IDENTITY → ENTITY/CLIENT → ROLE → ACT → SOURCE → STATUS

Material actors are named in full. Responsibility is attributed act by act.

This register prevents initials, corporate changes or professional titles from obscuring who acted. It also prevents the opposite error: inclusion here does not automatically make anyone responsible for unlawful conduct.

Public rule: verified full name on first reference; initials only afterwards. Lawyer for a party ≠ automatic co-author. Witness ≠ adverse counsel. Challenged judge or public official ≠ private actor. Protected private witness identities remain reserved.

Corporate perimeter identified by the Project in the 9 November 2018 conflict screen

The contemporaneous KYC source proves that these companies were then identified by the Project as conflicts. It does not itself prove unlawful conduct by each company.

Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A.
Amenem, S.L.
Tengolf, S.L.
Muruga, S.L.
Roque Prieto, S.L.
Explotaciones Oasis, S.L.
Montelanza, S.L.
Acciones Canarias, S.L.
Inversiones Salinetas, S.L.
Inmobiliaria Betancurt, S.L.

The later perimeter is expanded through separate sources to entities including Hotel New Trend, S.L., Canarian Hospitality, S.L., RIC Private Equity Investment Partners SCR, S.A., relevant Meeting Point entities, Promontoria Holding 122 B.V. and operating/finance vehicles whose exact legal identity must be verified before an act is attributed to them.

People named in the same 2018 conflict screen

Status: “identified by the Project as a conflict/adverse person in 2018”. This is not equivalent to “proved wrongdoer”, “coordinator”, “criminal” or “adverse on every issue”.

José Daniel Acosta Matos
Laura Patricia Acosta Matos
Gerardo Nicanor Acosta Armas
Francisco Mario Matos Matas
Shaila Cogolludo Ramos
Antonio Cogolludo Rojas
Asunción Aizpurúa Sánchez
Cristina Molina Petit
Sebastián Molina Petit
Rafael Molina Petit
José Luis Molina Marrero
Carmelo Marrero Molina
Rosa Daria Molina Molina
Francisco Luis Molina Molina
Maria Concepción Molina
Agustín Calzada Molina
Miguel Angel Calzada Molina
Ricardo Molina Betancor
Miguel Molina Betancor
Borja Rodriguez Batllori Laffitte
Carlos Caimi Vicente
Celia Guillén Pérez
Gervasio Manuel González García
Ana Jiménez Lort
Montserrat Llorens Canal
Manuel Molina Climent
Fulvia Nardi
Reza Hamid
Daniel Van der Horst
Juan Carlos Prieto Puente
Esteban López Noriega
Carmen Ramírez de Prada

Separate due-diligence screen: PEP/PRP, PEP family/close associate, public-office access/influence, aforamiento, insolvency specially related person and Article 231 corporate related-person tests →

Lawyers, administrators, representatives and advisers — documented roles

Full name	Documented role	Perimeter / client	Status
Juan Carlos Prieto Puente	The derivative transcript later labelled 11 June describes him at the 10 June 2016 working meeting as representing Molina-family interests and as lawyer for the Comunidad de Propietarios Sun Park.	Molina family / Community	Role attributed by transcript; authentication and exact capacity open
Francisco Mario Matos Matas	Material actor in Community/administration source families; exact capacity changes by date and act.	Community / administration	Responsibility disputed; act-by-act attribution
Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte	Insolvency Administrator of Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L. in Concurso 36/2012.	Concurso 36/2012	Office verified; IA allegations separate
Carlos Saavedra Rodríguez del Palacio	PwC Tenerife / Landwell-PwC; documented legal advice; the derivative transcript attributes Luchy representation to him at the 10 June 2016 working meeting; later Calificación witness.	Matkator / Luchy	Meeting capacity and alleged “switch” require primary-source verification
Miguel Hernández Lorenzo	PwC Tenerife; the derivative transcript later labelled 11 June describes him at the 10 June 2016 working meeting as acting in representation of Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.	Luchy	Capacity attributed by transcript; authentication and exact capacity open
Elena Santos Ramos	Professional identified in the 2016 PwC documentary family.	PwC	Specific acts/knowledge by source
Alejandro Perera González	Professional identified in the 2016 PwC documentary family.	PwC	Specific acts/knowledge by source
Jonathan Simó Morales	Tax/accounting adviser; the derivative transcript later labelled 11 June describes him at the 10 June 2016 working meeting as acting for Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.	Luchy	Capacity attributed by transcript; project-side appearance is not adverse status

NAMED RECORD · 25 AUGUST 2026

Professional, Community and corporate network — fifteen linked profiles

These profiles keep three lanes separate: documented facts, an account attributed to a witness within Gil Marer's perimeter, and open questions. Timing or a corporate connection does not by itself prove concert, professional conflict or unlawful conduct.

Key timeline correction: the official record places Campanario as an insolvency administrator by March 2009; the 22 June 2011 minutes identify Esteban López Noriega as the invited lawyer. No evidence of a formal handover between them has been located.

Declaration 011 and documentary reconciliation →Community context

A1–A8 · CONTINUITY OF THE DEFENCE · CONCURSO 36/2012

Our-side counsel: work, pressure on the defence and documented effect

This table records the verifiable sequence for lawyers and firms acting for Gil Marer, Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. (LPB), Aweswell Limited or the related perimeter. Gil Marer and Patricia Domínguez contend that acts and omissions of the Insolvency Administrator (IA) interfered, directly or cumulatively, with that defence. Their position is not presented as a judicial finding. Each mandate is told in its full context: accepted and billed scope, IA conduct, the professional response or limit, the result, and any later deterioration or transition. A formal reason for withdrawal belongs in that history, but does not by itself exhaust the IA’s prior effect or the effectiveness of the mandate.

Precision rule: the 19 February 2020 providencia granted the prior procedural licence required by Article 215.2 of the Criminal Code; it did not decide whether calumny or insult occurred, and does not prove that a complaint was later filed, admitted or upheld. Its procedural character does not erase the documented practical effect on the defence team. Describing the initiative as “abusive” is Gil/Patricia’s express position, not a disciplinary or criminal determination.

Connected asset, money and defence tracks. The IA conveyed 31 operational properties—reception, premises and pools/solarium—to CAM for €400,000. His 20 December 2018 report says the cheque became effective, an LPB Santander account was opened for it and he paid his own remuneration from the resulting liquidity; the 24 October 2019 order later refused convalidation because the deed lacked judicial authorisation. Parrilla’s original fee was €40,000 + IGIC; on 11 June 2020 he acknowledged €32,250 already received, proposed a rejected increase to €50,000 and stated a €17,750 + IGIC balance. The IA’s later €26,750 payment therefore presents an overpayment/duplication issue requiring invoice, tax and ledger reconciliation. Gil/Patricia call the linked “peace”, complaint-withdrawal, payment-assurance and incoming-counsel access sequence a “false peace” and perverse incentive. Gil further alleges, with hindsight, that the sale was criminal and its price illicit proceeds; this is a prosecution thesis, not a judicial finding. Open the dedicated former-counsel, ACTÚA and money-trail analysis →

Ref.	Lawyer / firm	Documented work	IA act, pressure or incidence and effect	Mandate context
A1	Juan Tomás Parrilla Suárez Juan Tomás Parrilla practice / jtparrilla.com	LPB counsel for several years; appeals, estate-protection steps and challenges to liquidation. A contemporaneous May 2020 client instruction requested action on interest, a contingent Community debt, inspection/photographs and the proceeds of the non-convalidated sale. Whether every requested protective filing was procedurally available, required or omitted remains under audit.	In June–July 2018 Parrilla asked the IA for Community meeting notices and minutes without obtaining them by that route. On 28 May 2020 he communicated the IA’s wish to speak to incoming counsel and possible withdrawal of the announced action concerning Joaquín, despite Patricia’s contemporaneous record of repeated instructions not to intercede for the IA and to put dealings in writing. Jiménez’s 1 June call report records “peace”, possible withdrawal, the IA’s statement that Parrilla and the procurator would be paid from proceeding funds, praise of Parrilla and IA/CAM positions. The original fee proforma was €40,000 + IGIC. Parrilla’s 11 June account acknowledged €32,250 already received from the client perimeter, proposed a rejected €50,000 final fee and stated a €17,750 + IGIC balance. The IA’s July report records €26,750 paid: €9,000 more at base than Parrilla’s own stated balance even under the unaccepted increase, subject to the missing invoice, tax and cost allocation.	Sale, IA self-payment, client-funded fee history, intermediation, assurance and later €26,750 payment documented Gil/Patricia allege overpayment/double dipping and contend that the IA created a perverse economic incentive and used outgoing counsel to influence incoming counsel through a “false peace” while protective actions remained unfiled. Gil confirms that the sale money was the only available source; the reports disclose the liquidity sequence but the matching bank debit remains to be obtained. The client initiated substitution after a loss of trust. This page places primary responsibility for the challenged authorisation and strategic use of estate funds on the IA; it does not assert that Parrilla knowingly received criminal proceeds. Invoice, tax, authority, ledger and bank reconciliation remain required.
A2a–A2c	Armando Betancor Álamo José María Betancor Álamo Davinia Sánchez de la Cruz Alas Legal Advisors, S.L. (then) Kepler–Karst (later professional continuity for part of the team)	The 5–6 June 2019 chain proves drafting and revision by José María/Alas with Gil/Aweswell comments. The final 64-page filing was digitally signed by Joaquín Ruiz de Infante on 10 June 2019. On 26–27 February 2020 José María coordinated the urgent response and transmitted the final filed opposition with client approval; Armando and Davinia appear in the working chain. A contemporaneous 25 May 2020 client note described Joaquín as the “face” signing documents prepared by Armando and the team; this is published as the client’s account, partially supported by the draft/signature trail, not as proof of a secret relationship.	Following the 19 February order, emails record urgent meetings, professional-reputation/insurance concern, preparation of a ratifying statement and internal threats to withdraw unless it was signed. On 21 September 2020 Armando gave joint notice of the team’s withdrawal from Gil, Patricia, Aweswell and related entities, the same day Joaquín withdrew from the insolvency defence. The notices relied on irreparable breakdown of the lawyer-client relationship.	Collaboration, immediate pressure and later withdrawal documented Gil/Patricia say the IA initiative was a material factor; the record also shows direct client-team conflict over the statement, trust and fees. Exclusive causation is not published. Current identity: Armando, Of Counsel at Kepler–Karst; Davinia, partner; José María, procurator in Las Palmas. This does not attribute earlier conduct to current firms.
A3	Joaquín Ruiz de Infante Abella Bufete Ruiz de Infante	Directing counsel identified in and signing Gil’s opposition to the classification application; insolvency work coordinated with Alas. The filing and emails connect the team’s drafting work to his professional signature and filing.	On 5 February 2020 the IA sought the prior Article 215.2 licence over statements on pages 20 and 39 of the opposition. The 19 February providencia, which specified a reconsideration remedy, authorised him “so that he may bring a criminal complaint” against Gil, procurator Francisco Javier Pérez Almeida and Joaquín, in case the pleaded statements could constitute calumny and/or serious insult. It opened a procedural gate; it was not a finding about truth, guilt or liability, and does not establish that a complaint was filed or succeeded.	Immediate defence effect documented The licence placed the client, procurator and signing lawyer at potential personal criminal exposure over the central defence pleading. Urgent meetings, professional-reputation and insurance concern, a proposed ratification statement and internal threats of withdrawal followed; Cristo then assessed the initiative as apparently intended to frighten. Joaquín gave complete notice of withdrawal on 21 September. Gil/Patricia describe the initiative as abusive and say it was a material factor in the deterioration of the defence. The notice relied on lawyer-client breakdown and no ruling cited here declares the initiative unlawful; both points belong to the complete context.
A4	Daniel Jiménez García SLJ Abogados	The bilingual engagement proposal was accepted on 22 May 2020. It provided for direct Aweswell instructions, removal of the IA and assessment of claims against the IA and CAM; Cuatrecasas granted venia on 26 May. SLJ later claimed 55 hours of review, calls and drafting. Decree 316/2021 nevertheless found that no procedural filing in the mandate period was signed by Jiménez/SLJ and that the claimed court filing was not proved; Jiménez announced resignation on 23 June before making a verified signed procedural filing.	Gil/Patricia’s contemporaneous 23 June response records their account that, before engagement, Jiménez was expressly told not to speak to the IA or Acosta Matos before the intended actions were filed. The written record corroborates the substance and sequence, though the exact pre-contract wording has not been located: on 28 May Patricia warned that Parrilla and the IA habitually sought off-record arrangements and said Parrilla had repeatedly been told not to intercede for the IA; on 5 June she instructed that claims should be filed before any CAM contact and that no information be given. Between those warnings, Parrilla conveyed the IA’s request and Jiménez took the 1 June call. Jiménez reported that the IA offered “peace”, possible withdrawal of the announced complaint, assurance that Parrilla and the procurator would be paid, praise of Parrilla, and the IA/CAM position. On 5 June Jiménez said CAM’s lawyer had asked the IA to arrange contact; a call was proposed, but the located record does not prove that it occurred.	Gil/Patricia call the proposal a “false peace” because it linked withdrawal of action and outgoing-counsel payment assurance with access to incoming counsel while protective IA/CAM actions remained pending. The sequence supports their inference that the IA sought to instrumentalise the handover despite the client’s instructions. It does not by itself prove unlawful motive, collusion, bribery or that the contact caused resignation. Jiménez also challenged IA positions, disclosed the communications and said he could not be conditioned. His 23 June withdrawal cited strategy, client control and unpaid fees; the client characterises the speed and tone of his change as hostile. A separate confidentiality issue followed. In the fee proceeding on 4 December 2020, SLJ filed a 179-page inventory extracted from its database and identifying the contents of the 4,458-document client file, together with selected client material. The filing did not contain every underlying document, and the LexNET wrapper shows immediate copy-transfer only to Aweswell’s procurator—not to the IA or CAM. Retention, necessity, confidentiality and proportionality require legal assessment; actual access by the IA/CAM requires court access/service records.
A5	Luis Miguel López López Castelo Abogados	Assumed LPB’s representation after Parrilla; worked on nullity, classification, appeals and amparo. The 2023 correspondence confirms continuing appellate work; in May 2025 the classification appeal remained pending.	He gave notice of withdrawal in February 2021 after maintaining the transition for months, while continuing to provide limited help. On 13 May 2025 he again gave irrevocable notice of withdrawal in Concurso 36/2012.	The communications cite time, fees and non-payment. Because the IA controlled LPB payments in liquidation, each invoice/request/response must be audited; the page does not yet assert that a particular invoice was refused or that the IA caused withdrawal.
A6	Cuatrecasas Rosa Gual Tomás; Iñigo de Luisa Maíz; Adriana González García; Pedro Campaña Ávila	The 2018 and January–March 2019 proformas billed Aweswell for advice mainly in corporate finance and insolvency: the liquidation plan, filings responding to IA requests, information, Acosta Matos/Community claims, the ONA contract, diligence, financing, security and exit from the concurso. In 2019 the team offered legal comfort to the proposed lender, prepared Aweswell’s appearance/opposition filings and obtained favourable rulings, including rejection of the IA’s request to exclude it.	IA positions cut across standing, sales, information, the Registry, works/control and the financed exit. In April 2019, when the classification phase required a defence for Gil/LPB, Cuatrecasas drew entity-specific mandate boundaries: it identified Juan Tomás as LPB counsel, offered coordination and made any personal defence of Gil dependent on obtaining venia. Other responses routed action through LPB or depended on obtaining deeds. The client says that, despite the breadth of billed work, the firm and its partners did not fully deploy the “protective shield” he understood had been retained, and that the IA’s conduct had a demonstrable effect on its efficacy.	Broad mandate, limits and results documented The file contains substantial work and favourable Cuatrecasas results, as well as entity, authority and evidence limits the client regards as failures of protection; no professional-negligence finding is asserted here. On 26 May 2020 Rosa said more than two years of unpaid fees prevented continued advice, granted venia and assisted the handover. That formal withdrawal reason is relevant without being a complete characterisation of the IA’s prior effect or the mandate’s performance.
A7	Garrigues Miguel Méndez; José María Martínez de Artola; Zulay Carmen Rodríguez	Preliminary and initial advice in 2012 concerning Bankia enforcement/auction, interim measures, Community matters and urgent filing of LPB’s insolvency petition. May–June 2012 emails record the work and the later fee/relationship dispute.	This work predates the appointment and the IA conduct examined here; it shaped entry into the insolvency process, but the reviewed evidence has not located an IA act causing Garrigues to withdraw.	Historical role documented No IA causal link located; included so the defence history does not begin artificially after the insolvency filing.
A8	Cristo Ayose Suárez Pimentel Tenerife-based independent lawyer / Pimentel Servicios Legales	The work ledger places his involvement from May 2016 to June 2022 across related pre-insolvency and insolvency phases: Community litigation, estate-protection work, filings, complaints and coordination with successive LPB/Aweswell teams.	A 25 January 2018 communication records that the IA terminated a specific LPB mandate concerning preliminary proceedings 1041/2017, requested venia/abstention and subjected further LPB work to his authorisation, with a warning of recourse to the Bar. Direct effect: that specific representation was interrupted; the proceeding later ended through withdrawal by the applicant. In February 2020 Cristo also recorded his contemporaneous assessment of the intimidating effect of the initiative against Joaquín.	Direct interference with a defined mandate documented The episode is not extrapolated to all his mandates, and the Bar warning is not presented as an effective sanction or already-adjudicated misconduct.

Other professionals: the remaining names located are presently retained as B1, B2, B3… until client, mandate, dates and source are verified before nominal publication is decided. Right of correction: any named professional may supply a mandate, filing, venia, communication or decision completing or correcting this sequence.

Institutional call. Gil Marer expressly calls on the Spanish Prosecution Service (Fiscalía) and the Las Palmas Bar Association (ICALPA) to take notice of this sequence, preserve or obtain the complete record and assess, within their respective competences, whether the use of threats or actions against lawyers and procurators materially affected the right of defence. This call does not itself assert criminal or disciplinary liability.

Institutional participants remain separate

Name	Function	Publication rule
Alberto López Villarrubia	Magistrate-Judge, Commercial Court No. 1, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.	Criticism and allegations about judicial acts are published with procedural status; he is not folded into the private perimeter.
Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo	Prosecutor in the Calificación documentary family.	Each intervention must be tied to its exact filing/act; procedural support or disagreement is not automatically converted into unlawful coordination.

Living register: what will be added

The lawyers and representatives of CAM, HNT, RICPE, Meeting Point, Promontoria, Community, Molina and other perimeters will be added with verified full name and legal entity where the source clearly identifies whom they represented, when, in which proceeding and what act they performed. Identities are not guessed and law firms are not collapsed into their clients.

PEP / influence / related-person audit →PwC Legal record Acosta Matos perimeter Community

2014 AUTHORITY-VERIFICATION EVENT · PRIMARY SOURCES LOCATED

3205/2014^ adds an access/key allegation, not a finding against a person

A contemporaneous complaint and summons record one complainant described as Community president and one affected party described as administrator. The complaint attributes no presence or physical act to Gil. Identity bridges, date-effective authority, incident truth, hearing occurrence and outcome remain open.

Open the bilingual 3205/2014 record →

Sun Park / MYND Yaiza — site and canonical record

Hotel / physical site: Sun Park · MYND Yaiza — PD-SP-O-0042.
Calle Janubio 3, Playa Blanca, Lanzarote 35580, Spain. This identifies the establishment and site, not a corporate owner or determination of title. Canonical address and source variants · Actors, proceedings and evidence.

MASTER MYND · photographs, attributed accounts and chronology

TRUTH MACHINE · PROFESSIONALS · 2012→

Every project-side lawyer and firm enters the controlled analysis universe.

The universe is the complete professionals register, starting with Garrigues as the first verified firm in the current 2012+ genealogy. Each interaction is analysed by professional × client × matter × period; the number of lawyer changes is not evidence of causation.

Open PD-LAW-TRUTH-20260922-01 → · Full professional register →