🔥 **THE CANARY ISLANDS HOSPITALITY PARADOX

🔥 **THE CANARY ISLANDS HOSPITALITY PARADOX: Questions of Transparency, Governance and Public Accountability Surrounding Canarian Hospitality & Mynd Hotels** A detailed public-interest statement by an external whistleblower (EU/Spain/Germany/UK) --- Introduction: A Growing Hospitality Brand Facing Growing Questions Canarian Hospitality and its lifestyle brand Mynd Hotels have positioned themselves as a new force in tourism in the Canary Islands — fresh, modern, sustainable, and community-focused. But there is another side to the story that deserves public attention. Over the past years, serious concerns have been raised to Spanish and European authorities regarding the origin, transformation, and commercialisation of certain hotel assets now forming part of this expanding platform. Concerns that affect: European taxpayers Spanish and Canarian public funds German state-aid expenditure public and private investors the integrity of tourism governance The matter has already been elevated to: OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office) EPPO (European Public Prosecutor’s Office) Fiscalía Anticorrupción (Spain) Banco de España & CNMV German prosecutors examining the wider FTI/Meeting Point collapse This article summarises what is already documented — and why transparency is now essential. --- **Part I — The Central Question: Are the assets supporting Canarian Hospitality fully compliant with legal, judicial, and European requirements?** This is not a political question, nor a personal dispute. It is a question of public governance and European financial integrity. Multiple submissions to Spanish and European authorities have raised concerns that certain assets now operated or promoted under the Mynd Hotels brand may have: ✔ been transformed or commercialised while subject to judicial protection, ✔ been operated without full ownership clarity, ✔ generated revenue outside the legally established framework, and ✔ been later integrated into publicly incentivised investment structures (such as RIC vehicles, state-aid schemes, and financing related to the former FTI/Meeting Point group). If accurate, this would mean that hotel operations, tax incentives, and public funds are being applied on top of unresolved legal foundations. --- Part II — European Authorities Are Already Examining Elements of This Ecosystem The concerns intersect with several sensitive areas: ### ➤ 1. OLAF (EU Anti-Fraud Office) Reviewing potential misuse/unreported risks in: RIC tax-incentive mechanisms, EU-linked tourism modernisation funds, interactions between private actors and public authorities. ### ➤ 2. EPPO (European Public Prosecutor’s Office) Triggered by: possible misuse of EU-related funds, cross-border elements involving Spain and Germany, risk of “institutional paralysis” or irregular handling inside local jurisdictions. ### ➤ 3. Fiscalía Anticorrupción Assessing allegations of: asset misappropriation, irregular insolvency conduct, public–private collusion, obstruction or manipulation inside local institutions. ### ➤ 4. German Prosecutors Because the wider hospitality ecosystem includes entities formerly part of FTI/Meeting Point, whose insolvency is under active criminal review (Bavaria / Munich I). --- Part III — Why This Matters to Spain, the Canary Islands, Europe & Taxpayers 1. Tourism is the Canary Islands’ economic engine Any erosion of confidence — especially involving public funds — harms the entire archipelago. 2. Assets must be lawfully controlled and free from judicial protection If hotel assets are operated or transformed without clear title or without compliance with court orders, the entire value chain becomes compromised. 3. Public incentives (RIC) require strict transparency Misuse of RIC funds threatens the credibility of Spain’s tax-incentive regime. 4. German taxpayers indirectly financed part of the sector Through state-aid used in the FTI/Meeting Point group — making the issue cross-border. 5. Investors require accurate disclosure Any misalignment between public marketing and underlying legal reality exposes the sector to liability, claims, and reputational damage. --- Part IV — Patterns of Concern Documented in Multiple Filings Without asserting conclusions, formal submissions to authorities have highlighted: 1️⃣ Transformation of certain hotel assets despite ongoing legal disputes Reconfigurations, renovations, and rebranding reportedly occurred during periods where the assets were: under Concurso (insolvency protection), part of unresolved ownership structures, allegedly subject to judicial irregularities. 2️⃣ Commercialisation by third parties without full legal clarity Revenue extraction and tourism operations were reportedly conducted without fully resolving the legal ownership or judicial status of the affected assets. 3️⃣ Integration of those assets into investment vehicles Including: RIC Private Equity structures, state-aid frameworks, tourism-development programs, where public money or tax incentives are at stake. 4️⃣ Institutional inconsistencies or non-action Across: administrative bodies, courts, fiscalía, registries, regulatory bodies. Patterned irregularities are what trigger European jurisdiction. Not isolated mistakes. --- Part V — The Role of Canarian Hospitality & Mynd Hotels This article does not claim that Canarian Hospitality or Mynd Hotels have engaged in wrongdoing. What it asserts — accurately — is that: some foundational assets of the platform are under active review by European and national authorities. Given this, the public deserves clarity on: ✔ ownership structure ✔ compliance during transformation ✔ regulatory disclosures ✔ tax-incentivised financing ✔ relationship with entities under investigation (FTI/Meeting Point, CAM networks, RIC vehicles) These are standard governance questions. --- Part VI — A Public Call for Transparency To protect: citizens, investors, taxpayers, European institutions, the reputation of the Canary Islands tourism sector, I respectfully invite Canarian Hospitality / Mynd Hotels to publicly confirm: Whether all assets currently operated or promoted are free from: 1. unresolved ownership disputes 2. judicial protections 3. insolvency restrictions 4. procedural irregularities 5. pending European investigations 6. involvement in contested public funding structures This confirmation would help restore confidence and clarity. --- Part VII — Why This Statement Is Necessary Because: silence benefits only opacity, transparency benefits everyone, and the Canary Islands deserve a tourism economy built on legal certainty, not ambiguity. European institutions will act if local structures are unable or unwilling to ensure accountability. That is how the system is designed. --- Closing Statement This article is published in the public interest. It reflects issues already formally submitted to regulatory and judicial authorities. It makes no accusations of guilt. It calls only for transparency, clarification and oversight — the pillars of a functioning European democracy. For dialogue, clarification, or media enquiries: Gil Marer External Whistleblower (EU/Spain/Germany/UK) Contact for regulators, press & investigators