How Spain’s ‘King of Subletting’ Built a Millions-Euro Spin on Rental Rooms — and Why Investors and Tenants Are Calling Fraud

The influencer, the Lamborghini and a real estate Spain warning

You have seen the videos: designer shirts, a loud orange Lamborghini, a young man who promises fast returns and easy cash from room rentals. In Spain's property world this persona is connected to Miguel Krasnoruzhskikh Dvorkin, known as Miguel Marzal, the public face of brands including TATC / TACT Living, which has grown rapidly across Valencia, Barcelona, Madrid and other cities. Our analysis starts with a simple point: the buzz on social media has moved real money — and a growing pile of complaints.

If you are considering property or real estate Spain opportunities promoted online, this case offers practical lessons. Social-media charisma can hide operational and legal risks when a single person runs a distributed rental machine that mixes professional-looking marketing with opaque financial practices.

How the TATC model scaled — and where it started to break down

Marzal’s public story is familiar: early failures, a resilient comeback and a profitable idea — dividing apartments into multiple rooms and subletting them. According to company records reported in local press, the project’s embryonic stage dates to 2021 in Valencia, with a formal company appearing in the Mercantile Registry in 2022. Over the next few years the brand expanded into multiple Spanish cities and abroad.

Key corporate names linked to the structure include TATC Rent and Investments, Noinatra, Grosfera-Investments and Flip&Go Real Estate. Marzal uses social channels — more than 20,000 Instagram followers — to promote investment deals, mentoring packages and renovation projects. He advertised investor pitches promising returns of up to 28% on small pooled deals and has publicly offered returns of as high as 35% according to testimonies collected by local reporting.

The scaling tactics were straightforward:

• Lease or control apartments and renovate them to create multiple private rooms.
• Market rooms to students, expats and short-term renters to maximise yield per square metre.
• Attract third-party capital from small investors who fund renovations or receive a promised share of rents.
• Franchise or partner local operators who take the brand and run portfolios in individual cities.

That model is not illegal in itself. What produced serious fallout were operating methods and governance failures uncovered by tenants, owners, partners and municipal authorities.

Complaints from tenants: hygiene, utilities and vanished deposits

Investigations and dozens of direct testimonies reveal a consistent set of tenant complaints linked to properties managed under the TATC/TACT Living umbrella. The numbers matter: the reporting collected about sixty victims overall, including around forty tenants, and identified irregular conditions in at least 30 apartments across a dozen cities. The network reportedly managed roughly 3,000 rooms at its peak.

Common issues reported by tenants include:

• Unsanitary conditions, such as cockroach infestations and poorly cleaned rooms.
• Long utility outages — one tenant reported three months without electricity; others faced prolonged water problems or dirty water flooding rooms after a breakdown.
• Failure to return deposits, typically sums between €350 and €1,500, which many tenants accept as a loss because the cost of litigation outweighs the amounts.
• Unexpected utility charge demands, where tenants are billed after the fact for excess services. One tenant was sent a claim for €396 after moving into a high-occupancy apartment.
• Pressure and threats when tenants complained, including veiled eviction threats and a pattern of delayed or non-existent responses to repair requests.

Marzal’s public defence is that TATC has served nearly 4,000 tenants in five years, and that any withheld deposits were justified; he attributes many problems to rapid growth and tenant behaviour, insisting the business model can and will be corrected. That position has not stemmed a wave of formal complaints.

Owners, partners and workers also report losses and coercion

The fallout extends beyond tenants. Property owners who subcontracted management, private investors and former employees describe a pattern of opaque contracts, unrendered payments, and unauthorised alterations.

Notable allegations include:

• Owners reporting unauthorised renovations and removal of furniture, and in one case being asked to pay €24,000 to regain keys — a claim described as extortion by the owner involved.
• Damage to historical property during renovations; one organisation, the Barcelona Chess Club, received a negotiated settlement of €10,000 after asserting loss and damage tied to a TATC tenancy.
• Investors who lent capital expecting regular returns of 14% to 35% but then faced irregular payments, loan transfers to third parties without consent, and extended maturities.
• Workers and contractors alleging unpaid wages, late pay and off-the-books employment without Social Security registration.

Multiple former partners say the brand operated like a franchise where the parent company retained a high share of revenues — royalties and profit slices that some claimed reached 50% — while local operators were left with the operational burden and financial shortfall.

Legal, regulatory and municipal response

The case has attracted several formal channels of scrutiny. According to reporting:

• There are lawsuits in the courts from tenants, owners and workers.
• The Barcelona City Council has opened at least five sanctioning proceedings against companies in the TATC network for works and divisions that breached habitability rules.
• Complaints have been filed with regional consumer agencies and European bodies, and some municipalities initiated checks on unhygienic conditions and licensing.

Regulatory weak points that worsened the situation include inconsistent enforcement of emergency rental decrees and loopholes around deposit handling. In Catalonia landlords are required to place security deposits with the Institut Català del Sòl (Incasòl) for habitual rentals or for use other than housing, but reporting found deposit clauses that deferred deposit transfer until Incasòl made a claim.

A further complication is the use of cash. Former staff described significant cash flows into operations, including investor lending and tenant payments, which complicates traceability and legal recourse.

What this means for buyers, investors and expats in Spain

We have seen charismatic founders create rapid expansion in the short-term rental and co-living sector before. The TATC case shows how social influence can become a distribution channel for risky property enterprises. For anyone active in real estate Spain, here are applied checks and tactics you can implement immediately:

• Insist that security deposits are lodged with the proper public body where required (for Catalonia, Incasòl). Do not accept clauses delaying deposit registration.
• Pay and receive funds via traceable bank transfers. Cash payments reduce legal leverage and complicate recovery.
• Verify the company’s structure in the Mercantile Registry.