Canary Islands Public Prosecutor's Office · DIP 2/2026
The 6 March Decree records that the investigation proceedings were opened on 11 February 2026. The 9 March notice communicated closure and expressly recalled that the complaint could be repeated before the competent judicial body. That route was exercised through a separate complaint signed on 17 and presented on 18 June, followed by an amplification. Material update: a clarification decree dated 23 August and notified on 25 August acknowledges the earlier criminal module concerning the Judge, maintains the closure of EG 112/2026 and identifies the Las Palmas Provincial Public Prosecutor's Office as territorially competent for the newer civil/mercantile matters. We publish the complete pleadings, their stamped copies and an analysis that separates documents, allegations, inferences and questions that remain open.
Official file records located and published
The public copies preserve all substantive text, the signatory, date, proceeding number and NIG. Only direct contact details and electronic-verification locators/codes unnecessary to understanding or auditing the decision are omitted.
Recital three records that the investigation proceedings were opened by a decree dated 11 February 2026.
«Se abrieron [...] las anteriormente reseñadas diligencias de investigación mediante decreto de fecha 11 de febrero de 2026».
Limit: the 11 February opening decree is not published here as a separate item; the opening is documented by the 6 March Decree.
Electronically signed by Juan Manuel González-Casanova Ruiz, Prosecutor. It orders closure and states that the decree does not have res judicata effect.
Evidence: EVID-2026-FISCALIA-DIP2-DECRETO-002
Electronically signed by Ernesto Vieira Morante, Prosecutor. It communicates the closure, encloses the decision and recalls the right to reiterate the complaint under Article 773 LECrim.
Evidence: EVID-2026-FISCALIA-DIP2-OFICIO-001
«abiertas en virtud de su escrito de fecha de entrada [...] 20-01-2026»
Context: establishes the origin of DIP 2/2026 and the identified subject of the communication; it does not establish that each annex or later fact was placed on the file and examined.
«dichas diligencias han sido archivadas»
Context: gives notice of the outcome. The reasoning and the statement that closure has no res judicata effect are in the attached Decree, not this isolated sentence.
«puede reiterar su pretensión ante el Órgano Judicial competente»
Context and effect: expressly preserved the route Gil Marer attempted to exercise on 18 June. The notice did not itself allocate that later complaint or determine which court had to receive it.
Joint reading: notice + closure Decree + later judicial complaint. No document should be made to say what belongs to another.
Material update · communication received 25 August
The official Decree is dated 23 August 2026. The public copy retains all three pages and the complete substantive reasoning; only direct contact details and the embedded signature certificate are omitted. The decision states Fiscalía Superior's position: it is not a judicial determination that the underlying allegations are true or false.
“Mr Marer is not wrong in stating that a criminal investigation proceeding exists [...] for an alleged offence of prevaricación.”
Context: the Decree expressly acknowledges the existence and criminal subject of DIP 2/2026. It also says that file was provisionally closed for want of rational criminal indicia; the acknowledgement does not validate the complaint.
The 2 and 20 August emails “do not allege any criminal irregularity against the Judge in the same or similar terms.”
Context: that is the stated reason for not opening a new investigation or reopening DIP 2/2026. The characterisation concerns those two emails; it does not determine the allocation or destination of the separate judicial complaint presented on 18 June.
Territorial competence “would concern the Provincial Public Prosecutor's Office of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.”
Context and effect: for the newer civil/mercantile matters, the Decree identifies a territorial office. That creates a finite traceability question: what was transferred, when, with what index and under which receiving reference.
“IT IS AGREED [...] maintaining the full effect of the decision.”
Result: the clarification does not revoke EG 112/2026's closure and states that no appeal lies against this Decree. Publication documents that adverse outcome without converting it into a conclusion on every economic, professional, judicial or public-funds module.
Evidence: EVID-2026-FISCALIA-EG112-ACLARACION-003 · official Spanish source · notification located on 25 August 2026. English renderings are analytical translations.
Institutional congruence audit
The comparison addresses the office's position across DIP 2/2026 and EG 112/2026, not one person's intent. Each row distinguishes the source record, official response and the limit of what may be concluded.
| Issue | Source record | Fiscalía position | Controlled contradiction or incongruence | Status / limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Privileged jurisdiction | DIP 2/2026 was opened to assess possible criminal responsibility of a magistrate; the 20 August communication recalled that precedent without automatically making a new accusation. | The 19 August Decree said no person with privileged jurisdiction was implicated; the 23 August Decree acknowledges that the earlier criminal proceeding existed but says the new communications do not renew that attribution. | The second decision narrows and corrects the first decision's categorical premise. It does not explain why the existing institutional module was initially omitted. | Partly clarified. The absence of a new magistrate accusation is consistent with the 20 August communication itself. |
| Actual object | The 2 August submission excluded general review of the LPB estate, liquidation, adjudication, classification or insolvency-office liability and defined a private extraconcursal mechanism concerning Matkator, Aweswell and other non-insolvency assets. | The clarification says the “true object” is review of civil/mercantile proceedings concerning the applicant's private interests. | The official characterisation does not reconcile the source's negative and positive delimitation. This is the central textual contradiction. | Unresolved. Disagreement about criminal sufficiency does not itself answer the object expressly communicated. |
| Criminal content | The communication requested investigation, preservation and finite checks, and identified alleged criminal hypotheses; it also recognised that no single document proved an offence. | The closure found no indications of criminal acts and no action for the Superior Fiscalía. | A conclusion of insufficiency may be legally available; saying or presupposing that no criminal irregularity was alleged is a distinct textual question requiring reasoned treatment. | Official conclusion, disputed premise. This page does not say an offence is proved. |
| Source integrity | The 20 August communication identified: Matkator/Malkator; loss of “no” from “non-insolvency assets”; Marer/Mayer; 20/12 requested measures; and a REGAGE package versus email-only receipt. | The 23 August Decree maintains the decision in full and develops only the privileged-jurisdiction issue and its characterisation of the object. | The literal corrections, certified index and corpus integrity receive no answer. | Uncorrected. These are verifiable documentary errors; alone they do not prove intent. |
| Competence and referral | The communication requested modular treatment and traceable referral of any block over which the Superior Fiscalía considered itself incompetent. | The clarification denies objective and territorial competence and identifies the Provincial Public Prosecutor's Office of Las Palmas as territorially relevant. | The Decree records no reasoned transfer, preservation step or receipt by the office it identifies. | Open consequence. Fiscalía's premise is that no offence was disclosed; the record therefore does not by itself prove a procedural breach. |
| New sources | The 20 August communication added later professional and judicial sources, with express limitations and no assertion of proved bribery, corruption or influence. | The clarification says there are no new facts affecting the same magistrate or strengthening the indications against him. | This narrowly answers the magistrate module but does not document classification, preservation or destination of the new sources for the private extraconcursal module. | Partial answer. A new source is not a proved criminal fact. |
| Reliance on DIP 2/2026 | On 11 March it was formally registered that the appeal had been filed and was being processed before the 2 March database check. | The clarification again relies on the provisional closure of DIP 2/2026. | It does not address whether the formally registered correction to a premise used in that closure was incorporated, examined or considered immaterial. | Cumulative institutional gap. The appeal-status error does not alone decide the criminal merits. |
| Date and review route | The earlier Decree was signed on 19 August and notified on 20 August. The new decision cites Article 112 of Law 39/2015 and Article 124 of the Constitution for no appeal. | The clarification calls it a Decree “dated 20 August” and maintains non-appealability. | It confuses signature and notification dates. Fiscalía Circular 2/2022, section 15, is the more direct published authority on non-appealability of criminal investigation-proceeding decisions; the provisions cited do not by themselves explain that fit. | Date error and reasons question. This page does not declare the Decree invalid. |
The documentary contradiction
The highlighted Spanish phrases are the precise core of the error. The comparison carefully distinguishes filing an appeal from its admission and eventual determination.
«También se ha comprobado que contra el auto resolutorio de ambas reposiciones no consta interpuesto recurso alguno —al menos, hasta la fecha de la consulta (02/03/2026)—.»
Translation: “It has also been verified that no appeal is recorded as having been filed against the order deciding both applications for reconsideration—at least as of the date checked (2 March 2026).” The Spanish original controls.
«La discrepancia del denunciante con dicha resolución, que, insistimos, habrá devenido firme al no haber hecho uso oportunamente del recurso de apelación, no puede servir de base para considerar que estemos ante una prevaricación judicial.»
Translation: the Decree said the decision would have become final because the right of appeal had not been exercised in time. The Spanish original controls.
The second statement appears immediately before the conclusion that no offence was established and the proceedings were closed. It was therefore not a purely incidental observation.
28 January 2026 · Las Palmas Provincial Court, Fourth Section · RPL 3319/2025. The order directed: “With the foregoing appeal filing, form and register the appeal file…”, identifying Aweswell Limited as appellant.
18 February 2026 · Mercantile Court. The order recorded receipt of the “communication of the filing of an appeal against the order dated 11/11/2025” and directed electronic transfer of the proceedings to the Fourth Section.
Limited conclusion: before 2 March, an appeal had been filed, registered and was being processed. That does not prejudge final admission, outcome or merits; it does contradict the statement that no appeal was recorded as filed.
Appeal RPL 3319/2025 is formed and registered.
The Mercantile Court records the appeal and transfers the file.
ATLANTE is checked; the Decree says no appeal is recorded.
RedSARA registers the update addressed to DIP 2/2026.
Judicial route exercised · complete document and stamped copy
The presentation photograph shows the 18 June stamp of the Decanato of the Courts of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and the handwritten direction “to the investigating court allocated in turn”. Handwritten daily reference no. 24 is a registry-location element: it is not a NIG, preliminary-proceedings number, formal allocation number or confirmed judicial proceeding.
Includes the stamped photograph, the three-page package manifesto and all 27 pages of the principal pleading. The document distinguishes five nuclei, six groups of decisions, lawful alternative explanations and finite requested inquiries.
Pleading date: 17 June 2026
Documented physical presentation: 18 June 2026
Evidence: EVID-2026-DECANATO-REF24-DENUNCIA-001
Clarifies the legal use of different debt/threshold figures, the STS 227/2019–Parodi/Talleres Jinámar comparison, the objective beneficiary, requested testimony and expert evidence, and alternative explanations requiring verification.
Date: 25 June 2026
Material link: daily reference no. 24
Evidence: EVID-2026-DECANATO-REF24-AMPLIACION-002
Decanato stamps the complaint and writes daily reference no. 24.
The amplification is presented for joinder; its stamped cover identifies the same reference.
REGAGE26e00059624765 informs the CGPJ of the Decanato–TSJC chain and requests verification.
A filing says the onward route remained unlocated and itself excludes inferring loss or responsibility.
Appeals confirms a later judicial package joined to Appeal 286/2026; joinder is not examination and does not resolve the complaint’s destination.
The Promotor's agreement reproduces the later filing's purpose: “identify and reconcile two institutional chains converging on the TSJC; verify the location, integrity and administrative transmission of control no. 24; preserve its dates and metadata”.
Establishes: the CGPJ received and characterised that location and preservation request. Does not establish: a NIG, allocation, opening of proceedings or TSJC destination for the complaint.
The Government Secretariat agreement examines a CGPJ→TSJC communication, describes it as sent for information and says that, on that date, receipt of the CGPJ archive agreement was not recorded there.
Establishes: a finite dispatch/receipt discrepancy requiring reconciliation. Does not establish: that the communication was the daily-reference-24 complaint or that the TSJC received, allocated or decided that complaint.
Copy of the Judge box · controlled attribution
This box reproduces the judicial-accountability module and connects it to the published complaint. It is Gil Marer’s formulation, not a finding of culpability.
Gil submits that the test is not “adverse ruling = offence” but knowledge → jurisdiction/power → available remedy → act, refusal, closure, delay or omission → effect on the asset, operation, exit and non-insolvency rights.
| Nucleus | Alleged private conduct | Insolvency Administrator: alleged commission/omission | Judge: alleged act/omission | Proof and limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access and material control · June 2018 | Gil assigns five private actors individual functions involving Community administration, security/keys, planning, finance and legal/insolvency work. | Requesting or using the Community–security route, authorisations and later adoption; alleged failure to delimit, supervise, restore and account. | Protective response, refusal, delay or lack of judicial control after receiving requests and risks, according to the complaint. | Native orders, mandate, presence, first notice, scope and remedial steps. Family or corporate acts do not transfer automatically. |
| Financed exit · June–September 2018 | Finance, ONA operator, professionals and a third-party bidder appear as an alleged rescue route, not proof of unconditional closing. | Update/certify debt, inform the court, preserve asset/access and facilitate or explain closing conditions. | Transfers, deadline, security, suspension and useful decision; the complaint asks why the alternative did not reach a final determination. | Contract, finance, payment/consignation, filed pleadings and certified record. The professional account requires authentication. |
| Debt, threshold and operation · 2018–2020 | CAM/Acosta Matos appears as creditor/bidder through capacities and entities that must be reconciled. | Origin and validation of figures, use of balance minutes, OB REM transaction, €400,000, and accounting/restoration after non-validation. | Legal function of each figure, res judicata, effect of non-validation and the act connecting a threshold to the economic result. | Final texts, Order 78/2019, STS 227/2019, Parodi/Talleres Jinámar, deed, Registry and accounts; lawful explanations may exist. |
| Tender, award and consolidation · 2021–2022 | Publicity, access, perimeter, third-party/ONA offer and Acosta Matos beneficiary must be verified person by person and entity by entity. | Bidder information, comparability, conservation, recommendation, implementation and final accounting. | Inspection/expert evidence, material equality, tender, completion order, certificate and enabling title allegedly consolidated a hard-to-reverse result. | Notice, logs, data room, powers, offers, orders, certificates, deed and Registry. An award does not prove unlawful coordination. |
Primary document with adjacent explanation
The complete four-page communication is published beside its evidential context, rather than as an isolated attachment.
Submitted to the Canary Islands Public Prosecutor's Office for inclusion in the preliminary proceedings and to record that the orders had been appealed and remained pending.
Verifiable questions
Public request attributed to Gil Marer
Gil Marer submits that repeated closures, the absence of a visible opening, lack of evidenced preservation and silence despite substantial documentary submissions justify examining whether the Las Palmas Provincial Public Prosecutor’s Office and other local units have operated with sufficient neutrality in relation to the Acosta Matos perimeter. He frames possible neutralisation, capture or institutional conflict as a risk hypothesis; the published record does not prove capture, corruption or collusion.
The request is directed to authorities inside and outside the Canary Islands Public Prosecution Service and seeks review by a unit without material dependence on the challenged local decisions.
Certified index of complaints, annexes, allocation, access, transfers, joinder, closures, preservation and responses; identification of any document not incorporated or not examined.
Review of recusals, relationships, allocation and comparative treatment of allegations concerning Acosta Matos, private actors, the Insolvency Administrator and the Judge, without attributing responsibility by association.
A written account of what was checked, rejected, treated as unnecessary, allocated elsewhere, and which route now preserves evidence and effective judicial protection.
2022 checkpoint: the preserved archive records a Canarias7 headline dated 30 May 2022—“La Fiscalía Provincial acusa a Acosta Matos de falsificación y estafa procesal”—concerning a different commercial dispute. The historical URL returned 404 shortly afterwards. That supports publication/indexing and later unavailability at that path; it does not establish why it disappeared, pressure, censorship, the article’s accuracy or the outcome of any proceeding. The requested audit should obtain the primary file and explain its status. Open the Canarias7 documentary control →
Damage context and effective judicial protection
Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution protects access to effective judicial protection, defence, relevant evidence and proceedings without undue delay. Gil alleges that lack of an effective judicial response permitted loss of control and operation, harmed valuation and competition, frustrated a financed exit and facilitated later consolidation of the result. No judgment in this published file declares an Article 24 violation or attributes those losses to a particular person. Official text of Article 24 →
Evidential limits
That by 2 March the appeal was already documented in official court records; that the Decree stated otherwise; that this premise contributed to the closure reasoning; and that the contradiction was formally communicated on 11 March.
That the error was deliberate; that the signing prosecutor previously knew every court document; that a particular individual read the communication; that the appeal had to succeed; or that corruption or external influence has been proved.