Adjunct Superintendent Resolution No. 041-2025-SMV/10 — SMV — PE

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 041-2025-SMV/10 Lima, July 25, 2025 Subject: Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A. is sanctioned with a fine of one (01) UIT, for having committed two (2) serious infractions typified in Annex XIII, section 2, item 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation: i) for failing to provide a response to the complaint made by the associate within the timeframe established in the regulations; ii) for failing to resolve the contracts as requested by the associate. Administered by: Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A. Subject: Administrative sanctioning procedure File No.: 2024044966 The Adjunct Superintendent of Prudential Supervision HAVING SEEN:
The administrative file No. 2024044966, and Report No. 788-2025-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Superintendent of Prudential Compliance; as well as the arguments presented by Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A.; and, CONSIDERING:
Pursuant to Article 1 of Law No. 29782, Law for the Strengthening of Securities Market Supervision, 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. BACKGROUND

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

On August 28, 2021, COMPLAINANT 1 signed with Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A. (hereinafter, AUTOPLAN EAFC) the “Collective Fund Administration Contracts – Purchase Certificate Modality”, of the Autoplan-002 program, with contract Nos. 30792 and No. 030793, (hereinafter, CONTRACTS);
By letter received on August 26, 2022, the COMPLAINANT filed a complaint with the Securities Market Superintendency (SMV) against AUTOPLAN EAFC 2, in which it states, among other things, that: i) it has not received a response to the request for resolution and return of contributions, sent physically and virtually (contacto@autoplan.pe), submitted on October 07, 2021; and, ii) that AUTOPLAN EAFC has not responded to its complaint submitted on the same date;
With Letter No. 4470-2022-SMV/10.3, notified on September 01, 2022 (hereinafter, LETTER), the complaint filed by the COMPLAINANT was brought to the attention of AUTOPLAN EAFC, so that it would submit the corresponding comments regarding the alleged facts and it was requested, among others, the following documentation and/or information:
“(…) b. Copy of the Contract signed between its representative and the complainant.
c. Indicate the current status of the Contract signed between its representative and the Complainant, as well as the cause and date of resolution (if applicable).
(…) h. Any other information and/or documentation that it considers pertinent to the case and that allows clarifying the alleged facts.”
On October 27, 2022, AUTOPLAN EAFC submitted a letter requesting an extension to submit the information and documentation required by the LETTER; which was granted by Letter No. 5609-2022-SMV/10.3 notified on November 02, 2022;
With the letter submitted on November 16, 2022, AUTOPLAN EAFC requests an additional deadline for the submission of the information required by the LETTER; which was granted by Letter No. 6030-2022-SMV/10.3 notified on November 28, 2022;
In response to the LETTER, on December 07, 2022, AUTOPLAN EAFC submitted its comments regarding the complaint, as well as part of the information required by the SMV. With said letter AUTOPLAN EAFC, among other documents, presented the following:
a. Copy of the document titled “Collective Fund Administration Contract, purchase certificate modality of the Autoplan-002 program”, with contract No. 030792, which was signed by the COMPLAINANT on August 28, 2021. b. Copy of the document titled “Autoplan Contract Receipt Acknowledgment”, signed by the COMPLAINANT on August 28, 2021, through which it confirms the receipt: 1. Collective Fund Administration Contract No. 030793, 2. Associate Handbook and 3. Calendar of the next 3 assemblies.
c. Copy of the document titled “Autoplan Contract Receipt Acknowledgment”, signed by the COMPLAINANT on August 28, 2021, through which it confirms the receipt: 1. Collective Fund Administration Contract No. 030792, 2. Associate Handbook and 3. Calendar of the next 3 assemblies.
d. Two (2) copies of the document showing the calendar of the first 3 assemblies of the Autoplan-002 Program, group 64, corresponding to the months of September, October and November 2021, said documents are signed by the COMPLAINANT. e. Copy of account statements for the months of October-2021, November-2021, December-2021, January-2022 and February-2022, corresponding to contract No. 030792. f. Copy of account statements for the months of October-2021, November-2021, December-2021, January-2022 and February-2022, corresponding to contract No. 030793.
By Letter No. 4942-2024-SMV/10.3 notified on November 04, 2024 (hereinafter, CHARGES LETTER), an administrative sanctioning procedure was initiated against AUTOPLAN EAFC, imputing charges for some facts related to the COMPLAINANT's complaint; however, AUTOPLAN EAFC did not submit its defenses regarding the charges imputed via the CHARGES LETTER;
The charges formulated against AUTOPLAN EAFC, and their evaluation have been the subject of analysis in Report No. 788-2025-SMV/10.3, which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Adjunct Superintendency;
In observance of the Principle of Due Process contemplated in Article IV, section 1.2, of the Preliminary Title and in Article 248, item 2, of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO LPAG), by Letter No. 3312-2025-SMV/10, the administrative file to which this resolution refers was made available to AUTOPLAN EAFC for its review;
On June 18, 2025, the administrator submitted written arguments;
II. MATTERS TO BE DETERMINED
In the present administrative procedure, in the opinion of this Adjunct Superintendency, it corresponds to determine the following:
a. Whether AUTOPLAN EAFC committed or did not commit an infringement of the provisions of Annex XIII, section 2, item 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), for failing to provide a response to the complaint made by the associate within the timeframe established in the regulations. b. Whether AUTOPLAN EAFC committed or did not commit an infringement of the provisions of Annex XIII, section 2, item 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for failing to resolve the CONTRACTS as requested by the associate.
c. Whether it is appropriate or not to impose sanctions on AUTOPLAN EAFC;

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
III. ANALYSIS
FIRST CHARGE: REGARDING THE DEADLINE FOR ATTENDING COMPLAINTS APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
12. Regarding the resolution of complaints, Article 68 of the Regulations of the Collective Fund System and its Administrator Companies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 020-2014-SMV-01 and its amendments (hereinafter, REGULATIONS) provides as follows:
“Article 68.- Resolution of complaints
The Administrator must have responsible personnel to attend to the complaints of the Associates, subject to the provisions of the Norms applicable to complaints and claims against entities supervised by the Securities Market Superintendency - SMV, approved by SMV Resolution No. 006- 2012-SMV-01, or the norm that replaces it”
13. In that sense, Article 3 of the “Norms applicable to complaints and claims against entities supervised by the Securities Market Superintendency - SMV” approved by SMV Resolution No. 006-2012-SMV-01 (hereinafter, NORMS APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS) establishes the procedure for attending to complaints:
“Article 3.- Attention of complaints by legal entities authorized by the SMV Without prejudice to compliance with the norms that determine the direct attention of complaints that could be filed by final consumers and the obligation to have a Complaints Book, within the framework of what is provided for in articles 24 and 150 of the Consumer Protection and Defense Code, Law No. 29571, the legal entities to which the SMV has granted operating authorization are obliged to directly attend any complaint from their clients regarding the services they provide, within a maximum period of thirty (30) calendar days from the date of submission of the respective complaint. This period may be extended by another equal period when the nature of the complaint justifies it, a situation that is brought to the knowledge of the complainant before the end of the initial period. If the complainant requires it, the response must be made in writing. (…).” (Underlining added).
14. Likewise, clause tenth, section 10.1, letter c) last paragraph of the Contract establishes:
“CLAUSE TENTH: OF THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
10.1 RIGHTS OF THE ASSOCIATES
(…) c). (…)
On the other hand, in case complaints are made by the Associate, these complaints will be forwarded to the corresponding area of AUTOPLAN, which will have a period of thirty (30) calendar days to resolve the indicated complaint, counted from its receipt. This period may be prorogued according to its nature. The filing of a complaint in accordance with this clause does not constitute a prior avenue nor implies any limitation for the Associate to use another mechanism for dispute resolution (…)(Underlining added)”. OF THE IMPUTED CHARGE

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
15. According to what is established in the regulations exposed, the administrator company has the obligation to resolve complaints within a period of thirty (30) calendar days counted from the date of submission of the respective complaint, which may be extended by an equal period if necessary, with prior communication to the associate;
16. Through its complaint, the COMPLAINANT states that on October 07, 2021, it submitted a complaint to AUTOPLAN EAFC through the complaints book. However, the COMPLAINANT states that as of the date of submission of its complaint, August 22, 2022, it had not received any response to its complaint;
17. In view of the foregoing, through the LETTER, the administrator company was requested to submit its comments, and any other information and/or documentation that it considers pertinent to the case and that allow clarifying the alleged facts;
18. However, AUTOPLAN EAFC as of the date of the imputation of charges, had not submitted evidentiary means that accredited that it responded to the complaint of October 07, 2021, submitted by the COMPLAINANT;
19. In accordance with the above, it is observed that AUTOPLAN EAFC would not have complied with observing what is provided for in Article 68 of the REGULATIONS, Article 3 of the NORMS APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS and clause tenth, section 10.1, letter c), last paragraph of the CONTRACTS; since AUTOPLAN EAFC would not have complied with the timeframe established to provide a response to the complaint filed by the COMPLAINANT;
20. Therefore, it was imputed to AUTOPLAN EAFC that it had committed one (1) infringement classified as serious, according to Annex XIII, section 2, item 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infringement: “Not complying with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract celebrated with the associate”;
OF THE DEFENSES AND THEIR EVALUATION
21. In its written arguments sent on June 18, 2025, AUTOPLAN EAFC states that it provided a timely response to the complaint presented by the complainant on October 07, 2021, for which it requested the filing of the imputed charge. To this end, it attached a copy of the email through which the complaint was responded to and a copy of the signed response letter;
22. From the review of said documents, it is observed that the response to the COMPLAINANT's complaint was sent to the electronic address CORREO3; however, the COMPLAINANT in its complaint letter stated that its emails were CORREODELDENUNCIANTE1 and CORREODELDENUNCIANTE2; that is, the response was not sent to the email corresponding to the complainant;
23. Likewise, it must be indicated that although the supposed copy of the letter attached to the email through which the COMPLAINANT is responded to has the date November 05, 2021; the deadline to respond to the complaint, the email registers the sending date as November 08, 2021; that is, in addition to sending the response to the complaint to an electronic address that did not correspond to the COMPLAINANT, the response was issued after the deadline established by the regulations;

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
24. In such sense, in accordance with the above, AUTOPLAN EAFC has not disproven the imputed charge, for which it failed to comply with what is established by Article 68 of the REGULATIONS, Article 3 of the NORMS APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS, and clause ninth, section 9.1 letter c) of the CONTRACTS; since it did not comply with the timeframe established to provide a response to the complaint of the COMPLAINANT;
25. Consequently, it is observed that AUTOPLAN EAFC committed one (1) infringement classified as serious, according to Annex XIII, section 2, item 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infringement: “Not complying with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract celebrated with the associate”;
SECOND CHARGE: REGARDING THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONTRACTS APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
26. Regarding the right to resolve the CONTRACTS, Article 99°, letter a) of the REGULATIONS states as follows:
“Article 99.- Resolution of Contract
(…)
The Associate may resolve the Contract at any time, provided that it complies with the following conditions:
a) When it concerns an unallocated Associate, it will be necessary to communicate its intention to resolve the Contract to the Administrator through the means established in the Contract.
(…)” (Underlining added)
27. Likewise, clause tenth, section 10.1, letter e), subletter a) of the CONTRACTS establishes:
“CLAUSE TENTH: OF THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
10.1 Rights of the associates:
(…) e) The Associate will have the right to resolve the Contract at any time, provided that it complies with the following conditions:
a. When it concerns an unallocated Associate, it will be necessary to communicate its intention to resolve the Contract to Autoplan through the means established in this Contract.
(…)”.
28. Regarding the means established to resolve the contract, clause fifth, section 5.2, paragraph 5.2.4, of the CONTRACTS, establishes as follows:
“CLAUSE FIFTH: ENTRY OF THE ASSOCIATE, DURATION AND TERMINATION OF THE GROUP (…)
5.2 ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSOCIATE
(…)
5.2.4 The unallocated Associate who wishes to withdraw from the Group after the First Assembly has been held, must communicate in writing to AUTOPLAN its decision to resolve the Contract. In such case, proceedings will be in accordance with what is established in section 15.2 of Clause Fifteenth of this Contract.”
OF THE IMPUTED CHARGE
29. According to what is established in the regulations exposed, unallocated associates have the right to resolve their contract at any time, for which they must communicate to AUTOPLAN EAFC their intention to resolve the contract through the means established in it. Likewise, clause fifth, section 5.2, paragraph 5.2.4 of the CONTRACTS, establishes that unallocated associates who wish to withdraw from the group after the first assembly has been held, must make this communication in writing;
30. The COMPLAINANT states that on October 07, 2021, it submitted the request for resolution and return of contributions to AUTOPLAN EAFC, specifying that said request was submitted physically and virtually (sent to the email contacto@autoplan.pe). However, the COMPLAINANT states that it did not receive a response to said request as of the date of submission of its complaint;
31. In view of the foregoing, through the LETTER, the administrator company was requested to submit its comments and any other information and/or documentation that it considers pertinent to the case and that allow clarifying the alleged facts;
32. However, AUTOPLAN EAFC as of the present date has not submitted evidentiary means that accredited that it resolved the CONTRACTS on the date requested by the COMPLAINANT, that is, October 07, 2021;
33. On the other hand, it was requested via LETTER (letter c)), that the administrator company specify the current status of the CONTRACTS signed between its representative and the complainant, as well as the cause and date of resolution (if applicable). Thus, AUTOPLAN EAFC informed the SMV that the CONTRACTS are resolved with date March 08, 2022, the reason being the lack of continuity in the payment of the CONTRACTS;
34. It should be added that this is consistent with the information sent by the administrator company to the SMV, in the “Associate Status File (SIT)”3 in which it is observed that as of the date of the associate assembly of March 23, 2022, the associate presents the status of “Resolved”, with withdrawal date March 8, 2022;
35. In that sense, the complainant used its right to resolve the CONTRACTS, on the aforementioned date, that is, October 07, 2021, through a physical request presented at the offices of AUTOPLAN EAFC and also sent virtually to the email contacto@autoplan.pe, availing itself of its right as an associate, determined in clause tenth, section 10.1, letter e), subletter a) of the CONTRACTS, in concordance with Article 99°, letter a) of the REGULATIONS and pursuant to Article 1430° of the Civil Code 4, the resolution of the CONTRACTS should have

3 According to what is stated in the “Technical Specifications Manual for the submission to the SMV of information from Collective Fund Administrator Companies” approved by Superintendent Resolution No. 102-2016-SMV/02 4 “Article 1430 (…) Resolution occurs ex officio when the interested party communicates to the other that it wants to avail itself of the resolutive clause”.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship occurred ex officio on the mentioned date; however, as noted previously, the administrator company resolved the CONTRACTS on March 08, 2022;
36. Therefore, AUTOPLAN EAFC would not have complied with observing what is provided for in clause tenth, section 10.1, letter e) subletter a) of the CONTRACTS, in concordance with what is established in Article 99° of the REGULATIONS, since it did not comply with resolving the CONTRACTS on the date requested by the complainant (October 07, 2021);
37. Therefore, AUTOPLAN EAFC would have committed one (1) infringement classified as serious, according to Annex XIII, section 2, item 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infringement: “Not complying with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract celebrated with the associate”;
OF THE DEFENSES AND THEIR EVALUATION
38. It should be specified that AUTOPLAN EAFC as of the present date, has not submitted its defenses regarding the imputed charge and in its written arguments it refers to archiving the first imputed charge for the reasons exposed previously, but regarding this second charge, it does not pronounce itself;
39. In the present case, it is observed that AUTOPLAN EAFC did not comply with resolving the CONTRACTS of the COMPLAINANT, when the same associate requested 5 the resolution on October 07, 2021, even more so when said request was submitted physically and virtually (sent to the email contacto@autoplan.pe) as stated by the complainant; however, AUTOPLAN EAFC as of the present date, has not submitted evidentiary means that accredited that it resolved the CONTRACTS on the date requested by the COMPLAINANT, that is, October 07, 2021 6; therefore, AUTOPLAN failed to comply with what is established in clause tenth, section 10.1, letter e) subletter a) of the CONTRACTS, in concordance with what is established in Article 99 of the REGULATIONS;
40. Consequently, it is observed that AUTOPLAN EAFC has committed one (1) infringement classified as serious, according to Annex XIII, section 2, item 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infringement: “Not complying with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract celebrated with the associate”;
IV. EVALUATION OF THE SANCTION TO BE IMPOSED
41. According to Article 7 of Decree Law No. 21907 on Collective Fund Companies, modified by Law No. 27659 7 and Article 25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION; in concordance with Article 248, section

5
This is confirmed by Autoplan EAFC in the response letter addressed to the complainant, in which it supposedly responds to the claim, a letter attached to its written allegations: "(…) we address you regarding the referenced document, notified to my represented party on October 7, 2021, through which you request the return of contributions and the resolution of your contract." (Underlining added).

6 It should be noted that AUTOPLAN EAFC informed that the CONTRACTS were resolved as of March 8, 2022, due to the lack of continuity in payments for the CONTRACTS; this information aligns with the information sent by the administrator company in the Associates' Situation File (SIT).

7 Through Law No. 27659, Article 7 of Legislative Decree No. 21907 was modified, providing that collective fund administrator companies that violate the provisions of the aforementioned decree or the regulatory norms issued by the SMV shall be sanctioned, taking into consideration the offender's background, the circumstances of the commission of the offense, the damage caused, and its repercussion on the market.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendence of the Securities
Market
Electronically signed document in the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship

3
8 of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO LPAG), and article 257 of the aforementioned normative body; the administrative sanctions imposed must take into account the criteria established by Legislative Decree No. 21907, the SANCTIONS REGULATION and the TUO LPAG;

Within this framework, the evaluation of the sanction must consider: a) Offender's background; b) Recidivism; c) Circumstances of the commission of the offense; d) Economic damage caused and its repercussion on the market; e) Illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the offense; f) Probability of detection of the offense; g) Severity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal good; h) Existence or not of intent in the offender's conduct;
In this sense, in order to harmonize the criteria of the TUO LPAG with those indicated in Legislative Decree No. 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 adheres to them, the following criteria are analyzed;
Regarding the background of sanctions, in accordance with what is provided in article 25, literal a) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, background consists of final sanctions imposed by the SMV within a period of four (4) years prior to the commission of the offense to be sanctioned. The aforementioned article specifies that the commission of the same offense in the year prior to the offense to be sanctioned is not considered background;

8
"Article 248.- Principles of the administrative sanctioning power The sanctioning power of all entities is additionally governed by the following special principles:
(…)
3. Reasonableness.- Authorities must foresee that the commission of the sanctionable conduct does not result in being more advantageous for the offender than complying with the infringed norms or assuming the sanction. However, the sanctions to be applied must be proportional to the non-compliance qualified as an offense, observing the following criteria indicated for their graduation:
a) The illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the offense; b) The probability of detection of the offense; c) The severity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal good; d) The economic damage caused; e) Recidivism, for the commission of the same offense within a period of one (1) year from when the resolution sanctioning the first offense became final. f) The circumstances of the commission of the offense; and g) The existence or not of intent in the offender's conduct".

9
"Article 257°.- Exemptions and mitigating factors of responsibility for offenses 1.- The following constitute conditions exempting responsibility for offenses:
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 offense. d) Mandatory order of a competent authority, issued in the exercise of its functions. e) Error induced by the Administration or by a confusing or illegal administrative provision. f) Voluntary remediation by the potential sanctioned party of the act or omission imputed as constitutive of an administrative offense, prior to the notification of the charges referred to in subsection 3) of article 255. 2.- The following constitute conditions mitigating responsibility for offenses:
a) If, once an administrative sanctioning procedure has begun, the offender expressly and in writing recognizes their responsibility.
In cases where the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced to an amount not less than half of its value. b) Others established by special norm".

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

In this sense, from the review carried out during said period, it has been verified that AUTOPLAN EAFC has the following final sanctions;

No. Resolution Resolved Finality i)
Superintendence Adjunct Resolution
SMV No. 112-
2017-SMV/10 10
Autoplan Collective Fund Administrator Company S.A. is sanctioned with a fine of two (2) Tax Units (UIT), for having committed one (1) serious offense typified in Annex XIX, numeral 2, subsection 2.12 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 055-2001-EF/94.10 and its modifying norms (hereinafter, PREVIOUS SANCTIONS REGULATION), for not complying with the provisions of the Norms for the prevention of money laundering and Financing of Terrorism. 12/12/2017 ii) Superintendence Adjunct Resolution SMV No. 011- 2019-SMV/10 11 AUTOPLAN EAFC is sanctioned with two (02) warnings for having committed two (02) serious offenses typified in Annex XIV, numeral 2, subsection 2.21 and Annex XIV, numeral 2, subsection 2.41 of the PREVIOUS SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not adequately determining the order of preference of the awarded substitutes. Through RSUP No. 119-2020-SMV/02, the appeal filed by AUTOPLAN EAFC was declared partially founded, and consequently, the sanction imposed as a fine in article 3 of the Superintendence Adjunct Resolution SMV No. 004-2020-SMV/10 was modified, reducing it from three (3) UIT to two (2) UIT, valid at the time of effective payment of the fine; and, the corrective measure disposed in article 4 of the aforementioned Superintendence Adjunct Resolution was revoked. 11/04/2019 iii) Superintendence Adjunct Resolution SMV No. 004- 2020-SMV/10 12 AUTOPLAN EAFC is sanctioned with a fine of three (03) UIT for having committed two offenses; one (01) of a serious nature typified in Annex XIV, numeral 2, subsection 2.22 of the PREVIOUS SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not complying with the conditions established in the regulation for the convocation or celebration of assemblies; and, one (01) of a minor nature typified in Annex XIV, numeral 3, subsection 3.13 of the Sanctions Regulation, for not timely sending the information regarding the assembly calendar to the associate. 1/12/2020 iv) Superintendence Adjunct Resolution SMV No. 013- 2021-SMV/10 13 AUTOPLAN EAFC is sanctioned with three (03) warnings and a fine of 28,0045 UIT for having committed twenty (20) minor offenses typified in Annex XIV, numeral 3, subsection 3.1 of the PREVIOUS SANCTIONS REGULATION and two (02) minor offenses typified in Annex I, numeral 3, subsection 3.1, of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not having complied with presenting periodic information within the period established by the applicable regulation regarding intermediate financial information and management report. 21/04/2021

Regarding recidivism for the commission of the same offense, that final sanction imposed by the SMV within a period of one (1) year prior to the commission of the offense to be sanctioned is taken into account. Within this framework, it must be stated that AUTOPLAN EAFC does not present sanctions within the aforementioned period for the commission of the same offenses subject of analysis,

10 Notified on November 17, 2017.
11 Notified on March 21, 2019.
12 Notified on February 03, 2020.
13 Notified on March 26, 2021.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

in the present administrative sanctioning procedure, therefore recidivism is not configured;

Regarding the circumstances of the commission of the offenses, it must be mentioned that AUTOPLAN EAFC, in its capacity as a company supervised by the SMV, knows the regulation governing the collective fund system and, in that sense, the norms that oblige it to respond to claims and resolve the collective fund administration contract at the request of the associate, as established in the REGULATION and contracts it administers;
Notwithstanding the above, in the present case it has been proven that AUTOPLAN EAFC did not comply with responding to the claim made by the COMPLAINANT, nor did it resolve the CONTRACTS according to the complainant's request;
On this matter, it should be noted that AUTOPLAN EAFC, in the development of its activities, is obliged to comply with the norms regulating the exercise of its activities and its own internal procedures established in the corresponding manuals. Regarding this, the administrator company must implement the necessary procedures and controls for their proper observance. Likewise, it must be reiterated that AUTOPLAN EAFC has the obligation to comply with the contract signed with its associates, which establishes the rights and obligations of the associates and the administrator company; and whose model is authorized by the SMV, at the request of the administrator company;
Regarding the damage caused and the repercussion on the market. In the present case, it has not been evidenced that the offenses committed by AUTOPLAN EAFC have produced concrete economic damage to the associate because, after applying the deductions provided by contract resolution, there was no amount pending for return, nor that it has had repercussion on the market; however, it must be indicated that the facts subject of charges affect the confidence of associates or potential associates in the collective fund system;
Regarding the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the offenses. Regarding this, it must be noted that it has not been proven that AUTOPLAN EAFC has obtained a benefit directly related to the offenses subject of analysis in the present administrative procedure;
Regarding the probability of detection of the offense. On this matter, it must be indicated that the facts constitutive of the offenses committed by AUTOPLAN EAFC were evidenced when verifying compliance with the applicable regulation for the development of its functions, based on the facts exposed by the COMPLAINANT in the complaint filed against the administrator company; therefore, the probability of detection of the offense was low;
Regarding the severity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal good. In the present case, it has not been possible to prove that the conduct of AUTOPLAN EAFC in the commission of the offenses subject of analysis in the present sanctioning procedure has caused determinable damage to the public interest;
However, a protected legal good has been affected, consisting in the protection of the associate, since AUTOPLAN EAFC has failed to comply with the obligation to respond to the claim filed by the COMPLAINANT. Likewise, it has not complied with resolving the CONTRACTS at the request of the complainant, according to the applicable regulation;

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

Thus, taking into account that collective fund administrator companies have the obligation to act in strict compliance with the regulation applicable to them, such as the provisions established in the CONTRACTS and the REGULATION, in safeguarding the collective fund system, the transgression of said regulation affects the legal good referred to as the integrity of the market, that is, the collective fund system and especially affects the confidence of associates or potential associates in the collective fund system;
Regarding the existence or not of intent in the offender's conduct. Regarding this, it must be specified that intent in the conduct of AUTOPLAN EAFC regarding the offenses subject of analysis has not been verified;
In addition to the above, it corresponds to analyze the exemptions and mitigating factors of responsibility established in article 257° of the TUO LPAG 14, and in articles 26 15 and 27 16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, respectively;

14
"Article 257.- Exemptions and mitigating factors of responsibility for offenses 1.- The following constitute conditions exempting responsibility for offenses:
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 offense. d) Mandatory order of a competent authority, issued in the exercise of its functions. e) Error induced by the Administration or by a confusing or illegal administrative provision. f) Voluntary remediation by the potential sanctioned party of the act or omission imputed as constitutive of an administrative offense, prior to the notification of the charges referred to in subsection 3) of article 235. 2.- The following constitute conditions mitigating responsibility for offenses:
a) If, once an administrative sanctioning procedure has begun, the offender expressly and in writing recognizes their responsibility.
In cases where the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced to an amount not less than half of its value. b) Others established by special norm."

15
"Article 26.- Mitigating factors of responsibility for offenses The following constitute conditions mitigating responsibility for offenses:
a) Recognition of responsibility by the offender expressly and in writing, once the administrative sanctioning procedure has begun.
When the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced, taking into account the following:

If the recognition of the offense is presented within the period granted for the presentation of defenses, the amount of reduction will be fifty percent (50%).
If the recognition is presented after the expiration of the period granted for the presentation of defenses and before the expiration of the period granted to formulate allegations to the instruction report, the amount of reduction will be thirty percent (30%).
If the recognition is presented after the expiration of the period granted to formulate allegations to the instruction report and until before the issuance of the sanction resolution, the amount of reduction will be ten percent (10%).
The recognition of responsibility regarding an offense must be made 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. b) Contribution of the offender to the clarification of the offense. c) Remediation carried out after its request or at the beginning of the administrative sanctioning procedure.

16
"Article 27.- Exemptions of responsibility for offenses The following constitute conditions exempting responsibility for offenses:
a) Force majeure, fortuitous event or another exceptional situation that, in the opinion of the SMV, is comparable to a fortuitous event or force majeure duly proven.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

Regarding this, in accordance with what is determined in article 257, numeral 1 of the TUO LPAG and in article 27 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, it is not observed that in the present case any of the circumstances that constitute conditions exempting responsibility have been configured;
Regarding the recognition of responsibility by the offender (article 257, numeral 2, subsection a) of the TUO LPAG) and its contribution to the clarification of the offense, established in article 26, subsections a) and b), respectively, of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, it must be indicated that AUTOPLAN EAFC has not presented defenses, which is why it is not possible to analyze the two aforementioned mitigating factors. It should be noted that regarding the second offense, AUTOPLAN EAFC has only stated that it resolved the contract on March 8, 2022, due to lack of payment;
Furthermore, it is observed that the mitigating condition referred to remediation carried out after its request, established in article 26, subsection c) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, in relation to the charges imputed, has not been configured;
From the above, it is concluded that AUTOPLAN EAFC has committed two (2) offenses classified as serious in Annex XIII, numeral 2, subsection 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, regarding which it corresponds to impose on AUTOPLAN EAFC a sanction of a fine of twenty-five (25) up to fifty (50) Tax Units (UIT) or with the prohibition of forming new groups, as established in article 38 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
However, taking into account the analyzed sanction criteria, and in application of the Principle of Reasonableness contemplated in article 248°, numeral 3 of the TUO LPAG, which states that sanctions must be proportional to the non-compliance qualified as an offense, it must be considered that regarding the offenses subject of charges, it has not been evidenced that these have caused concrete economic damage or that they have had repercussion on the market. Likewise, it has not been confirmed that the administrator company has obtained an illicit benefit with the commission of the offenses subject of charges or have caused determinable damage to the public interest, nor that it has had intent in its actions regarding this. Likewise, it has been verified that AUTOPLAN EAFC is not a recidivist regarding the offenses;
Additionally, it must be taken into account that for the facts subject of charges, through Final Resolution No. 631-2022/INDECOPIAQP of August 04, 2022 17, INDECOPI sanctioned AUTOPLAN EAFC with a warning, as the administrator submitted to the fact that it had not given a response within a reasonable period, among others, to the management requests

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 aptitude to understand the offense. d) Mandatory order of a competent authority, issued in the exercise of its functions. e) Error induced by the Administration or by a confusing or illegal administrative provision. f) Voluntary remediation by the potential sanctioned party of the act or omission imputed as constitutive of an administrative offense, prior to the notification of the charges referred to in subsection 3) of article 253 of the LPAG and provided that no communication demanding compliance with the obligation has been issued."

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally under Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship made by the COMPLAINANT via letter and complaint form on October 7, 2021;
64. Therefore, this Adjunct Superintendence considers that it corresponds to impose on AUTOPLAN EAFC a sanction corresponding to a classification lower than that provided for serious infractions, in accordance with what is stated in article 25, last paragraph, of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
65. In that sense, considering the analysis carried out, it corresponds to impose on AUTOPLAN EAFC, a sanction of fine applicable to minor infractions, in accordance with what is established in article 39° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for the infractions under evaluation in this administrative sanctioning procedure;
66. Being in what is provided in article 32, numeral 16, of the Organization and Functions Regulation of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree Nº 216-2011-EF;
RESOLVES:
Article 1º.- Declare that Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A has incurred one (01) infraction of a serious nature typified in Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01, for not complying with providing a response to the complaint made by the associate within the timeframe established in the regulations.
Article 2º.- Declare that Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A has incurred one (01) infraction classified as serious typified in Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.15 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01, for not complying with resolving the contracts as requested by the associate.
Article 3º.- Sanction Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A with a fine of one (01) Tax Unit (UIT), valid at the time of effective payment of the fine for the commission of the infractions referred to in articles 1° and 2° of this Resolution.
Article 4º.- This resolution does not exhaust the administrative route, unless it is consented, being able to be challenged before the Adjunct Superintendence of Prudential Supervision by filing a reconsideration or appeal, presented before the same, within the term 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 the term of fifteen (15) business days of being notified and remains consented, it must be published on the Institutional Page of the SMV in the Digital Unified Platform of the Peruvian State, in observance of what is provided in numeral 1, article 7º of the Policy on dissemination of normative projects, laws of a general character, early agenda and other administrative acts of the SMV, approved by SMV Resolution Nº 014-2014-SMV/01

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally under Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship and by what is provided in article 14° of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01.
Article 6º.- Transcribe this resolution to
Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A.
Register, communicate and publish.
Omar Gutiérrez Ochoa
Adjunct Superintendent
Adjunct Superintendence of Prudential Supervision

Lineage