DEBT · VOTING · ACCESS · SECURITY · MAINTENANCE · LIQUIDATION
The documents permit reconstruction of an architecture in which the Community and private actors exercised functions over debt, voting, access, security and maintenance, while the Insolvency Administration requested, authorised or used parts of that structure. The criminal question is whether this was legitimate preservation, error, negligence, knowing facilitation or coordinated participation.
Active forensic investigation · not a declaration of guilt
The Community administration controlled debt records, meetings and voting, access verification, security and maintenance. After liquidation opened, the Administrator requested security, attended meetings and authorised identified entries into LPB spaces.
Por Derecho contends that this structure allowed private actors to direct material functions of the estate and hotel without appointment, accounts or proper separation from Matkator and third-party rights.
A criminal agreement, knowing falsity of a specific document, habitual private direction of the Administrator or comprehensive corporate administration of LPB by those actors is not yet established.
| Function | Documented private conduct | Administrator connection | Current conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community debt | Community books, certificates and spreadsheets. | The Administrator incorporated or certified creditor-supplied figures. | Documentary dependency established; independent verification outstanding. |
| Voting and offices | Debtor exclusions and decisions with only one represented voting interest in the May 2018 source. | LPB was treated as unable to vote because of Community debt. | Serious authority/conflict issue; not proof of falsification alone. |
| Security and access | Guards, entry control and title/authority verification. | The initial request and identified authorisations came from the Administrator. | Material delegated or tolerated function documented. |
| Maintenance | Entry and technical intervention through the Community structure. | The Administrator admitted authorisations for opening, closing and maintenance. | Practical management documented; scope and necessity require audit. |
| Funding of measures | Declarations attribute Community liquidity/payments to CAM. | The funded structure implemented measures promoted by the Administrator. | Direct source statement; banking and legal trail missing. |
| Offer and liquidation | CAM supplied appraisal, offer, debt and future-operation case. | The Administrator recommended the structure and used it in the plan. | Transaction dependency; legitimate commercial rationale also possible. |
| Hotel operation | The private perimeter later developed and operated the hotel. | No present source proves an Administrator delegation of the operation itself. | Do not state as fact that hotel operation was delegated by the Administrator. |
Quantified in 2016. The 20 January 2017 order formally converted it into an ordinary contingent claim without its own amount.
Annex 2 amount through April 2016. Its updateable character does not remove the need for invoices, periods, payment and allocation.
The Administrator certified it using a spreadsheet supplied by the creditor. The complete accounting basis remains open.
Amount used in the 2021 bidding route. It has not been located as an express amendment of the definitive texts.
The more accurate present description is possible functional substitution or category collapse: reserve figures, mortgage responsibility, better-bid thresholds and consideration may have operated as though they were definitive debt, although they did not perform the same legal function. Later material was filed and contested; clandestinity is therefore not proved.
Administrator request → Community approval → private access implementation. This is a documented coordination chain. The defence is necessary preservation of an inactive and deteriorating property.
Community certificate/spreadsheet → Administrator filing/certification → judicial better-bid condition. Accuracy, non-duplication and sufficient verification remain to be proved.
CAM relied on Community decisions and Administrator participation to defend access and technical measures. This is open procedural alignment, not criminal collusion by itself.
Contemporaneous communications also show open negotiation, interest-limit discussion and contact facilitation. This is mandatory counterevidence against a total secret-conspiracy theory.
| Hypothesis | Present support | Missing proof | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural fraud | Disputed debt/authority premises affected bidding and decisions. | Specific false proposition, knowledge, sufficient deception, judicial error, dispositive act, benefit and prejudice. | Serious hypothesis; not proved. |
| Documentary falsity | Changing figures and contested authority. | Exact false document/entry, author, alteration, knowledge and use. | Open. |
| De facto administration | Stable functional control of debt, access, security and maintenance. | Autonomy, habituality, decision dominance and date-specific legal application. | Functional elements supported; legal status open. |
| Knowing facilitation | Administrator authorisations and adoption were operationally relevant. | Knowledge of falsity/unlawfulness, intent and essential causal contribution. | Do not state as fact yet. |
| Collusion | Repeated alignment and structural benefit. | Agreement and shared unlawful purpose. | Not established. |
| Judicial prevarication | Adverse decisions consolidated the route. | An objectively unjust decision and knowledge of that injustice. | Not established. |
Native minute book, notices, titles, coefficients, proxies, exclusions and appointments from 2011–2021.
Ledger, banks, invoices and supplier-period-payer-recharge crosswalk for Community, CEXP, Monterecco/Pink and LPB.
Native Administrator–Community–CAM/Pamalexsha communications, security contracts, keys, codes, access records and CAM payments.
Certified court index, all post-2016 changes, interest calculation, offer/schedules, final accounts, EUR 400,000, deed, notice and Registry.
Response and correction. Any person or entity identified by function is invited to provide native minutes, invoices, banks, instructions, authorisations, decisions or explanations that confirm, correct or contradict this reconstruction.