convalidation", "when the connected valuation/title/control/finance record became sufficient to require integrated treatment", "what causal effect each judicial act or legally relevant omission had" ], "proof_ceiling": "Adverse rulings, error or discretion are insufficient for judicial criminality; exact objective unlawfulness/arbitrariness threshold, mental element and causation are required." }, "private_actors": { "role": "commissioning / information / Community-control / offer / implementation / beneficiary-side perimeter to test", "tests": [ "ACTUA engagement and instruction chain", "provider/list behind at-least61", "keys/access and inspection attendees", "unit-by-unit owner/control/condition history", "Montelanza/Molina-linked historic role to later Community/CAM-side continuity or discontinuity", "CAM offer and later correction history", "7-June security/control acts and authority", "pre-title investor/title representations", "downstream title, HNT, RICPE/RIC, public-support and MYND benefit" ], "proof_ceiling": "Relationship, historic dispute, later benefit and source proximity do not automatically prove agreement, knowledge, intent or criminal proceeds." } }, "chronology_lock": { "plan_approval": "2018-04-16", "actua_response_lexnet": "2018-04-17T12:27", "lexnet_id": "201810203877878", "rule": "The 17-Apr formal filing cannot itself have caused the 16-Apr order; identify the earlier material actually before the judge." }, "self_created_distress_hypothesis": { "classification": "PROJECT_ALLEGATION_AND_FALSIFIABLE_HYPOTHESIS", "statement": "A limited unit-condition/closure problem may have been extrapolated into whole-hotel distress; later material control may then have impaired operation, diligence and finance, creating a feedback loop.", "correction": "Do not claim the visible ACTUA photo appendix proves a Blocks 4-5 cluster. It does not.", "falsification_chain": "ACTUA photo -> exact apartment -> finca -> corrected block -> owner/controller at date -> access provider -> operating/maintenance condition -> source supplied to ACTUA" }, "mandatory_contrary_evidence": [ "Different valuation purposes/methodologies can legitimately produce different values.", "26-Jun-2018 judicial realisation stay was a genuine protective act, though not possession/exploitation authority.", "24-Oct-2019 court refused convalidation of Protocol 2150.", "2018 Arrecife criminal line was provisionally dismissed and dismissal affirmed.", "ONA/funded-exit routes were developed but conditional.", "Ottawa EUR14.8m proposal did not itself establish compliance/entitlement; nonappearance/nondeposit matters.", "Later title, investment, finance or operation does not by itself prove earlier fraud, concert or judicial knowledge." ], "public_rule": "Maximise source-supported, actor-specific prosecutorial attribution; never convert Project allegations or open causation into adjudicated guilt." }