Adjunct Superintendent Resolution N.° 016-2025-SMV/10 — SMV — PE

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document in the framework of Law N° 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 016-2025-SMV/10 Lima, March 24, 2025 Subject: Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C ex Collective Fund Administrator is sanctioned with a fine of three (03) UIT for having committed one (1) serious offense typified in Annex XIII, section 2, subsection 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation, for not complying with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract celebrated with the associate and in the Regulation by not meeting the deadline to return contributions in favor of the associate at the end of its group in the liquidation stage. Likewise, it is declared that it is not appropriate to sanction Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C ex Collective Fund Administrator, for one (01) offense of a serious nature typified in Annex XIII, section 2, subsection 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation, referring to the resolution of the contract and, consequently, the administrative sanctioning procedure is concluded in this regard. Administered: Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C ex Collective Fund Administrator. Subject: Administrative sanctioning procedure File No.: 2024012957 SEEN:
The administrative file No. 2024012957, Report No.
1686-2024-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Superintendency of Prudential Compliance, and the defenses presented by Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C ex Collective Fund Administrator 1 ; and,

1 By Superintendent Resolution No. 093-2023-SMV/02 dated November 6, 2023, the operating authorization of Plan Rentable SAC as a Collective Fund Administrator was revoked. By Superintendent Resolution No. 012-2024-SMV/02 of February 2, 2024, the reconsideration appeal filed by Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. against Superintendent Resolution No. 093-2023- SMV/02 was declared unfounded.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

In accordance with Article 1 of Law N° 29782, Law for the Strengthening of the Supervision of the Securities Market, the name of the National Commission for the Supervision of Companies and Securities (CONASEV) is replaced by that of the Securities Market Superintendency (SMV), so that any reference to
CONASEV in legal norms shall be understood as referring to the SMV;
I. Facts
On January 12, 2018, the COMPLAINANT 2 signed
with Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C ex Collective Fund Administrator (hereinafter, PLAN RENTABLE) the Collective Fund Administration Contract, corresponding to the “Special Program Plan 60”, Group No. 6001, for the award of a purchase certificate for US$ 10,000.00 (Ten thousand and 00/100 US dollars) (hereinafter, CONTRACT) ;
Group No. 6001 of the “Special Program Plan 60”,
to which the COMPLAINANT belonged, had its last assembly (No. 60) on April 21, 2023 4 ;
By letter received on September 14,
2023, the COMPLAINANT filed a complaint with the Securities Market Superintendency (SMV) against PLAN RENTABLE, in which she states 5 that on January 12, 2018 she signed the CONTRACT, which began paying on February 22, 2018 and that the conclusion of Group No. 6001 would be January 20, 2023. She also indicates that on August 28 of 2020, PLAN RENTABLE resolved the aforementioned contract at her request;
In this sense, the COMPLAINANT states that in
January 2023, she contacted PLAN RENTABLE by email to coordinate how her money would be returned, since on January 20 of 2023 the CONTRACT would conclude;
In this line, the COMPLAINANT indicates that on January 11
of 2023, the PLAN RENTABLE administrator official in charge of relocations replied to her personal email CORREODEN that on April 24, 2023, her contributions would be returned, explaining the deductions according to the contract;
Therefore, according to the COMPLAINANT,
from January 2023 she waited until April 24, 2023 to receive her money. However, since they did not get in touch with her, on May 10, 2023, she called the office of the General Accountant of PLAN RENTABLE, Mr. GENERAL ACCOUNTANT OF PLAN RENTABLE, who told her, according to what the complainant indicated, that in August 2023 the transfer of her money to the bank account number that was

2 In the Annex attached to this resolution, the complete data of the natural persons to whom the names used in this resolution belong are detailed, and also, if applicable, the email addresses. 3 The information was obtained from the copy of the CONTRACT sent by PLAN RENTABLE to the SMV. 4 PLAN RENTABLE communicated the results of Assembly No. 60 of Group No. 6001 to the SMV on April 28, 2023, via File No. 2023019729. 5 The facts of the complaint are collected from Letter No. 01-2023-FDLGH and the document titled “Timeline Evidence Contract No. 6001-012-01”, presented by the COMPLAINANT.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document in the framework of Law N° 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship sent to her email CORREOCON. She states that she received the confirmation of receipt of said email on May 23, 2023;
8. Therefore, the COMPLAINANT indicates that from May to
August 2023 she waited for the return of her money; however, from the first day of August, she refers, she called every day to the office of the GENERAL ACCOUNTANT OF PLAN RENTABLE and sent emails from her personal email, previously indicated. She also states that she called the reception area of PLAN RENTABLE, from which sometimes they told her that he was on vacation and other times that he was not in the office. In this situation, she filed her complaint through the Virtual Complaints Book;
9. Likewise, the COMPLAINANT states that she called
several times to the complaints area, in which they only told her that they would pass her through to the accounting area, when she had called every day to the extension of the GENERAL ACCOUNTANT OF PLAN RENTABLE and he did not answer, according to what was mentioned by the COMPLAINANT;
10. In this sense, she stated that on August 29, 2023
she filed her complaint with the SMV and contacted via email the lawyers of the Investor Ombudsman area of the SMV;
11. Subsequently, on September 5, 2023, the COMPLAINANT states,
the Head of the Legal Department of PLAN RENTABLE sent her an email in response to the complaints filed in August;
12. Additionally, the COMPLAINANT adds that on September 11
of 2023, the Investor Ombudsman sent her an email through which she indicated that PLAN RENTABLE had sent them a copy of the transfer. However, the complainant indicates that in the movement detail 5092 her name does not appear and she was also unable to observe her account number, to verify that the deposit was indeed made correctly. She also states that PLAN RENTABLE did not send her the deposit voucher;
13. In this sense, the COMPLAINANT indicates that as of
the date of filing her complaint, PLAN RENTABLE had not returned her contributions, since regarding movement 5092, 3 (three) days had passed and the amount of the supposed return sent to her bank account did not appear;
14. The COMPLAINANT attaches as part of her
complaint, the following:
a. Document titled “Timeline”. b. Document titled “Timeline Contract No. 6001-012-01”.
c. Copy of “Schedule No. Contract: 6001-012-01” (hereinafter, PAYMENT SCHEDULE).
d. Copy of the Letter dated August 28, 2020, sent by PLAN RENTABLE to the COMPLAINANT, through which PLAN RENTABLE informs her among other things, that “(…) your request to RESOLVE the contract (…) has been approved and as of now it will pass to the quality of resolved” (hereinafter, LETTER OF AUGUST 28, 2020). e. Copy of the email sent by the Relocation worker OF PLAN RENTABLE to the COMPLAINANT on January 11, 2023.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document in the framework of Law N° 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship f. Copy of the email sent by the COMPLAINANT to the GENERAL ACCOUNTANT OF PLAN RENTABLE on March 27, 2023. g. Copy of the email sent by the COMPLAINANT to the GENERAL ACCOUNTANT OF PLAN RENTABLE on April 25, 2023. h. Copy of the email sent by the COMPLAINANT to the GENERAL ACCOUNTANT OF PLAN RENTABLE on July 24, 2023.
i. Copy of the email sent by the COMPLAINANT to the GENERAL ACCOUNTANT OF
PLAN RENTABLE on August 8, 2023. j. Copy of the email sent by the COMPLAINANT to the GENERAL ACCOUNTANT OF PLAN RENTABLE on August 24, 2023. k. Copy of the email sent by the COMPLAINANT to the GENERAL ACCOUNTANT OF PLAN RENTABLE on August 25, 2023.
l. Copy of the email sent by the COMPLAINANT to the GENERAL ACCOUNTANT OF
PLAN RENTABLE on August 28, 2023. m. COPY of the complaints filed by the COMPLAINANT with PLAN RENTABLE through the COMPLAINTS BOOK which would be dated August 24 and 28, 2023 according to what the complainant stated. n. COPY of the undated response letter sent by PLAN RENTABLE to the COMPLAINANT, regarding the complaints made in August 2023 through the COMPLAINTS BOOK. According to the COMPLAINANT, this letter would have been sent on September 5, 2023. o. Copy of the email sent by the COMPLAINANT to the emails CORREOJDL and cmarcas@planrentable.com.pe on September 5, 2023. p. Copy of the email from the Investor Ombudsman of the SMV to the COMPLAINANT, dated September 11, 2023, through which they inform her that representatives of PLAN RENTABLE communicated that on September 9, 2023 they made the transfer of the return and attached proof of the deposit.
15. By letter presented to the SMV on September 25
of 2023, the COMPLAINANT manifested the withdrawal of the complaint filed against PLAN RENTABLE;
16. With Letter No. 4377-2023-SMV/10.3, notified on
September 26, 2023 (hereinafter, LETTER), the complaint filed by the COMPLAINANT was transferred to PLAN RENTABLE, in order for her to submit the corresponding comments and she was requested, among other information, the following documentation and/or information:
“(…) b. Indicate the current status of the CONTRACT signed between her represented party and the COMPLAINANT.
c. Calculation and detail of the amount of money that would correspond to return to the
COMPLAINANT for the contributions she made, in relation to the CONTRACT; as well as the deductions and/or penalties applicable, if applicable. (…)

g. Any other information and/or documentation that she considers pertinent to the case and that allows clarifying the facts complained about. (…)”.
17. On October 5, 2023, PLAN RENTABLE sent to
the SMV its comments and the information required via the LETTER (hereinafter, RESPONSE).
18. In this sense, PLAN RENTABLE presented the
following documentation:
a. Copy of the CONTRACT, signed on January 12, 2018 by the COMPLAINANT and PLAN RENTABLE. b. Copy of the Contribution Settlement made to the CONTRACT (hereinafter, CONTRIBUTION SETTLEMENT).
c. Current Account Statement as of October 5, 2023 corresponding to the CONTRACT
(hereinafter, ACCOUNT STATEMENT).
19. With Letter No. 486-2024-SMV/10.3 notified on February 7
of 2024 (hereinafter, LETTER 1), PLAN RENTABLE was requested additional information;
20. On February 15, 2024, PLAN RENTABLE attended
to the request made via LETTER 1 (hereinafter, RESPONSE 1) and presented the following documentation:
a. Copy of the email sent on September 19, 2023 by the GENERAL ACCOUNTANT OF PLAN RENTABLE (CORREOCON) to the HEAD OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT (CORREOJDL), through which he communicates that the transfer operation was performed on September 9, 2023, but that the rejection of the operation by the bank was communicated to them recently. In said email, an image of the transfer and reversal operations is attached, without date, as well as the foreign bank account provided by the COMPLAINANT. b. Copy of the email sent on September 21, 2023 by the COMPLAINANT to Mr. Sullon Yarleque, Yimy 6 , through which the COMPLAINANT, among others, communicates her authorization for the amount corresponding to the return of her contributions to be deposited into a third party's bank account, for which she attaches the bank account data and the Power of Attorney signed by the COMPLAINANT, through which she manifests her authorization (hereinafter, POWER OF ATTORNEY). The POWER OF ATTORNEY and the bank account data are also presented by PLAN RENTABLE.
c. Copy of the email sent on September 21, 2023 by the HEAD OF THE
LEGAL DEPARTMENT (CORREOJDL), to the email CORREODEN, corresponding to the COMPLAINANT. Through which they send her the proof of the deposit for the amount of US$ 3,270.83 (Three thousand two hundred seventy and 83/100 US dollars) corresponding to the return of contributions of the COMPLAINANT, to the bank account provided by her. d. Copy of the email sent on September 21, 2023 by CORREODEN to the email CORREOJDL, through which the COMPLAINANT communicates the agreement with the deposit. e. Associate Payment Report as of February 9, 2024 (hereinafter, PAYMENT REPORT).
21. With Letter No. 1242-2024-SMV/10.3
notified on April 3, 2024, (hereinafter, LETTER OF CHARGES), an administrative sanctioning procedure was initiated against PLAN RENTABLE;
22. It should be noted that, with Letter No. 1285-2024-
SMV/10.3, notified on April 3, 2024, the COMPLAINANT was communicated the acceptance of the withdrawal filed 7 ;
23. With the LETTER OF CHARGES, PLAN
RENTABLE was granted a term of seven (07) business days to present the defenses, a term that expired on April 12, 2024. However, it should be noted that on April 15 of 2024 PLAN RENTABLE presented a letter through file 2023039274, file that originated with the presentation of the complaint, in which although it refers to a different letter than the LETTER OF CHARGES, some declarations are observed that would be related to the present sanctioning procedure, so it was incorporated into the present file (hereinafter, LETTER OF APRIL 15, 2024);
24. Likewise, by letter presented on December 6
of 2024 in file 2023039274, in response to Letter No. 5415-2024- SMV/10.3, PLAN RENTABLE reiterates what was stated in the LETTER OF APRIL 15, 2024.
25. The charges formulated against PLAN RENTABLE, as well as
the defenses raised by the aforementioned company have been the subject of evaluation in Report No. 1686-2024-SMV/10.3, which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Adjunct Superintendency;
26. In observance of the Principle of Due
Process contemplated both in Article IV, section 1.2., of the Preliminary Title and in article 248, subsection 2, of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law, Law N° 27444, approved by Supreme Decree N° 004-2019- JUS (hereinafter, TUO OF THE LPAG), via Letter No. 5701-2024-SMV/10, it was made available to PLAN RENTABLE the administrative file to which the present resolution refers for its review;
27. By Adjunct Superintendent Resolution No.
061-2024-SMV/10 of December 17, 2024, it was resolved to extend in an exceptional manner for an additional term of three (03) months, the term for the resolution of the present administrative sanctioning procedure
II. Issues to Determine
28. In the present administrative procedure, at
the criteria of this Adjunct Superintendency of Prudential Supervision, it corresponds to determine the following:
a. Whether PLAN RENTABLE incurred or not in an offense provided for in Annex XIII,
section 2, subsection 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not having complied with
what was established in the Contract regarding the resolution of the same. b. Whether PLAN RENTABLE incurred or not in an offense provided for in Annex XIII,
section 2, subsection 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not having complied with
the deadline to return contributions in favor of the COMPLAINANT, as well as for having made a deduction to the contributions to be returned to the COMPLAINANT that did not correspond.
c. Whether it is appropriate or not to impose a sanction on PLAN RENTABLE;
III. Analysis
3.1 Applicable Normative
29. Regarding the CONTRACT, article 21 of
the Regulation of the Collective Funds System and its Administrator Companies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 020-2014-SMV/01 and its amendments (hereinafter, REGULATION) provides:
“Article 21.- Contract
The Contract is of a private nature and has a collective character, it regulates the relations between the Associates and the Administrator, and in it the rights and obligations of both parties are established; its content is governed by what is established in article 95 of the Regulation. (…)”. (Underline added);
3.1.1 ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRACT AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSOCIATE
30. With regard to the resolution of the contract by the
unawarded associate, article 99 8
, subsection a) of the REGULATION, provides the following:
“Article 99.- Resolution of Contract
(…)
The Associate may resolve the Contract at any time, provided that he complies with the following conditions:
a) When it comes to an unawarded Associate, it will be necessary that he communicates his intention to resolve the Contract to the Administrator through the means established in the Contract.

8 Text in force at the date at which the resolution of the contracts corresponded.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document in the framework of Law N° 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship The Associate with a resolved Contract will participate in quarterly raffles and if he is benefited by the raffle, the Capital Quotas contributed will be returned to him, deducting the penalties established in the Contract. If he is not benefited by the raffle, the Associate with a resolved Contract will receive his contributions at the end of the Group, with the deductions that correspond according to what is established in the Contract. (…)” (Underline added).
31. Likewise, Clause 4, section 4.4, subsection a) of the
CONTRACT establishes:
“4. OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM
(…)
4.4 UNILATERAL RESOLUTION OF CONTRACTS BY ASSOCIATES: THE
ASSOCIATE MAY RESOLVE THE CONTRACT AT ANY TIME, WHENEVER HE COMPLIES WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
a) IN THE CASE OF AN UNAWARDED CONTRACT IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR THE ASSOCIATE TO COMMUNICATE HIS INTENTION TO RESOLVE THE CONTRACT TO PLAN RENTABLE BY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION. THE SAID ASSOCIATE WITH A RESOLVED CONTRACT WILL PARTICIPATE IN QUARTERLY RAFFLES AND IF HE IS BENEFITED BY THE RAFFLE, THE CONTRIBUTED CAPITAL QUOTAS WILL BE RETURNED TO HIM, DEDUCTING THE PENALTIES ESTABLISHED IN THE CONTRACT. IF HE IS NOT BENEFITED BY THE RAFFLE, THE ASSOCIATE WITH A RESOLVED CONTRACT WILL RECEIVE ONLY HIS CONTRIBUTED CAPITAL QUOTAS, PREVIOUSLY DEDUCTING TWO (02) PER CONCEPT OF PENALTY. (…)”;
3.1.2 ON THE DEADLINE FOR RETURNING CONTRIBUTIONS AT THE END OF THE GROUP AND THE
ASSOCIATE'S OBLIGATION TO PAY LATE FEES
32. Article 122, fifth and sixth paragraph of the
REGULATION, establishes the procedure applicable for the return of contributions to unawarded associates with a resolved contract after the first assembly in which he is entitled to participate:
“Article 122.- Return of contributions
(…)
In other cases, when it comes to Associates with some unawarded Contract, the return of their contributions can be made through raffles in Assembly according to what is established in subsection a) of article 99 of the Regulation, deducting the penalties established in the Contract. To Associates with a resolved contract who were not benefited by the raffle, their contributions will be returned at the end of the Group. (…).” (Underline added);
33. Article 123 of the REGULATION provides the
moment when a Group is considered concluded.
“Article 123.- Conclusion of the Group

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AWARD ASSEMBLIES WILL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE ASSOCIATE WHO IS DELINQUENT AT THE TIME OF ITS HOLDING. THE DELINQUENT ASSOCIATE MAY REHABILITATE THEIR CONTRACT BY PAYING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OWED, PLUS A COLLECTION EXPENSE NOT EXCEEDING TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (25%), FOR EACH TOTAL OVERDUE INSTALLMENT. IF THE CONTRACT REMAINS IN A DELINQUENT STATUS FOR MORE THAN THREE (03) CONSECUTIVE MONTHS, IT WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY RESCINDED AND IT GRANTS PROFITABLE PLAN THE AUTHORITY TO REPLACE THE ASSOCIATE WHOSE CONTRACT HAS BEEN RESCINDED AND/OR APPLY WHAT IS ESTABLISHED IN CLAUSE 4.3 IF APPLICABLE. (…).”
38. Likewise, clause 7, numeral 7.4, literals e)
and f) of the CONTRACT provides:
“7. OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS
(…)
7.4 CONSTITUTE OBLIGATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATE
(…) e) THE ASSOCIATE OBLIGATES THEMSELVES TO PAY THE REGISTRATION INSTALLMENT AS WELL AS THE PAYMENT OF ANY PENALTIES AND EXPENSES AGREED UPON IN THE CONTRACT. IF THE ASSOCIATE AGREES WITH PROFITABLE PLAN TO DEFER THE TOTAL OR PARTIAL PAYMENT OF THE REGISTRATION INSTALLMENT, THEY OBLIGATE THEMSELVES TO CANCEL SUCH AMOUNT AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY OF THE AWARDED PURCHASE CERTIFICATE. IF THE CONTRACT IS RESCINDED AND NO AWARD WAS MADE WITH THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE, THE ASSOCIATE AUTHORIZES THAT THE TOTAL OR PARTIAL PAYMENT OF THE REGISTRATION INSTALLMENT, AS WELL AS THE EXPENSES AND PENALTIES ASSUMED BE DEDUCTED FROM THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE RETURNED TO WHICH THEY HAVE RIGHT ACCORDING TO WHAT IS ESTABLISHED IN CLAUSE 4. f) THE DELINQUENT ASSOCIATE OBLIGATES THEMSELVES TO PAY THE EXPENSES INHERENT TO COLLECTION MANAGEMENT, (…).” (…).”
3.2 Charges
3.2.1. ON THE RESCINDING OF THE CONTRACT AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSOCIATE
39. According to the complaint, the COMPLAINANT
stated that on August 28, 2020 PROFITABLE PLAN rescinded the CONTRACT at her request, in accordance with the LETTER OF AUGUST 28, 2020, presented by the COMPLAINANT and in which it is appreciated that PROFITABLE PLAN communicates to the COMPLAINANT among other things, that “(…) your request to RESCIND the contract (…) has been approved and as of now it will pass to the status of rescinded”;
40. On the other hand, through a document presented to the SMV
on October 05, 2023, PROFITABLE PLAN stated that the current situation of the CONTRACT, information requested via the OFFICE, is that of rescinded – liquidated and that

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship the date of rescission of the CONTRACT was October 01, 2020, which was notified physically and by email to the COMPLAINANT;
41. However, PROFITABLE PLAN did not present evidence
to prove communication to the COMPLAINANT of the rescission of the CONTRACT on October 01, 2020;
42. Therefore, it must be noted that according to what is
provided in article 99 of the REGULATION, in conjunction with what is established in Clause 4, numeral 4.4, literal a) of the CONTRACT, the unassigned associate has the right to rescind the contract at any time; to do so, they must communicate their intention to rescind the contract to PROFITABLE PLAN, through written communication, which the COMPLAINANT did as derived from the response provided by PROFITABLE PLAN to the complainant with the LETTER OF AUGUST 28, 2020;
43. In this sense, considering that the COMPLAINANT
communicated in writing her intention to rescind the CONTRACT, exercising her right as an associate established in clause 4, numeral 4.4, literal a) of the CONTRACT, the rescission of the CONTRACT should have occurred on August 28, 2020, the date on which PROFITABLE PLAN accepted the request to rescind the CONTRACT;
44. Now, from the review of the information sent by
PROFITABLE PLAN to the SMV, through the “Associate Status File (SIT)”9 on September 18, 2023 and registered in the SMV's collective fund information systems, it was verified that regarding the CONTRACT, the COMPLAINANT shows as withdrawal date 10 October 01, 2020. Likewise, in the ACCOUNT STATEMENT it is detailed that the CONTRACT was rescinded on October 01, 2020;
45. That is, according to what was reported by PROFITABLE PLAN, the CONTRACT was rescinded only on October 01, 2021;
46. Consequently, the CONTRACT should have had the
status of rescinded since August 28, 2020, the date on which PROFITABLE PLAN gave response to the request to rescind the CONTRACT of the COMPLAINANT and not on a later date, that is, October 01, 2020; since the COMPLAINANT complied with the conditions established in the CONTRACT, for its rescission;
47. Therefore, it was attributed to PROFITABLE PLAN that it
would not have complied with observing what is provided by article 99, literal a) of the REGULATION and what is established in clause 4, numeral 4.4, literal a) of the CONTRACT and in that sense it would have incurred in one (1) infraction classified as serious, according to Annex XIII, numeral 2, clause 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes infraction: “Not complying with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract celebrated with the associate”;
3.2.2. REGARDING THE RETURN MADE TO THE COMPLAINANT
48. According to the complaint, the COMPLAINANT
pointed out that PROFITABLE PLAN did not comply with making the return of its contributions

According to what is stated in the “Technical Specifications Manual for the submission to the SMV of information of collective fund administrator companies” approved by Superintendent Resolution No. 102-2016- SMV/02. 10 Date on which an associate's contract ceases to belong to a group, in this case it corresponds to a rescinded contract.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship made in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 and that the group to which it belonged had already finished;
49. Regarding this, on January 12, 2018, the
COMPLAINANT signed the CONTRACT with PROFITABLE PLAN, said contract was part of Group No. 6001 of the “Special Program Plan 60”, which had a validity period of 60 months 11;
50. From the review of the information presented by
PROFITABLE PLAN to the SMV, it was verified that on April 28, 2020 12 PROFITABLE PLAN communicated the results of Assembly No. 60 of Group No. 6001, held on April 21, 2023;
51. In such sense, taking into account the date of
holding of the last assembly of Group No. 6001, the end date of the referenced group 13 was April 21, 2023, this due to the extension of the assemblies in person, as a consequence of the National State of Emergency 14;
52. In that context, considering that the CONTRACT
was rescinded on August 28, 2020 and that Group No. 6001 ended on April 21, 2023, at that date the COMPLAINANT had the status of associate without well-awarded whose contract was rescinded after the first assembly corresponding to Group No. 6001 in which she was entitled to participate (February 22, 2018) 15, so she was entitled to the return of her contributions at the end of the group with the deductions that correspond according to the CONTRACT, in accordance with what is established in article 122 of the REGULATION;
53. Likewise, according to clause 7, numerals
7.1, literal i) and 7.3 literal b) of the CONTRACT, the unassigned associate whose contract has been rescinded has the right to the return of the value of the capital installments contributed, in the terms provided for in the collective fund administration contract, whether in quarterly raffles, when the group is active, or in the group liquidation stage, as was the case for the COMPLAINANT;
54. In such sense, it is worth indicating that clause 6.0 of the
CONTRACT establishes that group liquidation must be carried out within ninety (90) business days following the termination or end of the group. Likewise, the

According to numeral 6 of the General Conditions of the CONTRACT, the duration period of Group No. 6001 was of sixty (60) months.
File No. 2023019729
According to article 123 of the REGULATION, a Group will be considered completed when the duration period of the Group established in the Contract has expired. By Circular No. 130-2020-SMV/10.2 of March 16, 2020, the SMV communicated to the companies collective fund administrators that, by virtue of what is provided in Supreme Decree No. 044-2020-PCM, the which declared the National State of Emergency due to the serious circumstances that affected the life of the Nation as consequence of the outbreak of COVID-19, they must guarantee that during the period of state of emergency it would comply at least with the virtual holding of associate assemblies or, if applicable, the extension of deadlines for in-person assemblies; and that decision must be published on the website of said companies for the knowledge of their associates. PROFITABLE PLAN stated that based on the recommendation made by the SMV due to the COVID pandemic – 19, the company decided that in the different groups the assemblies of March, April and May of 2020, which according to PROFITABLE PLAN was notified to the associates, virtually, through social networks and through the website, since there was social immobilization, so the last assembly of Group No. 6001 was April 21, 2023. By File No. 2018006717, PROFITABLE PLAN sends the Results of the Inaugural Assembly celebrated on February 22, 2018.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship clause 7.1, literal g) of the CONTRACT, establishes that PROFITABLE PLAN is obligated to carry out the liquidation of the groups timely;
55. Considering that Group No. 6001 of the “Special
Program Plan 60”, to which the COMPLAINANT belonged, ended on April 21, 2023, PROFITABLE PLAN had a deadline until August 31, 2023 (90 business days after) to make the return of the contributions corresponding in favor of the COMPLAINANT, contributions made with respect to the CONTRACT;
56. It is worth noting that, in accordance with what is stated in the
complaint, the COMPLAINANT went to the Investor Defender of the SMV (hereinafter, INVESTOR DEFENDER) through communication entered through the Institutional Web Portal on August 29, 2023, with the purpose of achieving the return of her contributions made with respect to the CONTRACT, since she did not receive response from PROFITABLE PLAN. In response, PROFITABLE PLAN via email on September 11, 2023, informed the INVESTOR DEFENDER that on September 09, 2023 it had proceeded with the return of the contributions to the COMPLAINANT and attached as support an international bank transfer identified with movement No. 5092, which was sent to the COMPLAINANT by the INVESTOR DEFENDER via email on the same date;
57. However, according to what was stated by the
COMPLAINANT in her complaint, in the detail of movement No. 5092 with operation date of September 9, 2023, her name or the number of her bank account provided to PROFITABLE PLAN did not appear;
58. In such sense, when forwarding the complaint,
PROFITABLE PLAN stated in the RESPONSE that on September 09, 2023 it made the deposit corresponding to the foreign account and SWIFT code sent by the COMPLAINANT, but without attaching the corresponding support. However; according to PROFITABLE PLAN, on September 11, 2023, the money deposited to the account of the COMPLAINANT, was returned to the accounts of PROFITABLE PLAN. It sent as support the following image:
59. In this way, it was required of PROFITABLE PLAN
via the OFFICE 1 to justify the reason why the international transfer of September 9 2023 did not materialize, as well as the corresponding support in which

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship it can be verified the date of said operation, so in its RESPONSE 1 it stated that on September 09, 2023 the transfer was made, but that for reasons beyond PROFITABLE PLAN's control said operation was rejected by the receiving bank. However PROFITABLE PLAN sent as support the same image indicated in the previous consideration. That is, PROFITABLE PLAN did not present the support that evidences that the transfer made on September 9, 2023 was made in favor of the complainant, nor the support of the reversal regarding said operation;
60. Likewise, the rejection of said transfer operation
was not communicated to the COMPLAINANT nor to the INVESTOR DEFENDER, in order to be able to return the contributions to the COMPLAINANT, this is deduced because the COMPLAINANT in her complaint made on September 14, 2023 stated that regarding movement No. 5092 three days had passed and the amount of the return still did not appear in her bank account; and from the email of September 19, 2023 sent by the HEAD OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT (CORREOJDL) to the GENERAL ACCOUNTANT of PROFITABLE PLAN, through which he informs her that on that date he received a complaint from the COMPLAINANT in which he indicated that he had not been made the return of his contributions and inquiring about the status of the return to respond to her;
61. PROFITABLE PLAN via the email of September 20
2023 responds the complaint of the COMPLAINANT, by which he would have communicated the reversal to the COMPLAINANT, as derived from the email sent by the COMPLAINANT on September 21, 2023 to Mr. Sullón, in which, among others, he states that it is impossible for his account to have been inoperative. In that same email, the COMPLAINANT sends a new local bank account number and the authorization for the deposit in said account of the return of contributions;
62. In that sense, PROFITABLE PLAN presented the CONTRIBUTION LIQUIDATION and a deposit receipt 16 for the amount of US$ 3,270.83 (Three thousand two hundred seventy and 83/100 US dollars) made on September 21, 2023, with which PROFITABLE PLAN states it accredits the return of the contributions corresponding, in favor of the COMPLAINANT. The COMPLAINANT, via email on the same date, confirmed the deposit made by PROFITABLE PLAN;
63. From this it is evident that PROFITABLE PLAN made the
return of the contributions corresponding to the COMPLAINANT, after the deadline established for the liquidation of the group had expired, that is, August 31, 2023, the deadline for the return of contributions according to the CONTRACT,
64. However, in the CONTRIBUTION LIQUIDATION a discount is made for the amount of US$ 147.50 (one hundred forty-seven and 50/100
US dollars) for the concept of three (3) overdue installments, regarding which in RESPONSE 1, PROFITABLE PLAN stated that the delinquency installment is calculated having as base the associate's capital installment (DELINQUENCY: 25% + VAT OF THE CAPITAL INSTALLMENT) and that the delinquencies correspond to the three (3) installments prior to the rescission of the contract, being the following:

Installment 27 FV (24/07/2020)
Installment 28 FV (21/08/2020)
Installment 29 FV (18/09/2020)

Likewise, in the PAYMENT REPORT the due dates indicated by PROFITABLE PLAN for installments 27, 28 and 29 are observed, and that the status of Installment 27 is “On Account” and of Installments 28 and 29 is “To Pay”;
However, considering that the rescission of the
CONTRACT was on August 28, 2020, the referenced contract ceased to have effects so that to the COMPLAINANT she was no longer obligated to pay Installment 29 of the CONTRACT corresponding to the month of September 2020, since its due date was September 18, 2020, the date on which the CONTRACT was rescinded;
Therefore, although according to clause 3,
numeral 3.9 and clause 7, numeral 7.4, literal e) and f) the delinquent associate is obligated to pay the collection management expenses at 25% of the Total Overdue Installment, said payment concept corresponded to Installments 27 and 28 but not to installment 29, since the rescission of the CONTRACT occurred before the due date of Installment 29;
In this way, considering the CONTRIBUTION LIQUIDATION and the deposit made to the bank account of the COMPLAINANT for the concept of return of contributions, PROFITABLE PLAN would have made a discount of US$ 49.17 for the concept of late fees to the contributions to be returned to the COMPLAINANT, which should not have been made according to what is established in the CONTRACT;
Consequently, PROFITABLE PLAN would have made
a discount to the contributions to be returned to the COMPLAINANT for the concept of late fees that should not have been made and in that sense it would not have complied with returning to the COMPLAINANT the entirety of the contributions that correspond to her, according to what was exposed above. According to what was exposed, PROFITABLE PLAN did not comply with observing what is provided in clause 3, numeral 3.9, 6.0 and clause 7, numeral 7.1, literals i) and g) and numeral 7.3 literal b), of CONTRACT 1, insofar as it did not comply with the deadline to make the return of contributions in favor of the associate and additionally, it would have made a discount to said contributions for the concept of late fees that did not correspond, with which it made a return of contributions for an amount lower than what corresponds, according to what is established in the CONTRACT, in concordance with what is provided by article 99, literal a) and article 122 of the REGULATION;
Therefore, it was attributed to PROFITABLE PLAN that it would have
incurred in two (2) infractions classified as serious, according to Annex XIII, numeral 2, clause 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes infraction: “Not complying with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract celebrated with the associate”;
3.3 On the Defenses
With the CHARGES OFFICE, a deadline of seven (07) business days was granted to PROFITABLE PLAN for the presentation of defenses, a deadline that expired on April 12, 2024. However, it must be noted that on April 15

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

2024 PLAN RENTABLE filed a written submission through file 2023039274, file that originated with the presentation of the complaint, in which although it refers to a document other than the NOTICE OF CHARGES, it is noted that some declarations would be related to the present sanctioning procedure, so it was incorporated into the present file (hereinafter, WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF APRIL 15, 2024);
72. Likewise, through a submission presented on December 6,
2024 in file 2023039274, in response to Letter No. 5415-2024- SMV/10.3, PLAN RENTABLE reiterates what was stated in the WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF APRIL 15, 2024;
73. Regarding this, through the WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF APRIL 15,
2024, PLAN RENTABLE allegedly recognizes the commission of the infractions and requests that it be considered that i) part of the delay was because the account of the COMPLAINANT, to which its payment was requested, was closed; ii) that the associate desisted from continuing with the complaint filed against PLAN RENTABLE; and iii) how they could act in the face of a future sanction if they can no longer act as an EAFC;

3.4 On the Evaluation of the Defenses
3.4.1 ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRACT AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSOCIATE

According to the NOTICE OF CHARGES, PLAN RENTABLE was charged with “Not complying with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract celebrated with the associate”, that is, that it had not complied with
observing what is established in clause 4, numeral 4.4, letter a) of the CONTRACT, in concordance with what is provided by article 99, letter a) of the REGULATION, considering that the resolution of the CONTRACT should have occurred on August 28, 2020, a date on which PLAN RENTABLE would have accepted the request for resolution of the CONTRACT made by the COMPLAINANT, according to the letter of the same date presented with the complaint and not on October 1, 2020 as PLAN RENTABLE reported;
Regarding this, it is necessary to point out that in the narration
of the facts of the complaint, the COMPLAINANT stated that on August 28, 2020 PLAN RENTABLE resolved the CONTRACT at its request and presented with its complaint the LETTER OF AUGUST 28, 2020, in which it is observed, among others, the following: “(…) your request to RESOLVE the contract (…) has been approved and as of today it will pass to the status of resolved”;
Nevertheless, PLAN RENTABLE in compliance with the provisions established in the “Technical Specifications Manual for the submission to the SMV of information from collective fund management companies”, approved by Superintendent Resolution No. 102-2016-SMV/02
(hereinafter, TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL), informed the SMV, through the “Associate Status File (SIT)”17 , that the date of resolution of the CONTRACT occurred on October 1, 2020 (withdrawal date), as well as it informed in the ACCOUNT STATEMENT and in its RESPONSE;
Additionally, with the RESPONSE, PLAN
RENTABLE presented the CONTRIBUTION LIQUIDATION, in which it informed that the deductions to the contributions to be returned to the COMPLAINANT were composed of the Registration

As stated in the “Technical Specifications Manual for the submission to the SMV of information from collective fund management companies”, approved by Superintendent Resolution No. 102-2016-SMV/02.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría fee (US$ 590.00), penalty of 2 capital installments (US$ 166.67 *2) and for Delinquency (US$ 49.17 *3), that is, a total of US$ 1070.85 and in this sense, an amount to return of US$ 3,270.84. Likewise, through RESPONSE 1, PLAN RENTABLE stated that the delinquencies correspond to the three (3) installments prior to the resolution of the contract (October 1, 2020), being those corresponding to Installment 27 FV (07/24/2020), to Installment 28 FV (08/21/2020) and to Installment 29 FV (09/18/2020);
78. Regarding the deductions, it is necessary to indicate
that with the complaint, the COMPLAINANT presented a Letter without a date, which was sent by PLAN RENTABLE to its email, according to what was stated by the COMPLAINANT, which was responded to on September 05, 2023 by the COMPLAINANT in accordance with the email that it also presents with its complaint, which were not considered at the time of determining the charge imputed. In the Letter without a date it is observed, among others, the following: “a) That at all times my representative has indicated the amount of return corresponding to the collective contract of reference”. In the email of September 05, 2023 it is observed that the COMPLAINANT responds as follows: “At no time did I refuse the deductions made for the penalties corresponding. The last time I had telephone contact with the General Accountant … (May 10, 2023) (…), he explained to me that they would deduct 2 penalties of $ 240.42 and the registration fee $ 590, which is not the subject of complaint”;
79. It should be noted that the total of the deductions
mentioned by the COMPLAINANT amounts to US$ 1,070.84; with which the value to settle for the same amounted to US$ 3,270.83, a figure that was made available to the COMPLAINANT through a bank deposit on September 21, 2023;
80. Being so, it follows from this that the information
presented by PLAN RENTABLE on the total of the deductions made to the contributions to be returned to the COMPLAINANT, is the same as the total of the deductions that PLAN RENTABLE had already explained to the COMPLAINANT on May 10, 2023, according to what was expressed by the COMPLAINANT itself in its email of September 05, 2023, and with respect to which it stated that it had no complaint. Which in turn, is congruent with the date of resolution of the CONTRACT reported by PLAN RENTABLE, given that PLAN RENTABLE made said deductions considering the date of resolution reported to the SMV, that is, October 1, 2020;
81. Likewise, it is necessary to warn from the present
file, that it has not been the subject of a complaint by the COMPLAINANT, neither before nor after the return of its contributions by PLAN RENTABLE, the date of resolution of the CONTRACT; as well as it has not been the subject of a complaint or of questioning by the COMPLAINANT the total amount that PLAN RENTABLE finally returned on September 21, 2023 and which corresponds to the amount detailed in the CONTRIBUTION LIQUIDATION, of which the COMPLAINANT already had knowledge, before the date of formulation of the complaint, according to the documents presented by the COMPLAINANT;
82. In this sense, although in the file there is the
LETTER OF AUGUST 28, 2020, with which, according to the facts narrated in the complaint, the CONTRACT would have been resolved and which in principle could have led to state that the contractual resolution occurred on that date, the truth is that, the facts that derive from the file, previously mentioned, make it so that there are doubts

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría reasonable doubts that do not allow to determine reliably that the resolution of the CONTRACT should have occurred or occurred on August 28, 2020;
83. In that context, it must be stated that article
248, numeral 9 of the TUO of the LPAG, establishes that the sanctioning power is governed, among others, by the principle of Presumption of Lawfulness which provides that “Entities must presume that the regulated parties have acted in accordance with their duties unless they have evidence to the contrary”;.
84. Being so, taking into account that PLAN RENTABLE in compliance with the provisions established in the TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL reported that the date of resolution of the CONTRACT was October 1, 2020, as well as in the ACCOUNT STATEMENT, which is congruent with what was accepted by the
COMPLAINANT and with the facts that derive from the complaint, mentioned previously, based on the Principle of Presumption of Lawfulness, this allows to consider that PLAN RENTABLE has acted in accordance with its obligations in the information provided to the SMV through the respective files, with respect to the situation, in this case, of the CONTRACT, which includes the date of resolution of the CONTRACT;
85. Consequently, according to what was stated
previously, in the present file there is no necessary support that allows to prove the non-compliance with the CONTRACT by PLAN RENTABLE;
86. Therefore, insofar as there is no
sufficient evidence that allows to prove the non-compliance with the CONTRACT, it does not correspond to sanction PLAN RENTABLE for the present charge imputed, so it must be considered concluded at this point the administrative sanctioning procedure;

3.4.2 WITH RESPECT TO THE RETURN MADE TO THE COMPLAINANT

With respect to the present charge, it must be indicated
that, PLAN RENTABLE had a maximum deadline of 90 business days, subsequent to the completion of Group No. 6001 (April 21, 2023), to effect the return of the contributions of the COMPLAINANT for the CONTRACT. That is, PLAN RENTABLE had until August 31, 2023; however PLAN RENTABLE presented the CONTRIBUTION LIQUIDATION and a deposit receipt with which it accredited having effected return of contributions to the COMPLAINANT on September 21, 2023;
Likewise, according to the CONTRIBUTION LIQUIDATION
and receipt of the deposit made to the bank account of the COMPLAINANT for the concept of return of contributions, PLAN RENTABLE made a deduction of US$
49.17 for the concept of delinquency on the contributions to be returned to the COMPLAINANT, which should not have been made. Since, although according to what is established in the CONTRACT,
the delinquent associate is obliged to pay the collection management expenses for the overdue installment, said concept corresponded to be paid by the COMPLAINANT only for installments 27 and 28 but not for installment 29 according to the PAYMENT REPORT, given that the resolution of the CONTRACT (August 28, 2020) occurred before the due date of installment 29 (September 18, 2020), that is, after the CONTRACT ceased to have legal effects, as a consequence of the contractual resolution;
With respect to the delay in the return of the
contributions, in the WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF APRIL 15, 2024, PLAN RENTABLE states that, this would have been due to the fact that the account of the COMPLAINANT, to which its payment was requested, was closed. Regarding this, it must be stated that although PLAN RENTABLE stated at a first

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría moment that it effected the return of contributions to the COMPLAINANT through the bank transfer abroad that would have been made on September 09, 2023, subsequently in response to the complaint filed and transferred to PLAN RENTABLE, in which the COMPLAINANT stated that in the detail of the referred transfer her name did not appear, nor the number of her bank account provided to PLAN RENTABLE, this stated that on September 11, 2023, the money deposited to the account of the COMPLAINANT, was returned to the accounts of PLAN RENTABLE and that for reasons unrelated to PLAN RENTABLE said operation was rejected by the receiving bank. Without said situation having been communicated to the COMPLAINANT, prior to the formalization of its complaint;
90. Nevertheless, despite the requirements
made, PLAN RENTABLE did not present the support that evidences that said bank transfer that it stated to have effected on September 9, 2023, was made in favor of the COMPLAINANT, nor the support that evidences the reversal with respect to said operation. Likewise, although subsequently, the COMPLAINANT provided PLAN RENTABLE with a local bank account for the deposit of the return of its contributions, it also stated that it was impossible that its foreign bank account had been inactive. That is, PLAN RENTABLE has not presented any support that allows to prove that the foreign bank account provided by the COMPLAINANT to PLAN RENTABLE, had been inactive as it has stated.
91. In this sense, PLAN RENTABLE effected the return
of the contributions corresponding to the COMPLAINANT, after the deadline had expired for the return of contributions according to the CONTRACT;
92. Consequently, it has been proven that PLAN
RENTABLE did not comply with observing what is provided in clause 6.0 and clause 7, numeral 7.1, letters i) and g) and numeral 7.3 letter b), of the CONTRACT, in concordance with what is provided by article 99, letter a) and article 122 of the REGULATION;
93. Therefore, PLAN RENTABLE committed one (1)
infraction classified as serious, according to Annex XIII, numeral 2, clause 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
94. On the other hand, given that in attention to the principle
of Presumption of Lawfulness, there is a valid presumption that PLAN RENTABLE has acted in accordance with its obligations in the information provided to the SMV regarding the date of resolution of the CONTRACT, which according to what was reported by PLAN RENTABLE is October 1, 2020, there is no necessary support in the present file, that accredits that the deduction of US$ 49.17, for the concept of delinquency for the installment 29 of the CONTRACT made to the contributions to be returned to the COMPLAINANT, detailed in the charge imputed, was made in non-compliance with the CONTRACT;
95. For this reason, there is no support
corresponding that allows to state that PLAN RENTABLE did not comply with returning the total of contributions that corresponded to the COMPLAINANT, considering additionally that with respect to the amount that PLAN RENTABLE returned to the COMPLAINANT it has not been the subject of any complaint by the COMPLAINANT;
96. In this sense, it does not correspond to sanction PLAN
RENTABLE for this point of the present charge imputed, so it must be considered concluded at this point the administrative sanctioning procedure;

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría
97. On the other hand, with respect to what was stated by PLAN
RENTABLE, regarding that it be considered that the associate desisted from continuing with the complaint filed against PLAN RENTABLE, it must be indicated that according to what is provided by article 200, numeral 200.7 18 of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law N° 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO OF THE LPAG), upon the presentation of a desistance of the procedure or of the claim, the administrative authority may continue ex officio the procedure initiated if from the analysis of the facts it is evidenced that some public interest makes it necessary to continue the procedure, as is the case with the compliance with the regulations governing the collective fund system;
98. Likewise, with respect to the argument made
by PLAN RENTABLE regarding its action in the face of a future sanction, it is necessary to mention that independently that the operating authorization of PLAN RENTABLE as an EAFC has been revoked by Superintendent Resolution No. 093- 2023-SMV/02 (hereinafter, RESOLUTION), PLAN RENTABLE remains responsible for the obligations contracted in the exercise of its functions in the collective fund system prior to the revocation, as it derives from what was resolved in articles 6 and 7 19 of the RESOLUTION;
99. As for the alleged recognition expressed in the WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF APRIL 15, 2024, it must be indicated that said recognition will be evaluated when determining the sanction to be imposed;

IV. Evaluation of the sanction

According to article 7° of Decree Law N°
21907 on Collective Fund Companies and article 25° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION; in concordance with article 248°, numeral 3 20 of the TUO OF THE LPAG and the

“Article 200.- Desistance of the procedure or of the claim (…)
200.7 The authority may continue ex officio the procedure if from the analysis of the facts it considers that it could be affecting the interests of third parties or the action arising from the initiation of the procedure would arouse general interest. In that case, the authority may limit the effects of the desistance to the interested party and will continue the procedure.” (Underline added).
19 Article 6º.- The revocation of the operating authorization does not exempt Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. EAFC from compliance with the obligations contracted in the collective fund system prior to the issuance of the present resolution, nor its directors or managers from the administrative responsibility they incur or have incurred.
Article 7º.- The revocation of the operating authorization does not prejudice the administrative sanctioning procedures
initiated or that may eventually be initiated against Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. EAFC.
“Article 248.- Principles of the administrative sanctioning power The sanctioning power of all entities is additionally governed by the following special principles:
(…)
3. Reasonableness.- The authorities must foresee that the commission of the sanctionable conduct does not result in more advantage for the offender than complying with the infringed norms or assuming the sanction. However, the sanctions to be applied must be proportional to the infraction classified as an infraction, observing the following criteria that are indicated for the purposes of their graduation:
a) The illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction; b) The probability of detection of the infraction; c) The gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal good; d) The economic harm caused; e) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infraction within a period of one (1) year from when the resolution that sanctioned the first infraction became final.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría
article 257°21 of the aforementioned normative body; the administrative sanctions that are
imposed must take into account the criteria provided by Decree Law N° 21907, the SANCTIONS REGULATION and the TUO OF THE LPAG;
101. Within that framework, the evaluation of the sanction
must consider: a) Antecedents of the offender; b) Recidivism; c) Circumstances of the commission of the infraction; d) Economic harm caused and its repercussion in the market; e) Illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction; f) Probability of detection of the infraction; g) Gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal good; h) Existence or not of intent in the conduct of the offender;
102. In this sense, for the purposes of concordance of the criteria
of the TUO OF THE LPAG, with those indicated in Decree Law N° 21907 and in the SANCTIONS REGULATION, and for these criteria to be considered adequately so that their valuation observes the principle of reasonableness and that the sanction to be imposed adapts to these, it proceeds to analyze the following criteria;
103. In accordance with what is provided by article 25°,
letter a) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, antecedents constitute the final sanctions imposed by the SMV within a period of four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned. The aforementioned article specifies that the commission of the same infraction in the year prior to the infraction to be sanctioned is not considered an antecedent;
104. In this sense, from the review carried out in said
period, it has been verified that PLAN RENTABLE registers the following final sanction:
a) Through Deputy Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 001-2022-SMV/10 22 PLAN RENTABLE was sanctioned with a fine of 4 UIT, for having committed two serious infractions: one (01) typified in clause 2.4 and another in clause 2.1 of numeral 2 of Annex XIV of the SANCTIONS REGULATION; for not keeping the accounting of the collective funds separately from the accounting of the collective fund management company, and not preparing the financial statements with observance of the International Financial Reporting Standards; and not complying with providing information required to the SMV, respectively.

f) The circumstances of the commission of the infraction; and g) The existence or not of intent in the conduct of the offender”.
“Article 257°.- Exemptions and mitigating conditions of responsibility for infractions 1.- The following constitute conditions exempting responsibility for infractions:
a) Force majeure or fortuitous event duly proven. b) Acting in compliance with a legal duty or the legitimate exercise of the right of defense. c) Mental incapacity duly proven by the competent authority, provided that this affects the aptitude to understand the infraction. d) Mandatory order from a competent authority, issued in the exercise of its functions. e) Error induced by the Administration or by confusing or illegal administrative provision. f) Voluntary remediation by the possible sanctioned party of the act or omission imputed as constitutive of administrative infraction, prior to the notification of the charge imputation referred to in clause 3) of article 255. 2.- The following constitute conditions mitigating responsibility for infractions:
a) If an administrative sanctioning procedure is initiated and the offender recognizes its responsibility expressly and in writing.
In cases where the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced to an amount no less than half of its value. b) Others that are established by special regulation”. 22 Notified on February 15, 2022.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and the authorship

This resolution was the subject of an appeal and, through Superintendent Resolution No. 068-2023-SMV/10 of August 31, 2023, the appeal filed by PLAN RENTABLE was declared unfounded, making the sanction final on this date.

b) Through Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 007-2019-SMV/1023, Plan Rentable was sanctioned with a fine of 12 UIT, having committed seven (07) serious infractions typified in subsection 2.12 of numeral 2 of Annex XIX of the Sanctions Regulation, for failing to present Annual Independent Compliance Reports, Semiannual Reports of the Compliance Officer, and Annual Special Audit Plans within the deadlines established in the Norms for the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing.

This resolution was the subject of an appeal and, through Superintendent Resolution No. 080-2020-SMV/10 of August 24, 2020, the appeal filed by PLAN RENTABLE was declared partially founded, confirming what was established in articles 2, 6, and 7 and leaving without effect what was established in articles 1, 3, 4, and 5 of Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 007-2019-SMV/1, and reducing the fine imposed on PLAN RENTABLE from 12 UIT to 5.14 UIT, becoming final on August 25, 2020.

With respect to recidivism for the commission of the same infraction, that final sanction imposed by the SMV within a period of one (1) year prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned is taken into account. Within this framework, it must be stated that PLAN RENTABLE does not present sanctions within the stated period, for the commission of the same infraction subject of analysis, in the present administrative sanctioning procedure, so recidivism is not configured;
With respect to the circumstances of the commission of the infractions, it must be mentioned that PLAN RENTABLE, at the date of the commission of the facts, had a functioning authorization granted by the SMV to carry out activities as a collective fund administrator, so considering this condition, it knew and knows the norms that regulate the collective fund system and, in that sense, the norms that oblige it to proceed with the return of contributions as established in the REGULATION and in the terms established in the collective fund administration contracts.
Likewise, PLAN RENTABLE has the obligation to comply with the contract signed with its associates, which establishes the rights and obligations of both parties and whose model is authorized by the SMV, at the request of the administrator;
Notwithstanding this, in the present case it has been proven that the conduct of PLAN RENTABLE led to not complying with the return of the CONTRIBUTOR's contributions within the established period, proceeding with said return only 21 days later with respect to the maximum date;
Regarding the economic damage caused and the repercussion in the market, it has not been evidenced that the infraction in which PLAN RENTABLE has

23 Notified on March 12, 2019.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría incurred by PLAN RENTABLE had repercussion in the collective fund system nor produced a concrete, quantifiable damage in the latter; however, these facts affect the confidence of the associates or potential associates in the collective fund system;

Likewise, from the facts it is evident that damage has been caused to the COMPLAINANT, since it could not dispose of the amount corresponding to the return of its contributions corresponding to the CONTRACT from August 31, 2023 (maximum date for the administrator company to effect the return of contributions after the end of Group No. 6001, to which the COMPLAINANT belonged);
Additionally, it must be highlighted that the associate was obliged to go to the Investor Defense area of the SMV, via email dated August 29, 2023, with the purpose of requesting a dialogue space with PLAN RENTABLE and finding a solution to its request for the return of contributions, among other topics, regarding the return corresponding to its contract. It should be noted that the return was made on a subsequent date, through a bank deposit the administrator company returned a total amount of US$ 3,270.83;
Therefore, the total amount of contributions corresponding to the COMPLAINANT amounting to US$ 3,270.83 were in the possession of PLAN RENTABLE irregularly and illegally for 21 days, with the use and profitability of said amount at its discretion, to the detriment of the COMPLAINANT who could not use and enjoy the money that corresponded to it according to law. It should be noted that the COMPLAINANT could have perceived a benefit or given the corresponding utility based on its needs, if it had had its money in time to invest it;
Regarding the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction, it must be pointed out that upon the expiration of the group's validity, PLAN RENTABLE had to return to the associate a maximum until August 31, 2023, the funds with the remaining resources of the fund. Consequently, by delaying the payment of money to the COMPLAINANT until September 21, 2023, the administrator benefited from the effect of the time value of money and the postponement of the disbursement it had to make;
Regarding the probability of detection of the infractions, it must be indicated that the infractions committed by PLAN RENTABLE were evidenced when verifying compliance with the applicable regulations for the development of its functions, based on the facts exposed by the COMPLAINANT in the complaint filed against PLAN RENTABLE; therefore, the probability of detection of the infraction was low;
As for the gravity of the damage to public interest and/or the protected legal good, it has not been possible to prove that the conduct of PLAN RENTABLE in the commission of the infraction subject of analysis in the present sanctioning procedure has caused determinable damage to public interest;
Notwithstanding, it must be pointed out that according to what is established in clause 6.0 and clause 7, numeral 7.1, letters i) and g) and numeral 7.3 letter b) of the CONTRACT, in concordance with what is provided by article 99, letter

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría a) and article 122 of the REGULATION, PLAN RENTABLE had a maximum period of 90 (ninety) business days to effect the return of contributions, after the end of the group to which the COMPLAINANT belonged, which it did not comply with;

In this way, taking into account that collective fund administrator companies have the obligation to act in strict compliance with the regulations applicable to them, such as the provisions established in the REGULATION and in the contract, in safeguarding the collective fund system, by transgressing said regulations, it affects the legal good referred to as market integrity, that is, the collective fund system and in that sense it affects the confidence of the associates or potential associates in the collective fund system;
Regarding the existence or non-existence of intent in the infringer's conduct, it must be specified that intent has not been verified in the conduct of PLAN RENTABLE regarding the infraction subject of analysis;
In addition to the above, it corresponds to analyze the exemptions and mitigating circumstances of responsibility established in article 257 of the TUO OF THE LPAG, as well as the mitigating and exempting conditions of responsibility established in articles 26 and 27 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
With respect to the voluntary declaration of the commission of the infraction, the contribution of the infringer to its clarification and the remediation carried out subsequent to its request, established in article 257, numeral 2, subsection a) and b) of the TUO of the LPAG and in article 26, letters a), b) and c) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, it must be pointed out that PLAN RENTABLE has contributed to its clarification;
Likewise, it is considered that what is established in article 26, letter c) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION is applicable with respect to the second infraction, subject of the present sanctioning procedure, since it carried out the return of contributions in favor of the COMPLAINANT, on a date subsequent to the requests made by the INVESTOR DEFENDER and before the transfer of the complaint presented to the SMV. It should be noted that, subsequent to the return of the contributions, the COMPLAINANT presented the withdrawal of its complaint;
With respect to the recognition, in the WRITING OF APRIL 15, 2024, PLAN RENTABLE states that "As indicated by your office in the narration of the facts that are the subject of the present file, I must indicate that what is stated in it is correct, my represented party committed some errors that are reflected in what you refer to;
It is for this reason that we recognize as certain and valid each of the facts mentioned in your resolution, so we would do wrong in contradicting a fact that is clear in its action, it is for this reason that we submit to what your office determines with respect to this associate.";
With respect to this, article 26 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION provides that the recognition of responsibility regarding an infraction must be carried out in a precise, concise, clear, express and unconditional manner, and must not contain ambiguous or contradictory expressions; otherwise, it will not be understood as a recognition. If defenses are presented, despite having made a recognition of responsibility, it will be understood as a non-recognition, and the authority will proceed to evaluate the defenses;

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría
125. In that sense, it must be specified that, according to what is stated in the WRITING OF APRIL 15, 2024, PLAN RENTABLE refers to facts that would be stated in the complaint file, generating a contradiction, since it would not be specifically referred to the facts imputed in the OFFICE OF CHARGES, as required by article 26 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, which would remove certainty that the recognition indicated by PLAN RENTABLE would refer to the imputations made. Which in turn generates ambiguity regarding its manifestation;

Likewise, it must be pointed out that in the text of the first paragraph previously transcribed, PLAN RENTABLE states "(...) my represented party committed some errors that are reflected in what you refer to."; however in the text of the second paragraph previously transcribed, PLAN RENTABLE indicates that "(...) we recognize as certain and valid each of the facts mentioned in your resolution (...); therefore it is not clear with respect to which facts of the imputed charges it would be referring since initially it states recognizing some errors and then states recognizing each of the facts, which would imply that the Administration has to infer which facts would be recognized and which are not, which is not a recognition that meets the requirements established in article 26 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, as it is not precise, clear and express, with which they result in ambiguous or contradictory expressions;
In that context, it is not possible to consider that there has been a recognition of responsibility, so its application as a mitigating factor in the present administrative sanctioning procedure does not correspond;
On the other hand, in accordance with what is determined in article 27 24 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, in concordance with article 257, numeral 1 of the TUO LPAG, it is not observed that in the present case any of the circumstances that constitute conditions exempting responsibility with respect to the analyzed infractions have been configured;
From the above, it is concluded that PLAN RENTABLE has committed one (1) serious infraction. In this sense, a sanction corresponding to infractions classified as serious must be imposed on PLAN RENTABLE in accordance with article 38° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, which establishes that the serious infraction is sanctionable with a fine greater than twenty-five (25) and up to fifty (50) Tax Units (UIT) or with the prohibition of the formation of new groups;

24 “Article 27.- EXEMPTIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR INFRACTIONS” The following constitute conditions exempting responsibility for infractions:
a) Force majeure, fortuitous event or another exceptional situation that, in the opinion of the SMV, is comparable to a duly proven fortuitous event or force majeure. b) Acting in compliance with a legal duty or the legitimate exercise of a right of defense. c) Mental incapacity duly proven by the competent authority, provided that this affects the ability to understand the infraction. d) Mandatory order from a competent authority, issued in the exercise of its functions. e) Error induced by the Administration or by confusing or illegal administrative provision. f) Voluntary remediation by the possible sanctioned person of the act or omission imputed as constitutive of an administrative infraction, prior to the notification of the imputation of charges referred to in subsection 3) of article 253 of the LPAG and provided that no communication has been issued demanding compliance with the obligation”

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría
130. However, taking into account the analyzed sanctioning criteria, and in application of the Principle of Reasonableness contemplated in article 248°, numeral 3 of the TUO OF THE LPAG, which states that the sanctions to be applied must be proportional to the non-compliance classified as an infraction, it must be considered that it has not been possible to prove that the analyzed infraction has produced repercussion in the market or caused determinable damage to public interest, that PLAN RENTABLE has proceeded with the return of the CONTRIBUTOR's contributions after the efforts of the INVESTOR DEFENDER and before the transfer of the complaint and imputation of charges, after which the COMPLAINANT presented the withdrawal of the complaint; and, that it is not a recidivist with respect to the evaluated infraction; therefore, in accordance with what is provided in the last paragraph of article 25° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, this Adjunct Superintendence considers that it corresponds to impose on PLAN RENTABLE a sanction lower than that provided for serious infractions in accordance with what is provided in article 39° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;

Being in accordance with what is provided by articles 32°, numeral 16, of the Regulation of Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF and its modifications.

RESOLVES:
Article 1º.- Declare that Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. Ex Collective Fund Administrator Company has committed one (1) serious infraction typified in Annex XIII, numeral 2, subsection 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for failing to comply with the deadline to return contributions in favor of the associate at the end of its group in the liquidation stage.

Article 2º.- Declare that Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. Ex Collective Fund Administrator Company has not committed one (1) minor infraction typified in Annex XIII, numeral 2, subsection 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, referring to failing to observe what is established in the Contract regarding its resolution.

Article 3º.- Sanction Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. Ex Collective Fund Administrator Company with a fine of 3 UIT current at the time of effective payment of the fine for the commission of the infraction referred to in article 1° of this resolution.

Article 4º.- This resolution does not exhaust the administrative route, unless it is consented, and may be challenged before the Adjunct Superintendent of Prudential Supervision by filing a reconsideration or appeal before the same, within a period of fifteen (15) business days counted from the day following its notification.

Article 5º.- In the event that this resolution is not subject to challenge through reconsideration or appeal within a period of fifteen (15) business days of notification and becomes final, it must be published on the Institutional Page of the SMV in the Unified Digital Platform of the Peruvian State, in

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría observance of what is provided in numeral 1, article 7º of the Policy on diffusion of normative projects, laws of general character, early agenda and other administrative acts of the SMV, approved by SMV Resolution No. 014-2014-SMV/01 and its modification, and by what is provided in article 14° of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01.

Article 6º.- Transcribe this resolution to Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. Ex Collective Fund Administrator Company.
Register, communicate and publish.
Omar Gutiérrez Ochoa
Adjunct Superintendent
Adjunct Superintendence of Prudential Supervision

Lineage