Public development of the mildeseos.com IT project and its publication on the internet

Apolozan case · ERDF fraud (Bilbao / Alicante / EU)

Public development of the mildeseos.com IT project and its publication on the internet

Historical internet archives have a singular evidentiary property: no one in the proceedings administers them. What they preserve, they preserve alike for everyone.

What the trail documents

  • Snapshots of the project mildeseos.com published and operational, with captures dated March and July 2012.
  • Activity and evolution of the development between 2012 and 2014 — the exact period to which the application (A.1), the valuations (A.10) and the payments (A.5) refer.
  • An archive trail spanning 2007 to 2021: the project precedes the case's companies by years and outlived the proceedings.

Against which assertions these captures are checked

The non-compliance order declares the investments not carried out (A.6); the accusation treats the project as lacking material reality (A.11) and cites it by another name (A.24). The public trail shows the project online, under its real name, throughout the entire period in question — and shows too that the check was within reach of any body with a browser, at any moment of the ten years of proceedings.

The hierarchy of sources that accumulates

On the existence of the project there concur: the signed and validated administrative valuation (A.10, A.5), the complainant's statement at the plenary acknowledging the investment (A.22, A.39.3), and this public trail from a neutral source. Three independent origins — administrative, testimonial and digital — and no judicial pronouncement confronting them.

How to verify it

The captures appear in the annex with their URLs and dates; the historical internet archive allows the consultation to be repeated today. It is, probably, the simplest verification in the entire file: type a name and look.

The factThe public internet archive preserves the project online during 2012–2014 under its real name — available to any verifier throughout the ten years in which its non-existence was maintained.
The questionHow is a thesis of non-existence maintained for a decade without a single recorded consultation of the public archive that refuted it in seconds?

Documentary evidence · A.25 · 30 March 2012 · Main documentary reconstruction
EuroFraud case file · every statement links to its document (A.X / DOC-XXXX). Evidentiary material; every person named is presumed innocent.