Adjunct Superintendent Resolution No. 060-2024-SMV/10

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship.
Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV
No. 060-2024-SMV/10
Lima, December 13, 2024
Summary: Interfondos S.A. Fund Management Company is sanctioned with a fine amounting to seventeen (17) UIT, equivalent to S/ 73,100.00 (Seventy-three thousand ten and 00/100 Soles) for having committed six (06) serious infractions: two (02) classified in Annex VII, numeral 2, subsection 2.9 of the Sanctions Regulation; one (01) classified in Annex XVI, numeral 2, subsection 2.6 of the Sanctions Regulation; one (01) classified in Annex XVI, numeral 2, subsection 2.3 of the Sanctions Regulation; and two (02) classified in Annex I, numeral 2, subsection 2.31 of the Sanctions Regulation; for failing to reconcile the investments of the mutual funds with the account statements sent by the custodians, failing to determine the risk profile of participants, lacking the Operations Register of the AML/CFT System, failing to carry out the customer due diligence process, lacking the Procedures Manual duly updated, and failing to comply with what is established in the AML/CFT Manual; respectively. Administered: Interfondos S.A. Fund Management Company Subject: Administrative sanctioning procedure File No.: 2024030702 The Adjunct Superintendent of Prudential Supervision SEEN:
The administrative file No. 2024030702, Report No. 1297-2024-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Superintendence of Prudential Compliance, as well as the defenses presented by Interfondos S.A. Fund Management Company; and, CONSIDERING:

In accordance with Article 1° of Law No. 29782, Law on Strengthening the Supervision of the Securities Market, the name National Commission for the Supervision of Companies and Securities (CONASEV) is replaced by that of

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship.
Securities Market Superintendency (SMV), so that any reference to CONASEV in legal norms shall be understood as made to the SMV;
I. FACTS
2. Through Letter No. 1046-2021-SMV/10.2 dated March 15, 2021, it was ordered to carry out an inspection visit to Interfondos S.A. Fund Management Company (hereinafter, INTERFONDOS SAF), with the aim of verifying compliance with the applicable regulations for the development of its activities as a management company for mutual investment funds in securities. This inspection concluded on May 7, 2021, with the signing of the Inspection Completion Act (hereinafter, INSPECTION);
3. With Letter No. 3586-2021-SMV/10.2 dated September 8, 2021, INTERFONDOS SAF was informed of the observations found as a result of the INSPECTION, so that it would adopt the pertinent measures and report on them to the General Superintendence of Entity Supervision (IGSE);
4. Through Report No. 28-2024-SMV/10.2 dated March 6, 2024, the IGSE communicated to the General Superintendence of Prudential Compliance (IGCP) indications of possible infringements of the securities market regulations by INTERFONDOS SAF;
5. As a result of the evaluation of the indications in said report, the General Superintendence of Prudential Compliance (IGCP) with Letter No. 3092-2024-SMV/10.3, notified on July 17, 2024 (hereinafter, CHARGES LETTER) initiated an administrative sanctioning procedure against INTERFONDOS SAF;
6. On July 30, 2024, INTERFONDOS SAF requested an extension of the deadline granted through the CHARGES LETTER, for the presentation of its defenses; therefore, on that same date, with Letter No. 3291-2024-SMV/10.3, the requested extension of time was granted;
7. Through writing sent to the SMV on August 19, 2024, INTERFONDOS SAF presented the defenses to the charges formulated through the CHARGES LETTER;
8. The charges formulated against INTERFONDOS SAF, the defenses of the latter and their evaluation have been the subject of analysis in Report No. 1297 -2024-SMV/10.3 (hereinafter, IGCP REPORT), which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Adjunct Superintendency;
9. In observance of the Principle of Due Process contemplated both in Article IV, numeral 1.2, of the Preliminary Title and in article 248, subsection 2, of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law, Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO OF THE LPAG), through Letter No. 4454-2024-SMV/10, the administrative file to which this resolution refers was made available to INTERFONDOS SAF for review;
II. MATTERS TO BE DETERMINED
10. In the present administrative procedure, at the discretion of this Adjunct Superintendency, it corresponds to determine the following:
a. Whether INTERFONDOS SAF incurred or did not incur infringement of what is provided in the comments of account “18 Financial Investments” of the Accounting Standards applicable to Mutual Investment Funds in Securities, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 628-97-EF/94.10 and its amendments (hereinafter, ACCOUNTING STANDARDS) for not having carried out the reconciliation of the investments of the mutual funds with the account statements sent by the custodians, at least monthly, as well as investigating and regularizing the differences that arise; b. Whether INTERFONDOS SAF incurred or did not incur infringement of what is provided in article 10, numeral 10.2 of the Standards for the Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 033-2011-EF/94.01.1 and its amendments (hereinafter, AML/CFT STANDARDS), for not having had the Operations Register of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing System (hereinafter, OPERATIONS REGISTER) as of April 2021 according to the minimum content information established in Annex II “Form for the Registration of Operations” of the AML/CFT STANDARDS;
c. Whether INTERFONDOS SAF incurred or did not incur infringement of what is provided in article 7, numerals 7.1 and 7.2 of the AML/CFT STANDARDS, for not carrying out the customer due diligence process in accordance with applicable regulations, for not adopting corresponding measures to identify the beneficial owner of its natural person clients, as well as for not registering the minimum information required in client identification in the AML/CFT STANDARDS;
d. Whether INTERFONDOS SAF incurred or did not incur infringement of what is provided in article 86-A of the Regulation on Mutual Investment Funds in Securities and Their Management Companies, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 068-2010-EF/94.01.1 and its amendments (hereinafter, REGULATION), for not having complied with determining the risk profile of participants; e. Whether INTERFONDOS SAF incurred or did not incur infringement of what is provided in article 7 of the REGULATION for not having its Procedures Manual duly updated. f. Whether INTERFONDOS SAF incurred or did not incur infringement of what is provided in the “Verification” section of numeral 4.1 of its 2020 Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Manual, in the “Verification” section of subsection A of numeral 7.4.1.3 of its 2021 Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Manual; in the “Enhanced Due Diligence in Customer Knowledge” section of numeral 4.1 of its 2020 Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Manual, as well as in subsection B “Enhanced Due Diligence in Customer Knowledge” of numeral 7.4.1.3 of its 2021 Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Manual; and, with the methodology for determining the Risk Profile established in Annex No. 6 of its 2020 Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Manual. g. Whether it corresponds or does not correspond to impose a sanction on INTERFONDOS SAF;
III. ANALYSIS
3.1 FIRST CHARGE: FAILURE TO RECONCILE THE INVESTMENTS OF THE MUTUAL FUNDS
3.1.1 ON APPLICABLE NORMATIVE

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship.
11. Article 21, letter c) of the REGULATION establishes the following:
“Article 021°.- FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.-
The financial information of the mutual funds will be prepared, under the responsibility of the management company, in accordance with the standards established by CONASEV. The cited information will refer to the following:
(…) c) Detail of the Investment Portfolio: Shows the composition of the investments of the mutual fund at a specific date, indicating the valuation of each component of the portfolio.”
12. Likewise, in the comments of account “18 Financial Investments” of the Accounting Standards applicable to Mutual Investment Funds in Securities, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 628-97-EF/94.10 1 and its amendments (hereinafter, ACCOUNTING STANDARDS), it is established:
“(…).
Investments must be subject to reconciliation with the account statements sent by the custodians, at least monthly. Any differences that may exist must be investigated and regularized.
(…)”.
3.1.2 ON THE CHARGE FORMULATED
13. In the INSPECTION, the SMV compared the detail of the investment portfolio (the PORTFOLIO) of the mutual funds delivered by INTERFONDOS SAF with the detail of the PORTFOLIO delivered by the custodian Banco Interbank, observing that the custodian, as of December 31, 2020, in the mutual funds IF Mediano Plazo FMIV and IF Oportunidad FMIV, and as of February 27, 2021, in the mutual funds IF Libre Disponibilidad FMIV, IF Mediano Plazo FMIV and IF Oportunidad FMIV, does not have registered the investments made in participation shares of the fund “Oportunidad Global Fund Limited, SAC”, managed by "The Winterbotham Trust Company". The detail of the aforementioned investments is shown in the following table:
PARTICIPATION SHARES OF THE FUND “OPORTUNIDAD GLOBAL FUND LIMITED, SAC” MANAGED BY "THE WINTERBOTHAM TRUST COMPANY", WHICH ARE NOT FOUND IN THE RECORDS OF BANCO INTERBANK AS CUSTODIAN OF THE MUTUAL FUNDS As of December 31, 2020 IF MEDIANO PLAZO ISIN Currency Quantity Nominal Amount Current Value USD BSP7S81C1606 US$ 2,000 2,000,000 2,011,320 IF OPORTUNIDAD FMIV ISIN Currency Quantity Nominal Amount Current Value USD BSP7S81C1606 US$ 5,000 5,000,000 5,028,300 As of February 27, 2021 IF LIBRE DISPONIB SOLES FMIV ISIN Currency Quantity Nominal Current Value USD BSP7S81C1606 US$ 17,000 17,000,000 17,177,480 BSP7S81C1861 US$ 10,000 10,000,000 10,023,300 IF MEDIANO PLAZO FMIV

1 Published in the Official Gazette El Peruano on October 25, 1997.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship.
ISIN Currency Quantity Nominal Current Value USD BSP7S81C1606 US$ 2,000 2,000,000 2,020,880 IF OPORTUNIDAD FMIV ISIN Currency Quantity Nominal Current Value USD BSP7S81C1606 US$ 5,000 5,000,000 5,052,200
14. Regarding this, concerning the reconciliation of the securities portfolio and investments of the mutual funds, in Annex I of the closing Act of the INSPECTION the comment of the SMV was the following: “Consider that according to what is provided by the Accounting Standards of the Mutual Funds, Comments of Account 18 Real Estate Investments, states 'Investments must be subject to reconciliation with the account statements sent by the custodians at least monthly. Differences that may exist must be investigated and regularized'. Inform who is responsible for preparing these monthly reconciliations.';
15. Regarding said comment of the SMV, through writing presented to the SMV on May 21, 2021 2 , INTERFONDOS SAF stated the following: “Regarding this point, we indeed have not performed the monthly balancing with the account statements sent by the custodian so we will make the arrangements to start doing it”;
16. Consequently, INTERFONDOS SAF regarding the investments of the mutual funds IF Mediano Plazo FMIV and IF Oportunidad FMIV as of December 31, 2020, as well as the investments of the mutual funds IF Libre Disponibilidad FMIV, IF Mediano Plazo FMIV and IF Oportunidad FMIV as of February 27, 2021 would not have complied with what is established in the comments of account “18 Financial Investments” of the ACCOUNTING STANDARDS, because it would not have reconciled these investments with the account statements sent by the custodians, at least monthly;
17. Furthermore, it should be noted that these differences would not have been investigated and regularized by INTERFONDOS SAF, as the ACCOUNTING STANDARDS indicate, considering that the differences between what was recorded in INTERFONDOS SAF and Banco Interbank (custodian) as of December 31, 2020 in the mutual funds IF Mediano Plazo FMIV and IF Oportunidad FMIV, regarding investments in shares of the fund “Oportunidad Global Fund Limited, SAC”, remained as of February 27, 2021;
18. Therefore, INTERFONDOS SAF would not have complied with its obligations in accordance with what is established in the norms regulating the exercise of its activities, in this case with the ACCOUNTING STANDARDS, which obliges the management company to carry out a reconciliation of the investments of the mutual funds with the account statements sent by the custodians, at least monthly, as well as to investigate and regularize the differences that arise;
19. For which, it was attributed to INTERFONDOS SAF that it would have incurred the infraction qualified as serious classified in subsection 2.9, numeral 2, of Annex VII of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION) which establishes as an infraction of a serious nature: “Not complying with the obligations and functions that correspond to it in accordance with what is established in the fund participation regulation, or simplified prospectus of the fund or in the contracts celebrated on behalf of the fund with participants and third parties or those established in the regulation”;
3.1.3 ON THE DEFENSES PRESENTED
20. Regarding this, INTERFONDOS SAF states that the Custodian is duly informed about all operations that INTERFONDOS SAF, on behalf of the mutual funds it manages, carries out with Winterbothan Trust Company, since it is in charge of making the corresponding payments for these transactions; it specifies that this action is part of its responsibilities in accordance with the custody contract signed and article 161 of the REGULATION;
21. In that sense, the management company states, INTERFONDOS SAF informed the Custodian to make the investments indicated in the CHARGES LETTER, as can be seen in the emails referred to, attached with its defenses 3 . INTERFONDOS SAF highlights that, the investments detailed in the CHARGES LETTER are those indicated in the preceding emails, and that they varied from the dates of report to the Custodian (October 20, 2020 and January 26, 2021), until the cut-off dates indicated in the CHARGES LETTER (December 31, 2020 and February 27, 2021), due to INTERFONDOS SAF's investment and divestment decisions, so some amounts are different;
22. Being so, the management company states that, regarding article 21 of the REGULATION, neither the CHARGES LETTER nor the INSPECTION have demonstrated that INTERFONDOS SAF has failed to comply with the aforementioned article, since INTERFONDOS SAF, for the preparation of its financial statements, has always considered the correct detail of the investment portfolio. In this way, the management company argues, the CHARGES LETTER has not imputed that INTERFONDOS SAF has presented this last information incorrectly;
23. The management company states that, what is questioned in itself is the alleged failure to comply with the comment of account “18 Financial Investments” of the ACCOUNTING STANDARDS, which establishes that:
“(…). Investments must be subject to reconciliation with the account statements sent by the custodians at least monthly. Differences that may exist must be investigated and regularized. (…)”;
24. Being so, it states that, according to the introductory part of the ACCOUNTING STANDARDS it is stated that:
“It is the purpose of accounting standards to unify criteria for the recording of operations, so that financial statements reflect the rights and obligations of the Fund, facilitating their comparison and interpretation. (…)”;
25. In that way, INTERFONDOS SAF indicates that, the purpose of the ACCOUNTING STANDARDS is to unify criteria in the recording so that the financial statements reported to the SMV, by all mutual fund management companies, have the same entries, that is, the accounts of the financial information can be homogenized;

2 Through File No. 2021008828.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship.
26. It adds that, in that scenario, and in concordance with what is indicated by the comment of account 18, INTERFONDOS SAF has the obligation to reconcile any differences that may exist in the investments, with the purpose of sending this information to the SMV. Also, it indicates that although the norm explicitly uses “account statements”, they consider that this expression covers any document or record, that the Custodian may issue to them;
27. Such is the case that, the management company adds, during the inspection, the SMV did not use account statements, but rather reconciled its information with a “(…) detail of the PORTFOLIO delivered by the custodian Banco Interbank, (…)”. In other words, it did not use an account statement in particular terms, but in general terms;
28. Based on what was indicated above, they affirm that INTERFONDOS SAF performs that reconciliation daily of the detail of the investment portfolio, and this is proven with the use of the Investor System, which is used by both INTERFONDOS SAF and the Custodian;
29. Additionally, they allege that, as they explained in the response on October 14, 2021, both INTERFONDOS SAF and the Custodian use the referred system, where the base of all their operations information is located, including the detail of the investment portfolio. In this sense, they specify that, the Investor System is the application where all investments made by INTERFONDOS SAF are registered and from which all information is obtained to make reconciliations of their holdings. To demonstrate what is indicated, they state that they attach information regarding the people who have access to the Investor System, where it can be appreciated that Custodian workers have access to the referred system;
30. Likewise, they manifest that they attach a screenshot image of the Investor System, shared by INTERFONDOS SAF and the Custodian, of a worker's profile, where it can be seen that it has been registered since 2011 and especially (in the upper right part) that it has access to the “Investments” folder of mutual funds (place where the portfolio detail is registered);
31. Thus, they indicate that in the excel chart attached to the defense writing 4 one can visualize all the profiles of the Custodian workers who have had access to the Investor system, being the oldest from the year 2007 and the most recent in the year 2024;
32. In that sense, they add that the purpose of the norm is that both the Custodian and INTERFONDOS SAF reconcile their operations to subsequently report them to the SMV, this fact is fulfilled by having a shared system where everything is registered and which is reconciled daily by both parties, by knowing and registering the operations they are carrying out;
33. In this way, the management company states that, the attribution of responsibility to INTERFONDOS SAF falls because the reconciliation with the custodian's account statements was not done monthly, but this would not make sense having a daily reconciliation in the system. Likewise, it manifests that, INTERFONDOS SAF should not be sanctioned for having a shared system with the Custodian

4 Annex 1C of the defenses.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Digitally signed electronic 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 for daily reconciliations would not be reasonable, given that, they reiterate, the reconciliation is done daily and online;
34. Additionally, INTERFONDOS SAF states that it is unaware of the reasons why the Custodian sent an outdated portfolio to the SMV during the INSPECTION, since they could download the same report from the Investor System. In any case, if any responsibility is found for this situation, the managing society points out that it should be attributed to the Custodian and not to INTERFONDOS SAF;
35. Considering what has been stated, they point out that sanctioning INTERFONDOS SAF for a deficiency in sending the Custodian's information to the SMV during the INSPECTION goes against principles of the sanctioning procedure such as reasonableness and causality established in article 248, paragraphs 3 and 8 of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law, Law N° 27444, approved by Supreme Decree N° 004-2019- JUS (hereinafter, TUO DE LA LPAG); even more so when, according to the managing society, they have demonstrated that daily reconciliation of the portfolio detail is carried out, which is based on the use of the shared Investor System;
36. In this sense, INTERFONDOS SAF affirms that it always performs the reconciliation required by the comments on account "18 Mobile Investments" of the ACCOUNTING STANDARDS;
37. Finally, regarding the comment "(...), indeed we have not performed the monthly reconciliation with the statements sent by the custodian so we will make arrangements to start doing it.", the managing society indicates that, pursuant to a supplementary norm, such as article 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code, confession will only have probative value when duly corroborated by other circumstances. In the present case, they point out, they regret said comment, since the person who made it was unaware of the daily reconciliation carried out in the Investor System and add that, during that time there were still certain restrictions on mobility and meetings due to the Covid-19 Pandemic);
3.1.4 EVALUATION OF DEFENSES
38. INTERFONDOS SAF states in its defenses that it carries out daily reconciliation of the investment portfolio detail, and this is proven by the use of the Investor System, which would be a system shared by INTERFONDOS SAF with the Custodian. Likewise, they state that, as explained in the response on October 14, 2021, both INTERFONDOS SAF and the Custodian use the referred system, where all the information about their operations is located, including the detail of the investment portfolio, and specify that the Investor System is the application where all investments made by INTERFONDOS SAF are registered and from which all the information is obtained to make reconciliations of their holdings;
39. Regarding this, it should be mentioned that INTERFONDOS SAF, in its response of October 14, 2021 to the OBSERVATION OFFICE, regarding the incidents and observations identified in the INSPECTION, stated that:
"For the reconciliation of holdings (reconciliation), both our custodian, Interbank, and INTERFONDOS use the same information base, which is obtained from the Investor system. It must be specified that the Investor system is the application where all investments made by

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Digitally signed electronic 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 INTERFONDOS is recorded and from which all the information is obtained to make reconciliations of our holdings. In this reconciliation (reconciliation) the quantities registered in INTERFONDOS versus those registered in Cavali, BBH and other entities in which the mutual funds invest are compared. Being an automated process, only in case of differences, these are reviewed so that they are regularized as soon as possible. (Underline added);
40. In this sense, although, according to what is stated by INTERFONDOS SAF, the Custodian has the information provided by the managing society, through access to the Investor System, there may be differences between what is registered in the administrator's system (Investor System) and what is registered in the Custodian's own system;
41. If this is the case, it may be that the managing society's system has the correct information about the detail of the mutual fund investments and the Custodian's own system does not have it or vice versa, so the comments on account "18 Mobile Investments" of the ACCOUNTING STANDARDS indicate that the managing society must perform a reconciliation and the differences must be investigated and regularized. This, with the purpose that the information from the managing society's system, the Custodian's system, as well as the information provided by the entities that provide the primary source of the holding or registration of the investments, such as the securities clearing and settlement institution, is the same, for effective control and management of the mutual fund investments;
42. Likewise, regarding the differences between what is registered in the INTERFONDOS SAF system and what is registered in the Custodian's system, as well as the investigation and regularization that INTERFONDOS SAF must carry out, it should be indicated that in the response of October 14, 2021, regarding the following observation sent to the managing society, as a result of the INSPECTION: "Likewise, as of February 27, 2021, the IF Opportunity FMIV mutual fund maintained as investment the corporate bonds issued by Arca Continental SA. Regarding this, the nominal value that the custodian has in its records is S/ 2,309,000 and in the managing society's records is S/ 1,154,500.", INTERFONDOS SAF stated the following:
"Regarding this observation, from paragraph b), we must indicate that the holdings reconciliation process carried out by the custodian was modified by him to be carried out by quantity of securities and not by amount, since this is the information available in the market.
Before said modification, the custodian estimated the total nominal manually and did not consider the amortization factor of bonds with that characteristic; in that way, it was the custodian who did not reflect the real value of the indicated bonds.
It should be mentioned that, upon noticing the differences, the aforementioned modification was carried out starting in March 2021, a date prior to the inspection carried out by the SMV, so the event was remedied. Attached as evidence is the new holdings reconciliation (Annex 1 -7A). With the modification made, this type of difference will no longer occur between our records and those of the custodian in the future. It is important to specify that the quantity registered by INTERFONDOS (through the Investor system) was always correct and the difference was due to an involuntary operational error in the report sent by the custodian. We highlight that the information found in INTERFONDOS's Investor system, and sent at the time to the SMV inspection team, is correct. Likewise, we would like to express that the difference shown between our report and the report issued by the Custodian has no effect on the investments of the fund participants,

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Digitally signed electronic 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 since their valuation and accounting is based on our records." (Underline added).
43. From the aforementioned response, it follows that, despite the Custodian having access to the Investor System as specified by INTERFONDOS SAF, the managing society, regarding other investments, detected differences that existed between the records of the INTERFONDOS SAF system and the records of the Custodian's system, therefore, they stated, they made modifications in the holdings reconciliation process carried out by the custodian, so that these differences do not occur in the future. That is, INTERFONDOS SAF recognized differences between both systems and then proceeded to investigate them, to subsequently regularize them;
44. Considering the above, even though INTERFONDOS SAF has argued that both the custodian and the managing society comply with reconciling their operations by having a shared system such as the Investor System, where everything is registered and whose reconciliation, according to them, is done daily and online, the managing society itself according to the response of October 14, 2021, has recognized regarding other investments, the existence of differences regarding the investments in the mutual funds, between said systems. From this it follows that, between both systems differences can indeed occur, as pointed out in the CHARGES OFFICE;
45. Therefore, according to what is established in the ACCOUNTING STANDARDS, INTERFONDOS SAF has the obligation to perform a reconciliation of the mutual fund investments with the statements sent by the custodians and in case differences arise, to investigate and regularize them;
46. On the other hand, regarding the fact that the Custodian is duly informed about all the operations that INTERFONDOS SAF, on behalf of the mutual funds it administers, carries out with Winterbothan Trust Company, since it is in charge of making the corresponding payments for said transactions, it must be pointed out that in the OFFICE of CHARGES it is not questioned that INTERFONDOS SAF did not provide information about the mutual fund investments to the Custodian, but that INTERFONDOS SAF would not have reconciled with the Custodian's statements the investments of the IF Mediano Plazo FMIV and IF Oportunidad FMIV mutual funds as of December 31, 2020, as well as the investments of the IF Libre Disponibilidad FMIV, IF Mediano Plazo FMIV and IF Oportunidad FMIV mutual funds as of February 27, 2021, as stated by the ACCOUNTING STANDARDS;
47. Likewise, the differences between what was registered in INTERFONDOS SAF and the Custodian as of December 31, 2020 in the IF Mediano Plazo FMIV and IF Oportunidad FMIV mutual funds, regarding investments in shares of the "Oportunidad Global Fund Limited, SAC" fund administered by Winterbothan Trust Company, would not have been investigated and regularized by INTERFONDOS SAF, as stated by the ACCOUNTING STANDARDS, since these differences remained as of February 27, 2021;
48. Without prejudice to what is stated in the previous consideration, it should be indicated that from the review of emails dated October 20, 2020 and January 26, 2021, through which they refer that they informed the Custodian to carry out the investments indicated in the CHARGES OFFICE, it must be pointed out that these emails refer to the payments made for the concept of investments of the mutual funds in shares of the "Oportunidad Global Fund Limited, SAC" fund, and only payment amounts are observed, but the quantities of shares of the "Oportunidad Global

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Digitally signed electronic 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 Fund Limited, SAC that each of the payments represents is not observed, so this information on the investments of the mutual funds would not be sufficient for a registration of investments in shares of the "Oportunidad Global Fund Limited, SAC" fund;
49. Also, regarding the fact that according to INTERFONDOS SAF, it would be sanctioned for a deficiency in sending the Custodian's information to the SMV during the INSPECTION, which goes against principles of the sanctioning procedure such as reasonableness and causality, it should be noted that INTERFONDOS SAF is imputed with not complying with the ACCOUNTING STANDARDS, which obliges the managing society to perform a reconciliation of the mutual fund investments with the statements sent by the custodians, at least monthly, as well as to investigate and regularize the differences that arise, so the charge is duly supported by the observation of a non-compliance with the regulation by INTERFONDOS SAF;
50. Finally, regarding what was manifested by INTERFONDOS SAF regarding the person who made the comment "(...), indeed we have not performed the monthly reconciliation with the statements sent by the custodian so we will make arrangements to start doing it", who was unaware of the daily reconciliation carried out in the Investor System, it must be indicated that this declaration was sent by the managing society through a writing of May 21, 2021 5 signed by a legal representative of INTERFONDOS SAF 6 , that is, on behalf of the General Manager of the society. Therefore, he is responsible for knowing all aspects, at least relevant, that involve the administration of the managing society;
51. It must also be added that such a declaration not only supports the charge formulated but also the facts clearly evidenced such as the differences found from December 31, 2020 to February 27, 2021 that have been developed in the charges formulated;
52. Therefore, INTERFONDOS SAF has not disproven the charge imputed.
53. Consequently, INTERFONDOS SAF failed to comply with what is established in the comments on account "18 Mobile Investments" of the ACCOUNTING STANDARDS; therefore, it incurred in an infraction classified as serious according to Annex VII, paragraph 2, item 2.9 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
3.2 SECOND CHARGE: NOT COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM CONTENT OF THE OPERATIONS REGISTER OF THE PLAFT SYSTEM
3.2.1 OF THE APPLICABLE NORMATIVE
54. Article 10, paragraphs 10.1 and 10.2 of the PLAFT STANDARDS establish the following:
"Article 10.- Registration of Operations of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing System
10.1 Obligated subjects must keep and maintain updated the Registration of Operations of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing System, in which they must register the operations

5 File No. 2021008828 – Item 101.
6 Marie Arlette Moarri Nohra - Legal and stock exchange representative of INTERFONDOS SAF.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Digitally signed electronic 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 referenced in paragraph 9.2 of article 9 of the Law, that they carry out or have attempted to carry out by their clients, whose amounts are equal to or greater than US$ 10,000.00 (ten thousand and 00/100 United States dollars) or its equivalent in national currency or other currencies, if applicable. Likewise, obligated subjects must register individual operations that, collectively, equal or exceed US$ 50,000.00 (fifty thousand and 00/100 United States dollars) or its equivalent in national currency or other currencies, if applicable, when carried out or attempted to be carried out by or for the benefit of the same person during a calendar month, in which case they will be considered as a single operation. The applicable exchange rate to fix the equivalent in national currency will be the selling exchange rate published by the SBS, corresponding to the day the operation was carried out. Obligated subjects may establish internally, based on the risk analysis of the operations they carry out, client profile or any other criterion they determine, amounts, figures or lower imports than those established previously for the Registration of Operations of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing System.
10.2 The registration must be carried out through computer systems and must contain the information shown in Annex II, Form for Registration of Operations.
55. Likewise, it should be noted that in Annex II "Form for Registration of Operations" of the PLAFT STANDARDS the information that must contain the Registration of Operations of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing System (hereinafter, REGISTRATION OF OPERATIONS) is established;
3.2.2 OF THE FORMULATED CHARGE
56. In response to the observations noted in the Inspection Closing Act, through a letter of May 21, 2021, INTERFONDOS SAF stated: "Starting from April 2021, the missing information in the RO, observed in the 2019 inspection, has already been implemented. Excel file "OperacionesUnicas_2021_Abril" is attached which includes the information for your review";
57. Then, the SMV reviewed the REGISTRATION OF OPERATIONS corresponding to the month of April 2021, submitted by INTERFONDOS SAF, observing that it does not contain the minimum information established in Annex II "Form for Registration of Operations" of the PLAFT STANDARDS, as provided by paragraph 10.2 of article 10 of the PLAFT STANDARDS;
58. Likewise, the SMV determined that the following table summarizes the fields of the REGISTRATION OF OPERATIONS corresponding to the month of April 2021 that do not contain information and the number of clients in this situation:

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Digitally signed electronic 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 ORDER NO FORM DESCRIPTION NO OF CLIENTS WITHOUT INFORMATION 7 Executor identity document 1 9 Executor nationality 59 10 Executor profession or occupation 684 11 Executor address 109 12 Executor PPNN Postal Code 60 13 Executor province 1 14 Executor department 1 15 Executor country 2465 21 Orderer nationality 1 22 Orderer profession, occupation or economic activity 739 23 Orderer address 109 24 Orderer postal code 1 25 Orderer province 1 26 Orderer department 1 27 Orderer country 2491 34 Beneficiary 1 nationality 1 35 Beneficiary 1 profession, occupation and economic activity 753 36 Beneficiary address 108 37 Beneficiary postal code 1 38 Beneficiary province 1 39 Beneficiary department 1 40 Beneficiary country 2487 54 Beneficiary 2 profession, occupation and economic activity 194 55 Beneficiary 2 address 17 59 Beneficiary 2 country 522 66 Beneficiary 3 profession, occupation and economic activity 13 67 Beneficiary 3 address 1 71 Beneficiary 3 country 25 78 Beneficiary 4 profession, occupation and economic activity 1 83 Beneficiary 4 country 2
59. Therefore, in response to Office No. 3586-2021-SMV/10.2 regarding the observations and incidents of the INSPECTION (hereinafter, OBSERVATION OFFICE), through a writing presented on October 14, 2021 7
(hereinafter, RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS), INTERFONDOS SAF stated that "the register contains all the fields required by the regulation. Since May 2021, the ASSI systems (Interbank Stores Network system for the placement of products, among them, mutual funds) and ERNI (Interfondos digital platform that allows customers to operate completely digitally) collect this information mandatorily for new customers". Regarding this point, INTERFONDOS SAF attached a screenshot of the ASSI and ERNI systems;
60. In this sense, INTERFONDOS SAF would have regularized the minimum content of the REGISTRATION OF OPERATIONS required by the regulation since May 2021;
61. Therefore, INTERFONDOS SAF would not have complied with what is established in paragraph 10.2 of article 10 of the PLAFT STANDARDS, because the REGISTRATION OF OPERATIONS corresponding to the month of April 2021 did not contain the minimum information established in Annex II "Form for Registration of Operations" of the PLAFT STANDARDS;
62. Therefore, INTERFONDOS SAF would have incurred in the infraction classified as serious typified in item 2.6, paragraph 2, of Annex XVI

7 In File No. 2021008828.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations, and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship indicates that the Operations Register for the year 2020 was reviewed, with no type of document deficiency indicated regarding the Operations Register for the year 2021:
68. In the same way, the managing company states, in the response dated May 21, 2021, that INTERFONDOS SAF responded regarding the Operations Register corresponding to the year 2020, which was the one reviewed at that time, as follows:
69. Consequently, the managing company argues that, according to the SANCTIONS REGULATION, the infringement attributed to INTERFONDOS SAF can be remedied before the corresponding communication issued by the SMV demanding compliance with the obligation or the attribution of charges. In this sense, according to INTERFONDOS SAF, the communication regarding the alleged lack of information from the Operations Register did not occur in May 2021, with the closing of the inspection act, but in September 2021 with the OBSERVATION OFFICE;
70. For the aforementioned reasons, INTERFONDOS SAF points out that, in the present case, it corrected the minimum content of the Operations Register voluntarily before the attribution of charges or any communication from the SMV, therefore, the exemption from liability for voluntary remediation contained in letter f) of paragraph 1 of article 257 of the SINGLE TEXT OF THE LPAG should apply;
3.2.4 EVALUATION OF DEFENSES

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations, and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
71. Regarding what was argued by INTERFONDOS SAF, concerning that it corrected the minimum content of the OPERATIONS REGISTER, since May 2021, voluntarily before the attribution of charges or any communication from the SMV, considering that the lack of information of the OPERATIONS REGISTER was observed for April 2021 only in September 2021, it must be specified that, as is known to the managing company, through Memorandum No. 001-2021-SMV-INSP-INTERFONDOSAF dated March 15, 2021 (hereinafter, MEMORANDUM), the OPERATIONS REGISTER corresponding to the period 2020, including the minimum information provided for in the regulations, was requested from INTERFONDOS SAF, as a sample for the review of compliance with the OPERATIONS REGISTER;
72. However, upon closing the INSPECTION, this information was not presented by INTERFONDOS SAF;
73. Indeed, in the Closing Act of INSPECTION of May 7, 2021 (hereinafter, INSPECTION ACT), it was stated that "The information required and not presented to date, detailed in Annex I of this Act, must be presented by INTERFONDOS SAF (...) within a period not greater than ten (10) business days, following the signing of this Act." Thus, in Annex I of the INSPECTION ACT, the information referred to as "Operations Register corresponding to the period 2020, including the minimum information provided for in article 10.2 of the NPLAFT in Excel file)" was specified as required and not presented information, which had status "Pending" and in which it was also specified that INTERFONDOS SAF, in the meeting held on March 31, 2021, indicated that the missing information of the OPERATIONS REGISTER was being implemented and depended on Interbank's IT issues, so the deadline for implementation was until May 2021;
74. In this way, as indicated in the CHARGES OFFICE, INTERFONDOS SAF, in response to the observations noted in the Closing Act of the INSPECTION, via letter of May 21, 2021, point 2, manifested: "From April 2021, the missing information in the RO, observed in the 2019 inspection, has already been implemented. Attached is Excel file 'OperacionesUnicas_2021_Abril' which includes the information for your review";
75. Considering the response of INTERFONDOS SAF, the SMV reviewed said information sent by INTERFONDOS SAF, observing that, as of April 2021, said register still did not comply with the minimum information established in Annex II "Form for the Operations Register" of the PLAFT NORMS, according to what is provided in numeral 10.2 of article 10 of the PLAFT NORMS. As INTERFONDOS SAF had informed. Therefore, as INTERFONDOS SAF also refers, this was communicated to the managing company through the OBSERVATION OFFICE and in response to it, the managing company stated that the OPERATIONS REGISTER "(...) has all the fields required by the regulation. Since May 2021 (...)". To which it presented the corresponding information;
76. In this sense, if INTERFONDOS SAF regularized certain missing fields in the OPERATIONS REGISTER since May 2021, that is, subsequently to the closing of the INSPECTION, this was as a consequence and subsequently to the requirement made by the SMV in the INSPECTION on the OPERATIONS REGISTER, which was recorded in the INSPECTION ACT;

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations, and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
77. Likewise, it must be highlighted that according to the PLAFT NORMS, obligated subjects must keep and maintain the OPERATIONS REGISTER updated, that is, they have the obligation to keep said register at all times according to the information required in these norms;
78. Being so, it must be mentioned that, according to what is established in article 27, letter f), of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for voluntary remediation to operate as an exemption from liability within the framework of the administrative sanctioning procedure, this must not only occur before the notification of the administrative act attributing charges, but it is also required that no communication has been sent to the administrated demanding compliance with the obligation, since it must be the product of the free initiative of the obligated subject and could not be considered as an exemption if the remediation occurs as a response to a request from the SMV, as has occurred in the present case, according to what was previously exposed. In such a way, the conditions for voluntary remediation to operate as an exemption from liability are not met;
79. Therefore, INTERFONDOS SAF has not disproven the charge attributed;
80. Consequently, INTERFONDOS SAF failed to comply with what is established in numeral 10.2 of article 10 of the PLAFT NORMS, because the OPERATIONS REGISTER corresponding to the month of April 2021 did not contain the minimum information established in Annex II "Form for the Operations Register" of the PLAFT NORMS; therefore, it incurred in an infringement classified as serious according to Annex XVI, numeral 2, paragraph 2.6 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
3.3 THIRD CHARGE: NOT TO CARRY OUT THE CUSTOMER DUE DILIGENCE PROCESS ACCORDING TO THE PLAFT NORMS
3.3.1 ON APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
81. Paragraph ii) of numeral 7.1 and paragraphs d), h), i), j, and m) of numeral 7.2 of article 7 of the PLAFT NORMS establish the following:
"Article 7.- Application by the Obligated Subject, of due diligence regarding its client
7.1 Obligated subjects, under responsibility, must:
(…)
(ii) Identify the ultimate beneficiary adopting reasonable measures to verify their identity.
In the case of corporate clients or other legal structures, this must include understanding their ownership and control structure.
(…)
7.2 Obligated subjects must develop policies and procedures aimed at obtaining adequate knowledge of the identity of their clients, including the processing of forms to be completed by them. To this effect, public or private documents must be requested from clients, in accordance with the Law and Regulation, with the purpose of obtaining the information indicated below, verify the information provided even before initiating the commercial relationship and keep it updated. Likewise, obligated subjects may

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations, and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship require clients a Sworn Declaration on the Origin of Funds, in those cases deemed necessary for the purposes mentioned above." To this end, the following must be registered and verified by reliable means, as appropriate, at least:
In the case of natural persons:
(…) d) Unique Taxpayer Registry (RUC) and Unique Holder Registry (RUT) of securities annotated in account at CAVALI S.A. ICLV, if applicable.
(…) h) Usual occupation, trade, or profession. i) Workplace and position held, as well as length of service, if applicable. j) Public office or function performed in the last two (2) years, as well as name of the institution, if applicable. m) In the case of PEPs, name of their relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity and second degree of affinity and of the spouse or concubine, if applicable, as well as the list of corporate entities or legal entities where the PEP maintains a participation equal to or greater than 25% of its social capital, contribution, or participation. (…).”
3.3.2 ON THE CHARGE FORMULATED
NO IDENTIFICATION OF THE ULTIMATE BENEFICIARY
82. In the INSPECTION, the SMV requested INTERFONDOS SAF the Ultimate Beneficiaries Report in case such beneficiaries are different from the clients in whose name the operation is carried out. Regarding this, via letter of April 6, 2021, INTERFONDOS SAF manifested: "(…) Regarding this, we indicate that, in compliance with what is established in the Compliance Manual for AML/CFT Risk Management, Interfondos has deployed actions to identify the ultimate beneficiaries of its clients to the extent that due diligence allows. To this effect, it sends to all its clients the Final Beneficiary Format so that they complete and send it to Interfondos. Interfondos is in the process of gathering this information". Attached to said writing, the managing company presented the Sworn Declaration of Final Beneficiary format that would apply to corporate persons;
83. Likewise, through the RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS, INTERFONDOS SAF pointed out the following: "(…) the mentioned article, article 7, numeral 7.1, point (ii) of the PLAFT NORMS establishes the duty to identify the ultimate beneficiary 'adopting reasonable measures'; likewise, section 7.4.1.1 of the PLAFT Manual disposes the duty to identify ultimate beneficiaries 'to the extent that due diligence allows'. In this sense, INTERFONDOS HAS deployed efforts to identify the ultimate beneficiaries of its clients, which was evidenced by the delivery to the SMV inspector team, in the first information request, of the communications sent to clients with the format requesting this information […]. The sending of these communications to the emails provided by clients and the periodic forwarding of them is a measure we consider reasonable and which should not be considered a

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations, and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship non-compliance nor to the PLAFT NORMS nor to the PLAFT Manual. For the aforementioned reasons, we consider that we ARE adopting measures to know the ultimate beneficiaries; sending emails to existing clients; nevertheless, having the ultimate beneficiaries of 100% of existing clients prior to September of this year is a challenge given that it depends on the response of clients and on the information that is not publicly accessible and that Interfondos cannot obtain by other means; this does not negate the effort of INTERFONDOS to adopt reasonable measures to obtain said information";
84. Regarding this, it should be noted that paragraph ii) of numeral 7.1 of article 7 of the PLAFT NORMS have been in force since July 2013 and in the INSPECTION, carried out between March and May 2021, INTERFONDOS SAF did not manage to demonstrate that it identified the ultimate beneficiary in the due diligence process in the knowledge of its clients, as mandated by the aforementioned regulation; that is, no field or format was observed in the mutual fund administration contracts or other formats that are in the files of the sample of 41 clients with the information related to due diligence in client knowledge 8, in which the client is required to declare the ultimate beneficiary;
85. It should be specified, furthermore, that the ultimate beneficiary can be of natural person clients and corporate persons; however, INTERFONDOS SAF in the INSPECTION only attached the Sworn Declaration of Final Beneficiary format that would apply to corporate persons and that it had sent to its clients by email before the INSPECTION, as it stated in its writing of April 6, 2021, but without accrediting it;
86. Therefore, it was attributed to INTERFONDOS SAF that it would not have complied with what is established in paragraph ii) numeral 7.1 of article 7 of the PLAFT NORMS, because it would not have complied with adopting the corresponding measures to identify the ultimate beneficiary of its natural person and corporate clients;
NO REGISTRATION OF CLIENT INFORMATION
87. Regarding the client identification stage applied by the society, in the INSPECTION, INTERFONDOS SAF presented as support the Administration Contract and the Consultation in the Central of Special Clients (CCE) for the case of natural persons;
88. Then, from the analysis of the content of the documents used in the client identification stage, the SMV observed that the managing company would not be collecting the following minimum information established in numeral 7.2 of article 7 of the PLAFT NORMS for the case of natural persons:
a. Paragraph d) the RUT number, if applicable. b. Paragraph h) Usual occupation, trade, or profession
c. Paragraph i) Workplace and position held, as well as length of service,
if applicable. d. Paragraph j) Public office or function performed in the last 2 years, as well as name of the institution, if applicable.

8 Required in the INSPECTION.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations, and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship e. Paragraph m) The list of corporate entities, or legal entities where the PEP maintains a participation equal to or greater than 25% of its social capital, contribution or participation.
89. It should be noted that the omission in the registration of the minimum information required according to paragraphs d), i) (with respect to length of service), j) and m) of numeral 7.2 of article 7 of the PLAFT NORMS would be evidenced by the fact that the formats used for client identification do not have fields on these requirements;
90. Being so, in the RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS,
INTERFONDOS SAF pointed out that: (i) RUT: it is not a data that is required for the business developed by INTERFONDOS SAF, therefore it is not requested from clients; (ii) Length of service: the contract includes the field "date of labor entry" with which it covers what is required by the regulation; iii) Public office or function performed in the last 2 years and name of the institution: although the contract includes the fields related to PEPs as "entity" and "position", indeed it does not request public office or function performed in the last 2 years; (iv) Legal entities where the PEP maintains participation equal to or greater than 25% of its social capital, contribution or participation: this information is requested through the PEP format, which was implemented since August 2021;
91. Regarding what was stated by INTERFONDOS SAF, it must be indicated that: i) the RUT is a client data that, if applicable, indicates that it is registered in Cavali S.A. ICLV; ii) in contract No. A132943 registered on October 14, 2020, the field "date of labor entry" is not included;
92. It should also be indicated that, the omission in the registration of the minimum information required according to paragraphs h) and i) (with respect to workplace and position held) of numeral 7.2 of article 7 of the PLAFT NORMS should be due to INTERFONDOS SAF not requiring its clients to consign in the forms said minimum information that obliges the regulation, despite the fact that the forms have the respective fields to obtain said information;
93. Regarding this, it should be noted that in contract No. A132943 registered on October 14, 2020, no information was registered in the fields "company where employed" and "position" and in this case in the field "profession or occupation" "commercial manager" was registered which would come to be a position in a company;
94. In this sense, in the RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS,
INTERFONDOS SAF pointed out that "given that mutual funds are a retail product that is marketed through bank tellers, we face a challenge regarding the data that clients declare. In order to avoid these omissions, since May 2021, adjustments have been made to the ASSI and ERNI systems so that the data fields are mandatory for new clients";
95. Therefore, INTERFONDOS SAF would not have complied with what is established in paragraphs d), h), i), j) and m) of numeral 7.2 of article 7 of the PLAFT NORMS, because it would not have registered the minimum information in the client identification that requires the regulation;
96. Consequently, INTERFONDOS SAF would have incurred in the infringement classified as serious typified in paragraph 2.3, numeral 2, of Annex XVI of the SANCTIONS REGULATION which establishes as an infringement of a serious nature: "Not to carry out the customer due diligence process, according to the regulation

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
102. In this way, INTERFONDOS SAF specifies that Article 7, numeral 7.1, point (ii) of the PLAFT RULES establishes the duty to identify the ultimate beneficiary “by adopting reasonable measures”; likewise, section 7.4.1.1 of the PLAFT Manual of the managing society, provides for the duty to identify ultimate beneficiaries “to the extent that due diligence allows”;
103. In this sense, INTERFONDOS SAF states that it has indeed deployed efforts to identify the ultimate beneficiaries of its clients, especially legal entities, which was evidenced by the delivery to the SMV inspection team, in the first request for information, the communications sent to the clients with the format requesting this information. Likewise, they indicate that sending these communications to the emails provided by the clients and the periodic forwarding of them is a measure they consider reasonable and that should not be considered a breach of the PLAFT RULES. The managing society specifies that the documents proving this were given in their response letter of October 14, 2021;
104. This, according to their statements, was recognized in the NOTICE OF CHARGES, since it states: “It should also be clarified that the ultimate beneficiary can be from natural person and legal entity clients; however, INTERFONDOS SAF in the INSPECTION only attached the Final Beneficiary Sworn Declaration form that would apply to legal entities and that it had sent to its clients by email before the INSPECTION, as stated in its writing of April 6, 2021, but without accrediting it.”;
105. In this way, INTERFONDOS SAF in order to accredit the email sent to its legal entity clients, attaches an image of it. Likewise, INTERFONDOS SAF indicates that it attaches a list of companies and communications sent 9, both physical and virtual, during 2020 (before the INSPECTION) and that to these companies the communication for the update of the ultimate beneficiary was sent. In this context, INTERFONDOS SAF states that, they consider that it has been demonstrated that they did apply their procedures to identify the ultimate beneficiaries of legal entities (main objective of the rule);
106. Now then, regarding natural person clients, INTERFONDOS SAF points out that, according to what was reviewed and based on risk-based supervision, by March 2021 it was not considered relevant to carry out an identification of the ultimate beneficiaries of natural persons, to the extent that, according to INTERFONDOS SAF, there are no registered cases in which a person acts on behalf of others and there are no reasonable indications that any client acts on behalf of another person;
107. Additionally, INTERFONDOS SAF specifies that, in the case of natural persons who contract mutual funds, there is indeed a clear identification of the person carrying out the operation, since the person is fully identified (according to article 2, literal b, of the PLAFT RULES). In this sense, the managing society indicates that asking INTERFONDOS SAF to demonstrate that behind a fully identified natural person, another person was acting when there are no reasonable indications, is asking them to prove a fact that has not occurred;

9 Annex 3A of the defenses.

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
108. Likewise, they indicate that, carrying out a procedure to identify natural persons who register and contract as ultimate beneficiaries, from the perspective of the PLAFT RULES, would constitute a repetitive procedure in cases that do not warrant it, since, in all cases it is the same natural person who contracts (and therefore is the ultimate beneficiary). In this way, the managing society considers that they are indeed adopting measures to know the ultimate beneficiaries, to the extent that, in the case of natural persons, the holders of the operations are indeed known; and, in the case of legal entities, where the true purpose of identifying ultimate beneficiaries falls, efforts are indeed made;
109. Additionally, and with regard to what was stated in the NOTICE OF CHARGES about: “(…) it has not been observed in the mutual fund administration contracts or other formats found in the files of the sample of 41 clients with the information related to due diligence in customer knowledge, a field or format in which the client is required to declare the ultimate beneficiary.”, INTERFONDOS SAF states that, since October 29, 2020, that is, before the INSPECTION, the managing society, through file N° 2020038807 requested the SMV approval of the modifications to its Master Contract, in which, among others, declarations regarding the ultimate beneficiary were included;
110. According to INTERFONDOS SAF, this request was only approved by the SMV on October 12, 2021, through Letter N° 4033-2021-SMV/10, that is, according to the managing society, the procedure took approximately one year;
111. Also, INTERFONDOS SAF mentions that, although it does not deny that observation letters existed, they were issued by the SMV with considerable time differences, which did not allow INTERFONDOS SAF to resolve the authority's doubts in a shorter period and they highlight that they always complied with the deadlines granted by the authority to respond. Thus, the managing society indicates that, according to Annex F, literal n) of the REGULATIONS and article 39 of the SINGLE TEXT OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDMENTS LAW, these prior evaluation procedures cannot exceed thirty (30) business days, unless a longer period is established by law or legislative decree, a fact that did not occur in this case;
112. Likewise, they state that upon obtaining SMV authorization, they proceeded to update the Mutual Fund Master Contract, for which, according to their statements, they attach as a sample the individual natural person contract registered with the SMV 10, in which a declaration by the participants stating the following was included:
“Participant Declaration:
(…) 5) To know that: (i) According to Legislative Decree N° 1372 and its regulations, INTERFONDOS has the obligation to communicate to SUNAT the data of its ultimate beneficiaries who are its participants; therefore, in compliance with the respective norms, I declare having the status of ultimate beneficiary of the fund or funds managed by INTERFONDOS in which I invest; and, (…)”
113. In this context, INTERFONDOS SAF, from what is exposed and in accordance with what was imputed by the NOTICE OF CHARGES, which according to the

10 Annex 3C of the defenses.

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 managing society, considers as a relevant fact for the commission of the infraction that it was not observed in the mutual fund administration contracts the information related to due diligence in customer knowledge, a field or format in which the client is required to declare the ultimate beneficiary, argues that, this fact would have been present if a response had been obtained from the SMV, within the deadline required by Law, in file N° 2020038807;
114. Additionally, INTERFONDOS SAF maintains that the Master Contracts of mutual funds are considered contracts of adhesion or in default general clauses of contracting, so it points out, the modifications once approved and registered by the SMV apply to all persons who remain in their products. It adds that they apply to all modifications registered by update, as was the case of file 2020038807, or to all those that were not withdrawn, after the fifteen (15) business days granted in the modification procedures;
115. Therefore, INTERFONDOS SAF considers that they are in a situation of exemption from responsibility contemplated in article 27, literal a) and e) of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS, to the extent that due to a situation of force majeure due to the delay of the authority, the changes could not be made in time;
Regarding failure to register client information
116. Regarding this, INTERFONDOS SAF states that it must clarify what is indicated in article 7, numeral 7.2, point (ii) of the PLAFT RULES: “Article 7.- Application by the Obligated Subject, of due diligence regarding its client
(…)
7.2 Obligated subjects must develop policies and procedures aimed at obtaining adequate knowledge of the identity of their clients, including the processing of forms to be completed by them. To this end, clients must be asked to present public or private documents, in accordance with the Law and Regulations, with the purpose of obtaining the information indicated below, verify the information provided even before starting the commercial relationship and keep it updated. Likewise, obligated subjects may require clients to submit a Sworn Declaration on the Origin of Funds, in those cases deemed necessary for the aforementioned purposes.”
In this sense, the following must be recorded and verified by reliable means, as appropriate:
In the case of natural persons:
a) Full names. b) Type and number of identity document. c) Place and date of birth. d) Unique Taxpayer Registry (RUC) and Unique Holder Registry (RUT) of securities annotated in account in CAVALI S.A. ICLV, if applicable. e) Nationality and country of residence. f) Identification of representatives, considering the information required in the case of natural persons; as well as verifying the corresponding powers. g) Address, telephone number (landline and mobile), fax and email, if applicable

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 h) Usual occupation, trade or profession. i) Workplace and position held, as well as length of service, if applicable. j) Public office or function performed in the last two (2) years, as well as name of the institution, if applicable. k) Purpose of the relationship to be established with the obligated subject. l) Whether or not a person classified as PEP. m) In the case of PEPs, name of their relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity and second of affinity and of the spouse or concubine, if applicable, as well as the list of legal entities or juridical entities where the PEP maintains a participation equal to or greater than 25% of its share capital, contribution or participation. (…). (Underlining added)”
117. Likewise, INTERFONDOS SAF indicates that article 1 of the PLAFT RULES should not be overlooked, which states that this regulation is applicable to: i) stockbroker societies, ii) securities intermediary societies, iii) mutual investment fund management societies in securities, iv) investment fund management societies, v) securitization societies, vi) stock exchanges, vii) clearing and settlement institutions for securities, viii) collective fund management companies; as well as any other subject, with operating authorization granted by the SMV. Being so, and from an integral reading of the PLAFT RULES, the managing society specifies that its application is to a general group of companies, each with a target group of clients and with particular sectoral regulations;
118. In this sense, INTERFONDOS SAF, points out that the purpose of the cited rule is that companies like INTERFONDOS SAF obtain adequate knowledge of the identity of their clients, and that this inquiry will depend on the type of company performing this function (stockbroker societies, fund management societies, stock exchanges, among others), and not that all companies have the same criteria for requesting information from their clients, otherwise it would not make sense to have phrases like “as appropriate”;
119. Thus, INTERFONDOS SAF indicates that, in order to deepen what was indicated in its writing of October 14, 2021, they point out with regard to the “RUT” field, that in the particular case of INTERFONDOS SAF, being a retail product, the RUT is not only a specialized registration number and corresponding to people who trade on the stock exchange, but it can generate confusion when filling out the forms;
120. Likewise, it maintains that the RUT is a registry only for trading on the stock exchange and that it is not needed to invest in mutual funds. It also maintains that having an RUT field within its Master Contracts or forms not only generates a cumbersome and tedious contracting for any client, but also, moreover, would imply leaving that box empty in most cases, and being so, they point out if it would be reasonable to sanction for not obtaining information that the client does not have and does not need to operate with mutual funds;
121. In this line, the managing society states that the RUT, regarding the customer knowledge of INTERFONDOS SAF, is not an essential data for its identification. It is not a data by which, if not having it, the person cannot be identified. In this way, it argues that, the reading of article 7, numeral 7.2, of the PLAFT RULES seeks that companies such as stock exchanges, clearing and settlement institutions for securities, intermediation agents or

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 even securitizers, whose clients do operate on the stock exchange, can provide that information, since for these sectors the RUT is not only known, but relevant for their operations; nevertheless, for cases such as fund management societies or collective fund management companies it would not correspond. In those situations it is that one must consider that “if applicable” or “as appropriate” applies, according to the managing society;
122. In this way, INTERFONDOS SAF considers that, the correct reading of article 7, numeral 7.2, of the PLAFT RULES, regarding obtaining the client's RUT passes through the companies to which the referred norm is applicable, and not by a box in the retail client contract where said registry is not widely held; more so when for sectors such as mutual fund management, it is not a necessary data to know the client and much less to operate;
123. Also, regarding the field “usual occupation, trade or profession”, INTERFONDOS SAF indicates that the Master Contract does have a field called “Profession or occupation”, with which the request of the rule is fulfilled;
124. Regarding the field “Length of service”, INTERFONDOS SAF points out that the Master Contract includes the field “labor entry date”, with which, according to the managing society, what is required by the PLAFT RULES is covered. Additionally, it maintains that with the labor entry date one can obtain the length of service that a person has in their workplace and the PLAFT RULES do not demand having a field in the Master Contract or form with the denomination “length of service”, what it requests is that companies like INTERFONDOS SAF know the length of service of their clients, so a field like “labor entry date” gives them the entry data, which when contrasted with the data of mutual fund or investment contracting, gives them, according to the managing society, the data of their length of service, so, they point out, compliance with what is required by the regulation is met;
125. With regard to the field “Public office or function performed in the last 2 years” and “name of the institution”, INTERFONDOS SAF points out that, although the Master Contract of that time did not directly include these fields, the PLAFT RULES do not demand having a field in the Master Contract or form with both denominations, what is required is that companies like INTERFONDOS SAF know this information, and this can be obtained from the cross-referencing of information they perform, of the names of the clients with an internal database of PEPs. So, it maintains that the obtaining of the information, regardless of the denomination of the field, is indeed had and was had;
126. The managing society adds that, they must always present the information in a user-friendly manner so that the client can subscribe to their participation quotas and above all carry out a correct filling of the Master Contract, being this topic independent of whether INTERFONDOS SAF, by its own means, can obtain the information, making reference to article 7, numeral 7.1, point (i) of the PLAFT RULES;
127. In this way, regarding the points “usual occupation, trade or profession” and “length of services”, INTERFONDOS SAF mentions that

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 attaches the current Master Contract 11 on that date where the fields described above are indeed visible with which the purpose of knowing the client is fulfilled;
128. Notwithstanding the above, INTERFONDOS SAF insists that the PLAFT RULES do not demand having those fields in the Master Contract or form, only that the information is known, a fact that INTERFONDOS SAF could indeed know with the data obtained. This fact, the managing society points out, gains greater relevance when, from a reading of article 40 of the REGULATIONS, they are asked that the contract have as minimum the following information:
“Article 40th.- Content of the Contract
The contract between the managing society and the participant, referred to in article 242 of the Law, is called administration contract.
The managing society may manage a single model of contract for the different mutual funds under its administration. The contract must be signed by the managing society and the participant before the first subscription or transfer of quotas of any of the mutual funds that are subject or shall be subject to the same. The managing society responds jointly with its promoters and the promoters designated by the placement agents, for the improper acts of these, as well as for their omissions. This contract must contain as minimum the following information:
a) Identification:
1) Name or corporate name of the participant and identity document or RUC number, as appropriate;
2) Name and identity document of their legal representative duly authorized to subscribe and redeem quotas, if applicable;
3) Address of the participant;
4) Email, if applicable; and,
5) In the case of co-ownership, indication of the name and identity document of the representative of the co-owners for the purposes of communications with the managing society.
Likewise, it must be indicated if in the process of placing quotas, the co-owners will act individually or jointly. This indication, signed by all co-owners, implies the granting of power in favor of the co-owner or co-owners indicated to carry out the acts comprised in the placement process. b) Denomination of the mutual fund and its series, only in case that the application of the contract is foreseen for a single mutual fund; c) Corporate name of the managing society; d) Date of celebration of the contract; e) Website; f) Indication that the incorporation of the participant into the mutual fund implies full acceptance and submission to the simplified prospectus, participation regulations and other rules that regulate its functioning; g) Authorization of the participant for the managing society to redeem the participations that they maintain in excess, in case that the deadlines indicated in article 91 of the

11 Annex 4E of the defenses.

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 Reglamento, sin que se haya efectuado la subsanación correspondiente, así como en aquellos casos requeridos por las normas tributarias; h) Means to carry out operations. The managing company must specify in the participation regulations and simplified prospectus which operations can be carried out through these means; i) The means by which the managing company will provide the participant with the account statement, in accordance with articles 135 and 136 of the Regulations; j) Alternative used by the managing company to carry out communications that are required, including those derived from modification procedures for the simplified prospectus, participation regulations, or administration contract; k) Identification of the promoter who participated in the operation; and, It is the responsibility of the managing company to correctly register all data prior to the first subscription. The updating of the data indicated in letters a), i) and j) may be carried out through electronic, telematic, or other analogous means. In these cases, the provisions of article 85 of the Regulations shall apply. In the event that the contract is concluded through means other than physical, the information mentioned in letter k) shall only be applicable to the extent that a promoter participates in the contracting. When the managing company opts to manage a single administration contract for different mutual funds, it shall suffice to deliver a copy of the contract at the time of the first subscription, transfer, or rollover of the shares of any of the mutual funds subject or to be subject to said contract, in accordance with what is stated in the second paragraph of article 40 A of the Regulations.”

In this context, INTERFONDOS SAF states that
under such regulation, once a participant provides them with at least that data, they must carry out the contracting and subsequent compliance with their subscription orders.
They maintain that the PLAFT NORMS do not oblige obligated subjects to have those fields in Contracts, only that they can know their clients and have the required information, under any means, even independent means of the client, in accordance with article 7, numeral 7.1, point (i), of the PLAFT NORMS, with which attributions such as those indicated in the LETTER OF CHARGES cannot be valid, according to the managing society’s claim;
According to INTERFONDOS SAF, these
attributions refer to “It should be noted that the omission in the registration of the minimum information required according to letters d), i) (with regard to length of service), j) and m) of numeral 7.2 of article 7 of the PLAFT NORMS would be evidenced by the fact that the formats used for client identification do not have fields on these requirements”; (…) Likewise, it must be indicated that the omission in the registration of the minimum information required according to letters h) and i) (with regard to work center and position held) of numeral 7.2 of article 7 of the NORMAS PLAFT Should be due to the fact that INTERFONDOS SAF would not require its clients to consign in the forms said minimum information that the regulation obligates, despite the fact that the forms have the respective fields to obtain said information.”;
Regarding the last paragraph, INTERFONDOS SAF indicates
that the participant fills in the necessary fields for the contracting of mutual funds, in accordance with article 40 of the REGULATIONS, regulation that, does not require the inclusion of fields such as “RUT”, “Usual occupation, trade or profession”, “Work center and position held, as the case may be.”, “Public office or function performed in the last 2 years” and “name of the institution”;
Now then, INTERFONDOS SAF alleges that, to
date they have complied with the action plan informed to the SMV on October 14, 2021, it is evidenced by Letter No. 2925-2024-SMV/10, through which the SMV approved the inclusion of these fields in the Master Contract. They specify that, although these items should not be mandatorily included in the Contract, this precision is made to incentivize the client to fill it out and evidence, work that is indeed carried out operationally, according to the managing society’s statement;
Additionally, they express that with the cited Letter
No. 2925-2024-SMV/10, numeral ii) 12, mechanisms were denied to INTERFONDOS SAF to request information from clients and that, in case of non-compliance, they could be blocked or, in the worst case, terminated. In this sense, INTERFONDOS SAF indicates that it can only perform best efforts work to request the information and it will depend on the will and correct filling out by clients;
On the other hand, regarding cases such as that of contract
No. A132943 registered on October 14, 2020, which does not include the field "date of labor entry" or no information was recorded in the fields “company where employed” and “position” and/or information was recorded in the field “profession or occupation” dated as “commercial manager”, the managing society points out that these fields are filled in by clients and subsequently, the client updates their information voluntarily or at our request, but depend on their will to complete the information and/or complete it correctly;
Likewise, INTERFONDOS SAF indicates that the
above is evidenced by the Log they attach as part of their defense, where refers that, the client of the aforementioned contract updates their information at various times, often motivated by insistence from INTERFONDOS SAF, sending correspondence or calls. Likewise, it points out that, in these cases, they can only verify what is indicated by the client at an ex post moment, and then request the complete filling out or its correction if necessary. In this sense, they attach the log information, where according to their statement, the client has entered on various dates (even before the INSPECTION) to fill in or correct their data;
Likewise, they point out that the following image they
attach, is evidence of the systematic emails they send to their clients to update their information:

12 Annex 4F of the defenses.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

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

In this way, INTERFONDOS SAF insists that
the missing fields are not data required by article 7, numeral 7.2, point (ii), of the PLAFT NORMS as necessary fields in the Master Contracts, but are data necessary for customer due diligence procedures. Likewise, it points out that, in these cases, although those fields were not in the Master Contract, the SMV has not been able to demonstrate that INTERFONDOS SAF did not have the information regarding occupation, position, length of service, among others of the clients;
INTERFONDOS SAF states that, in case it
is considered that the data of the fields (such as in the case of contract No. A132943) were vital data for due diligence, this information was provided by the client at the time of contracting, who left the field empty and even erroneous, the same that was later regularized. Likewise, it states that, this may happen because being a product placed through the placement agent, the client can declare freely the data they wish, which may be erroneous and INTERFONDOS SAF can only take corrective measures and incentivize regularization subsequently;
Finally, INTERFONDOS SAF points out that, it performs
this function of incentivizing correction, but ultimately depends on the will of clients. Being so, they consider themselves facing a case of exemption from liability contemplated in article 27, letter a), insofar as due to a situation of force majeure attributable to a third party, not all data or all correct data could be obtained, without this implying that INTERFONDOS SAF does not perform its duties to properly know the client;

3.3.4 EVALUATION OF DEFENSES
NOT IDENTIFYING THE BENEFICIAL OWNER

According to INTERFONDOS SAF, the PLAFT NORMS
have an integral and risk-based purpose regarding the identification of the beneficial owner, in that way this norm establishes the duty to identify the beneficial owner “adopting reasonable measures”. In this sense, INTERFONDOS SAF points out that it has deployed efforts to identify the beneficial owners of its clients, especially legal entities, that is, that it did apply procedures to identify the beneficial owners of legal entities, which in the opinion of the managing society is the main objective of the norm;

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

Likewise, regarding natural person clients,
INTERFONDOS SAF points out that, in accordance with a risk-based supervision, by March 2021 it did not consider relevant to carry out an identification of the beneficial owners of natural persons, insofar as they had no registered cases nor reasonable indications that any client was acting on behalf of another person and that carrying out a procedure to identify as beneficial owners natural persons who register and contract, from the perspective of the PLAFT NORMS, would constitute a repetitive procedure in cases that do not warrant it, given that, in all cases it is the same natural person who contracts and therefore is the beneficial owner. In that way, it considers that, they have adopted the measures to know the beneficial owners;
With respect to this, it is necessary to point out that, article 7,
numeral 7.1, item ii) of the PLAFT NORMS cited above, establishes that obligated subjects must identify the beneficial owner adopting reasonable measures to prove their identity and that in the case of legal entity clients or other legal structures, this must include understanding their ownership and control structure. From this, it is inferred that the norm has not established that its main objective is the application of procedures for the identification of beneficial owners of legal entities, but of every client of the obligated subject, which includes natural persons;
Likewise, it must be specified that, risk management,
to which the PLAFT NORMS refer, does not imply that the obligated subject does not have the obligation to record the actions adopted in the client knowledge procedure, which includes the identification of the beneficial owner;
Thus, in accordance with article 7, numeral 7.3 13 and
regarding the fact that the PLAFT NORMS have an integral purpose, it establishes that the identification stage in the due diligence process in client knowledge, consists of implementing procedures to obtain information that allows determining the identity of a client or beneficial owner, as well as that the verification stage implies the application of verification procedures of the information provided or supplied before initiating the contractual relationship with clients and, if applicable, of their beneficial owner, with the objective of ensuring that they have been duly identified, having to leave a record of this in their file;
In this context, regarding the identification of the
beneficial owner, INTERFONDOS SAF, in the files or records corresponding to the clients, had to leave a record of the measures or procedures adopted before the

13 “7.3 The due diligence process in client knowledge consists of the following stages: i) identification, ii) verification and iii) monitoring; the partial or total performance of each of the stages is based on what established in the following manner:
a) Identification stage.- consists of developing and implementing procedures to obtain the information that allows determining the identity of a client or beneficial owner. b) Verification stage.- implies the application of verification procedures of the information provided or supplied before initiating the contractual relationship with clients and, if applicable, of their beneficial owner, with the objective of ensuring that they have been duly identified, having to leave a record of this in their file. When exceptionally it becomes necessary to initiate the commercial relationship before verification to not interrupt the normal course of this, the obligated subject may verify the identity of the client later or during the course of the contractual relationship, provided that the obligated subject has adopted risk management procedures for AML/CFT to determine the conditions under which a client could use the services and/or products of the obligated subject prior to verification, and the applicable deadlines to carry it out. (…).”

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

start of the commercial relationship in order to verify if its natural person client was or was not the beneficial owner and, if so, register the identity of the beneficial owner, or leave a record that, after the start of the commercial relationship, measures were adopted to identify, if applicable, the beneficial owner;

However, INTERFONDOS SAF has not accredited
in the present procedure the actions or measures adopted to identify the beneficial owner regarding its natural person clients. As well, it did not accredit with relation to legal entity clients, since INTERFONDOS SAF attached in the INSPECTION the format of Sworn Declaration of Beneficial Owner that would apply to legal entities and with its defenses it has attached the image of the email with which it would have sent to its legal entity clients said formats, before the INSPECTION. Likewise, it attached the list of companies, with the data of its email address and the date on which it would have sent the format by email, during 2020; as well as, the list of companies to which the format would have been sent by physical means, during 2020;
It should be added that, the existence of a field in the
Administration Contract of Mutual Funds, a form or other format, in which the client indicates whether they are or are not the beneficial owner and, if so, registers the information of the beneficial owner, is a measure that can be considered reasonable in the client knowledge procedure, which, furthermore, could facilitate later the process of verification of the information provided by being in a field of a form;
However, INTERFONDOS SAF, according to the
sample of clients with information related to due diligence reviewed in the INSPECTION, did not accredit having that field in its forms, despite the fact that the disposition on identification of the beneficial owner has been in effect since 2013. Which has also not been accredited with the defenses. Thus, from the sample of clients reviewed in the INSPECTION, it is observed that on October 14, 2020, a client was registered with contract No. A132943 with a form that does not have the field to identify the beneficial owner or with any other document for that purpose;
On the other hand, INTERFONDOS SAF alleges that, on October 29
of 2020, before the INSPECTION, through file No. 2020038807 it requested from the SMV the approval of the modifications to its Master Contract, which, among others included declarations regarding the beneficial owner, a request that according to its claim, was only attended by the SMV on October 12, 2021 through Letter No. 4033-2021- SMV/10, that is, according to INTERFONDOS SAF, the procedure took approximately one year;
Therefore, it affirms, had it obtained a
response from the SMV, within the deadline required by Law, in File No.
2020038807, the administration contracts of mutual funds would have counted with a field or format in which the client is required to declare the beneficial owner. In this sense, they maintain that they are applicable, the case of exemption from liability contemplated in article 27, letters a) and e) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, insofar as due to a situation of force majeure due to the delay of the authority, the changes could not be made in time;
Regarding this, it is necessary to indicate that in File
No. 2020038807, it is observed that on October 29, 2020, INTERFONDOS SAF requested from the SMV based on what is established in article 55 of the REGULATION, the registration of the modifications to the Master Administration Contract of Mutual Funds in the Public Registry of the Securities Market and specified that the modifications would only apply to new participants who subscribe to it. In that way, in principle, it does not accord with what referred to by INTERFONDOS SAF, regarding that once approved and registered the modifications would apply to all those who remained in their products;
Likewise, it is observed that through Letter No.
4357-2020-SMV/10.2, notified to INTERFONDOS SAF on December 02, 2020, it was communicated to INTERFONDOS SAF the observations formulated, granting them a deadline of 10 business days for the remediation of the same;
Nevertheless, as of March 25, 2021, INTERFONDOS
SAF had not responded to the previously cited letter, remaining pending remediation of the observations formulated to its modification request, so that through Resolution of the General Intendency of Entity Supervision No. 042-2021- SMV/10.2 and pursuant to what is established in article 202 of the SINGLE TEXT OF THE LPAG, the IGSE declared ex officio, the abandonment of the procedure initiated with File No.
2020038807. It should be specified that, in said file, no presentation of any
administrative appeal by INTERFONDOS SAF is observed;
In that sense, considering the mention to Letter No.
4033-2021-SMV/10 of October 12, 2021, it was observed that on March 12 of 2021, through File No. 2021009373, INTERFONDOS SAF requested from the SMV based on what is established in Annex F, letter n) of the REGULATION that it be considered as an update to the Master Administration Contract of Mutual Funds, the inclusion of some aspects such as the Sworn Declaration of knowledge of the participant on the obligation to inform their status as beneficial owner required by the Legislative Decree No. 1372, to then continue with the respective procedure until the issuance of Letter No. 4033-2021-SMV/10;
In this way, regardless of the incorrect information provided by INTERFONDOS SAF when stating that the
pronouncement made through Letter No. 4033-2021-SMV/10 was as a consequence of the request presented with file 2020038807, it must be indicated that, even though Letter No. 4033-2021-SMV/10, which according to INTERFONDOS SAF would have allowed it to carry out the update to the Master Contract of Mutual Funds on the declaration of beneficial owner, was issued on October 12, 2021 as a consequence of a request presented in March 2021, this could not be attributed to the Administration a supposed delay in the pronouncement, for which INTERFONDOS SAF was unable to have the changes in the Master Contract of Mutual Funds in time, as argued by the managing society, when the requirements on the identification of the beneficial owner, according to the PLAFT NORMS, have been in effect since 2013 and not as a consequence of Legislative Decree No. 1372, published in August 2018;
In that sense, and with relation to the cases
indicated in article 27, letters a) and e) 14 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, in the

14 Article 27.- EXEMPTIONS FROM LIABILITY FOR OFFENSES Exemption conditions from liability for offenses are the following:
a) Force majeure, fortuitous event, or other exceptional situation that, in the opinion of the SMV, is equivalent to fortuitous event or force majeure duly proven.
(…) e) Error induced by the Administration or by confusing or illegal administrative disposition.

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 present case there are no arguments supporting any force majeure situation or other exceptional circumstance that would have prevented the managing company from fulfilling its obligations regarding the identification of the ultimate beneficiary in accordance with the AML/CFT NORMS, nor that it was due to the delay of the authority. Furthermore, INTERFONDOS SAF cannot allege that its conduct or the non-compliance in which it has incurred is based on an error induced by the administration, when it has not accredited in the present procedure any concrete act carried out by the Administration that allows sustaining this;

Without prejudice to the foregoing, it must be noted that, according to the Master Agreement for the Administration of Mutual Funds – Natural Person, attached by INTERFONDOS SAF with its defenses, it is observed that it includes text corresponding to the participant's declaration, which states the following:
“Participant’s Declaration:
(…) 5) To know that: (i) According to Legislative Decree N° 1372 and its regulatory norms, INTERFONDOS has the obligation to communicate to SUNAT the data of its ultimate beneficiaries who are its participants; therefore, in compliance with the respective norms, I declare to have the status of ultimate beneficiary of the fund or funds managed by INTERFONDOS in which I invest; and, (…)”;
From this it follows that, this is not a field or format in which the client is required to declare the ultimate beneficiary, as the managing company points out; that is, no field is observed in which the client indicates whether they are or are not the ultimate beneficiary and, if so, records the ultimate beneficiary's information, as a measure that can be considered reasonable in the customer knowledge procedure in accordance with the AML/CFT NORMS;
Therefore, it corresponds to state that not only is it not observed that any of the scenarios alleged by INTERFONDOS SAF, which constitute conditions exempting responsibility, have been configured, but furthermore, the managing company has not disproven the charge regarding the identification of the ultimate beneficiary, at least with respect to natural person clients;

No registration of client information

Regarding the registration of client information, in the CHARGES OFFICE it was pointed out that the omission in the registration of the minimum required information relative to the “RUT number, if applicable”, “length of service”, “Public office or function performed in the last 2 years, as well as name of the institution, if applicable” and “The relationship of legal entities, or legal bodies where the PEP maintains a participation equal to or greater than 25% of its social capital, contribution or participation”, would be evidenced by the fact that the formats used for client identification do not contain fields for these requirements;
In this sense, regarding the omission referred to in the field “Registro Único de Titular (RUT) of securities annotated in account at CAVALI S.A. ICLV, if applicable”, INTERFONDOS SAF considers that the registration of the RUT should be applicable to obligated subjects such as stockbroker agencies in which the use of this code is known and necessary to operate, but not for obligated subjects such as mutual fund management companies, because this RUT code is not needed to invest in mutual funds, taking into account

(…)”.

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 additionally, according to the managing company, it is not a code known by clients, which generates a cumbersome and tedious contracting process for any client and that in the case of these records what is established in article 7, numeral 7.2 applies as referred to “if applicable”. That is, according to INTERFONDOS SAF, the correct reading of the aforementioned provision, regarding obtaining the client's RUT, passes through the companies to which the aforementioned norm is applicable, and not to sectors such as mutual fund administration, in which it is not a necessary data to know the client;

Regarding this, it must be noted that in article 7, numeral 7.2, minimum registrations have been established for the adequate knowledge of the identity of clients applicable to all obligated subjects in accordance with article 1 of the AML/CFT NORMS, such as the RUT, which, if the client has this registration, that is, if applicable, shows that the client has a registration in the Accounting Register of Cavali S.A. ICLV, which could indicate that they are holders of financial instruments and carry out operations in their name in the securities market, which could serve as a reference for the origin of their funds or to perform information cross-checks between different sources;
Similarly, if the client has the Unique Taxpayer Registry (RUC), that is, if applicable, it shows that the client has a registration at SUNAT, which could indicate that they pay taxes originating from an economic activity, which could serve as a reference for the origin of their funds;
Therefore, although the information referred to the RUT is not used in the operational investment of mutual funds, it could still be a reference for the adequate knowledge of clients,
Likewise, regarding the field “length of service, if applicable”, INTERFONDOS SAF points out that the field “date of labor entry”, when contrasted with the data of mutual fund or investment contracting, provides the data of its length of service. It also points out that the Master Contract includes the field “date of labor entry” with which, according to the managing company, the requirement of the AML/CFT NORMS is covered;
Regarding this, it must be noted in principle that, according to the CHARGES OFFICE, in the Master Agreement for Mutual Fund Administration – Natural Person N° A132943 registered on October 14, 2020 and presented in the INSPECTION, not only is the field “length of service” not observed, but it also does not include the field “date of labor entry”;
Without prejudice to the foregoing, INTERFONDOS SAF in its defenses indicates that “The Master Contract includes the field ‘date of labor entry’ with which the requirement of the AML/CFT NORMS is covered”; however, it does not expressly state which Master Contract it refers to regarding the inclusion of the field “date of labor entry”, nor the date from which said contract was in force,
Nevertheless, from the review of the documents presented with its defenses, it is observed that INTERFONDOS SAF presents three (3) versions of the first part of the Master Agreement for Mutual Fund Administration – Natural Person 15. From the review of said contracts, it is observed that only one of

15 Annexes 3C and 4E of the defenses.

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 these versions 16 contemplates the field “date of labor entry”, but not the field of “length of service”, without specifying the effective date of the same. As well as, the other two (2) versions 17 do not contemplate the field “length of service” as INTERFONDOS SAF affirms in a point of its defenses,

In this sense, from the review of other documents sent by the managing company, such as Office Nº 4033-2021-
SMV/10 of October 12, 2021, it is appreciated that in the same reference is made to the incorporation of the field “date of labor entry”. Likewise, from the review of the Public Registry of the Securities Market, it is observed that the update of said contract was inscribed on October 15, 2021;
In this way, the inclusion of said field, which according to INTERFONDOS SAF covers the requirement of the AML/CFT NORMS, was subsequent to the INSPECTION, to the OBSERVATIONS OFFICE and even to the response to the OBSERVATIONS OFFICE and as a consequence of the observations made to it via Office Nº 3873-2019-SMV/10.2, which does not exempt it from complying with the AML/CFT NORMS in previous contracts, such as the one indicated in the CHARGES OFFICE, considering moreover that the requirements of said requirements for client knowledge have been in force since 2011,
Now then, regarding the fact that the field “date of labor entry” covers what is required by the AML/CFT NORMS, since when contrasted with the data of mutual fund or investment contracting, it gives the data of its length of services, it should be noted that this does not necessarily occur, since the client may stop working for a period of time and return subsequently to the same company and even in the same position, so the length of services does not necessarily manifest itself in the manner proposed by INTERFONDOS SAF;
Also, regarding the field “Public office or function performed in the last 2 years, as well as name of the institution, if applicable”, INTERFONDOS SAF argues that although the Master Contract of that time did not directly include these fields, the AML/CFT NORMS do not require having a field in the Master Contract or form with both denominations, what is required is that companies like INTERFONDOS SAF know this information, and this can be obtained from the information cross-checking they perform of client names with an internal database of PEPs;
Regarding this, it must be noted that, without prejudice to the fact that obligated subjects can use diverse information from independent sources of the client, which as derived from what is established in article 7.3 of the AML/CFT NORM must be recorded in the corresponding files, regarding the obligation to identify the client, the obligated subject must comply with what is established in article 7, numeral 7.2 of the AML/CFT NORMS, which provides that, to obtain adequate knowledge of the identity of clients, obligated subjects must process forms to be filled out or completed by clients;
In such sense, contrary to what was stated by INTERFONDOS SAF, the AML/CFT NORMS do indeed require having in a form, such as the Master Contract or another, the field “Public office or function performed in the last 2 years,

16 Annex 3C of the defenses.
17 Annex 4E of the defenses.

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 as well as name of the institution, if applicable”. That is, for, if applicable, to be completed by the client;

Additionally, regarding the field “usual occupation, trade or profession” and the field “Workplace and position held, if applicable”, it must be noted that INTERFONDOS SAF does not point out a specific argument regarding the omission in the registration of said information. Nevertheless, it indicates that the Master Contract does have a field named “Profession or occupation”, with which the request of the norm is fulfilled, for which it attaches the current Master Contract 18 at that date, according to what it indicates, which includes said field;
Regarding this, it must be specified that, with the CHARGES OFFICE it was not imputed that the form does not include said fields, but rather the omission in the registration of the minimum required information relative to “Usual occupation, trade or profession”, which was due to INTERFONDOS SAF not requiring its clients to consign in the forms said minimum information that the regulation obliges, despite the fact that the form has the respective fields to obtain said information. As it was observed in contract N° A132943 registered on October 14, 2020, in which no information was registered in the fields “company where employed” and “position” and in the case of the field “profession or occupation” the information “commercial manager” was registered, which did not correspond, since it would be a position in a company. That is, it did not fulfill registering said information;
Regarding the field “The relationship of legal entities, or legal bodies where the PEP maintains a participation equal to or greater than 25% of its social capital, contribution or participation”, INTERFONDOS SAF has not pointed out any specific argument regarding the omission in the registration of said minimum information. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the omission in the registration of the minimum required information according to subsection m) of numeral 7.2 of article 7 of the AML/CFT NORMS, was evidenced by the fact that the formats used for client identification, presented in the INSPECTION, did not have the field for said requirement, such as the one referred to in Contract N° A132943 registered on October 14, 2020;
On the other hand, although in response to the OBSERVATIONS OFFICE, INTERFONDOS SAF indicated that it requests this information through the PEP format 19, which would have been implemented since August 2021 according to what was stated by the managing company, this does not exempt the managing company from the non-compliance in which it has incurred, considering moreover that the requirement of said requirement for client knowledge has been in force since 2018 and was observed in the INSPECTION;
Additionally, regarding said minimum information registrations, previously mentioned, INTERFONDOS SAF argues that the AML/CFT NORMS do not oblige obligated subjects to have those fields in the Master Contract or form, only that they can know their clients and have the required information, under any means, even independent means of the client, according to article 7, numeral 7.1, subsection (i), of the AML/CFT NORMS;
On the particular, it must be noted that, although article 7, numeral 7.1, subsection (i) of the AML/CFT NORMS indicates that the obligated subject must identify and verify the identity of clients using, documents, data or

18 Annex 4E of the defenses.
19 Said document was sent on October 14, 2021 - File N° 2021008828.

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 reliable information from independent sources of the client; to fulfill the obligation to identify the client, following the concept of the integral purpose of the AML/CFT NORMS, the obligated subject must comply with what is established in article 7, numeral
7.2 of the aforementioned AML/CFT NORMS, which establishes that, for adequate knowledge of the identity of clients, that is, to identify clients, obligated subjects must process forms to be filled out or completed by clients. Therefore, it should be added that what is established in article 7, numeral 7.1, subsection i of the AML/CFT NORMS does not imply failing to comply with what is provided in numeral 7.2 of said article;

In this way, according to what has been exposed, the AML/CFT NORMS do oblige obligated subjects to have those fields in the client information registration forms, such as contracts or other documents. Likewise, if in the INSPECTION the contracts were reviewed to verify compliance with said obligation, it is because INTERFONDOS SAF presented them in order to accredit compliance with its obligation and not other forms or formats with which it could have accredited compliance with said obligation, matter of the present charge;
On the other hand, INTERFONDOS SAF argues that it can only perform best efforts work to request the information and it will depend on the will and correct filling of clients and that they can only verify what is indicated by the client ex post, and then request complete filling or correction if applicable;
Regarding what was argued by the managing company, it must be indicated that the obtaining of client information, as well as verification of information is not just best efforts work or conditioned to the will of the client, given that, considering the integral purpose of the AML/CFT NORMS, article 7.3 establishes that the customer due diligence process consists among others, in implementing procedures to obtain information that allows determining the identity of the client or ultimate beneficiary, as well as the application of information verification procedures provided or supplied before initiating the contractual relationship with clients and of their ultimate beneficiary, if applicable, with the objective of ensuring that they have been duly identified, it being necessary to leave record of this,
In this way, if INTERFONDOS SAF indicates that it had the information regarding occupation, position, length of service, among others, of clients, despite the fact that said information registration fields were not in the Master Contract or another format, it does not correspond to the SMV to demonstrate that it did not have it, as the managing company argues, since if it had collected said information it had the obligation to leave record of it and in that sense accredit it. Which does not imply that it does not have the obligation to comply with the provisions established in article 7, numeral 7.2 of the AML/CFT NORMS;
In that sense, regarding the fact that the data of contract N° A132943 were provided by the client at the time of contracting, who left the field empty and even erroneous, which was subsequently regularized, according to what was argued by the managing company, it must be noted that, INTERFONDOS SAF has not accredited, in the case of contract N° A132943 registered on October 14, 2020, the regularization, correction, or complete filling ex

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

Finally, although with Office N° 2925-2024-
SMV/10 of July 23, 2024, authorization was granted among others that the incorporations of information fields such as “Public office or function performed in the last 2 years” and “entity” be considered updates of the master contract, this does not exempt the managing company from the non-compliance in which it has incurred;
Therefore, INTERFONDOS SAF has not disproven the charge imputed;
Consequently, INTERFONDOS SAF failed to comply with what is established in subsection ii) of numeral 7.1 of article 7 of the AML/CFT NORMS, because it has not complied with adopting the corresponding measures to identify the ultimate beneficiary of its natural person clients; likewise, INTERFONDOS SAF failed to comply with what is established in subsections d), h), i), j) and m) of numeral 7.2 of article 7 of the AML/CFT NORMS, because it has not registered the minimum information in the identification of the client that the regulation requires; therefore, it incurred in an infraction qualified as grave according to Annex XVI, numeral 2, subsection 2.3 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;

3.4 FOURTH CHARGE: NOT TO COMPLY WITH DETERMINING THE RISK PROFILE OF THE POTENTIAL INVESTOR

3.4.1 APPLICABLE NORMATIVE

Regarding this, article 86-A of the REGULATION provides as follows:
Article 86-A.- ADVISORY SERVICES
Advisory services consist of determining the risk profile of the potential participant as well as the subsequent individualized recommendation to him, with the aim that his decision to invest or divest in a mutual fund is informed. Advisory services are provided to potential investors in the subscription, transfer and transfer of quotas. For the purposes of the aforementioned profiling, the promoter must request from the potential investor, at least, information relative to their financial situation, knowledge and experience in investments, investment horizon and tolerance to risk. The potential investor is responsible for the veracity of the information they provide for profiling purposes. The managing company, placing agent or distributor must have policies and procedures that ensure the correct profiling of the client. These policies and procedures, as well as the support for the individualized application of the latter must be available to the SMV when it so requires. The advisory activity comprises as a minimum the following:
a) Determination of the risk profile of the potential participant. b) Explanation of the structure of the offered mutual fund. c) Explanation of the risks related to the offered mutual fund, as well as its historical performance, if applicable.

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 d) Information regarding the relationship between the potential participant's risk profile and the characteristics of the offered mutual fund, explaining why it fits their profile. In the event that the potential participant, after receiving advice, decides to invest in a mutual fund that does not fit their risk profile, the managing company, the sales agent, or the distributor must inform them of this situation and the risks it entails. If, following this, the potential participant maintains their decision to invest in a fund that does not fit their profile, a record of such situation must be obtained. The obligation indicated in this article is exempted in cases where the potential investor wishes to acquire shares of short-term debt instrument mutual funds, or if it concerns any of the persons included in Annex 1 of the Regulation of Institutional Investors.” (Underline added).
190. Likewise, with regard to the persons included in the Regulation of Institutional Investors, approved by Superintendent Resolution No. 021-2013-SMV/01 (hereinafter, REGULATION OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS), articles 4 and 6 of Annex I of said regulation establish the following:
“ANNEX 1
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
For all purposes of this Regulation, the following persons are institutional investors:
(…)
4. Private or public law legal entities that have as one of their activities, according to the legal or conventional provisions governing them, investment in securities. In the case of non-state legal entities, it will be required that they have a portfolio of investments in securities equal to or greater than one million New Soles (S/. 1,000, 000.00).
(…)
6. Natural persons who have assets exceeding two million New Soles (S/. 2,000, 000.00), and a portfolio of investments in securities equal to or greater than one million New Soles (S/. 1,000, 000.00).
(…).”
3.4.2 OF THE CHARGE FORMULATED
191. During the INSPECTION, the SMV requested the Client Profiling Certificates from INTERFONDOS SAF, which were delivered via email on April 14, 2021, through three (3) different types of files. From the review of these files, it was identified that they contain information related to the resulting investor profile and the recommended funds according to the profile, but it was not possible to verify the timeliness of when the client profiling was performed.
Regarding this, through the RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS20 INTERFONDOS SAF indicated

20 Annex I - Page 18

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 that “the PDF files, where the profiling certificate is found, are attached to various files that were sent electronically to clients (by email); in this way, since they are documents issued by a system, the date and time of sending can be seen in the email data; it should be clarified that this email date is the same as when the client was profiled, so there we have the date and time of profiling”;
192. Likewise, during the INSPECTION, the SMV, in relation to the request, received an Excel file (attached to the April 14, 2021 email) in which INTERFONDOS SAF among other things stated: "The profile was raised in the store profiling system, certificate sent by email to the client". From the review of the submitted support documents, automatically generated emails for the ERNI Interfondos System were identified, and attached to this email, the Profiling Certificate in PDF format;
193. In this sense, upon validating these supports, the case of a client whose risk profile was performed on a date subsequent to the start of their commercial relationship with the company, i.e., subsequent to the first subscription, was identified. As can be observed in the following table:
CLIENT WITH RISK PROFILE SUBSEQUENT TO OPERATIONS UNI_CODE FUND ENTRY DATE (First Subscription) ERNI SYSTEM – CERTIFICATE 0010272271 IF Oportunidad FMIV 27/11/2020 07/01/2021
194. As derived from the participant information, the first subscription and entry date according to the IF Oportunidad FMIV Mutual Fund Roster (hereinafter, IF OPPORTUNITY FUND) and the IF OPPORTUNITY FUND Participant Register was November 27, 2020, but the profiling certificate attached to the email generated for the ERNI System is dated January 7, 2021, i.e., a date subsequent to their entry into the fund;
195. Regarding this, through RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS21 INTERFONDOS SAF stated that “it is recognized that for these isolated cases, profiling was not performed at the time of opening the client's account; however, upon noticing the involuntary error, on January 7, 2021, we profiled the missing clients; therefore, we voluntarily remedied our failure prior to any requirement made by any authority or by the SMV inspection team”;
196. Thus, it must be noted that Article 86-A of the REGULATION establishes that the advice, consisting of determining the potential participant's risk profile as well as the subsequent individualized recommendation to them, with the aim that their decision to invest or divest in a mutual fund is informed, is provided to potential investors at the subscription, transfer, and exchange of shares, i.e., the evaluation and determination of the risk profile must be performed prior to the first subscription, transfer, or exchange of shares, since this will determine the subsequent recommendation given to the potential

21 Annex I - Page 18.

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 participant, in the cases of subscription or transfer, of the mutual funds that fit their profile so that they make their investment decision with due information;
197. In this sense, INTERFONDOS SAF, by not determining the risk profile of participant code 0010272271 prior to the subscription of shares of the IF OPPORTUNITY FUND, would not have complied with what is established in Article 86-A of the REGULATION;
198. It must be noted that, although INTERFONDOS SAF presented in the INSPECTION a profiling certificate of the participant dated January 7, 2021, i.e., subsequent to the participant's entry into the IF OPPORTUNITY FUND, this could not fulfill the purpose established in Article 86-A of the REGULATION, since precisely the determination of the potential participant's risk profile will determine the subsequent individualized recommendation given to said potential participant for a duly informed investment decision;
199. Additionally, it must be noted that the obligation established in Article 86-A of the REGULATION is one of the obligations that the managing company must comply with in the administration of mutual funds, considering furthermore that this constitutes a fiduciary obligation, so the managing company must carry out its activities complying with the norms applicable to it in order to avoid deteriorating the confidence of market participants;
200. In this sense, the determination of the risk profile subsequent to the entry of a potential participant into a mutual fund cannot remedy the obligation established in the referenced norm, as is established in Article 28, letter e) 22 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, which provides that voluntary remediation is not subject to remediation for the purposes of Article 27, letter f) 23 the voluntary remediation of the non-compliance with the duties of administration or fiduciary duties that entities authorized by the SMV have;
201. Likewise, INTERFONDOS SAF, in response to the requirement to send profiling certificates for a sample of clients (Initial subscription, subscription, and redemptions), sent, attached to the April 14 email,
an Excel file in which it was identified that some clients, legal entities, were not profiled because according to INTERFONDOS SAF they are Institutional Clients;
202. Regarding this, INTERFONDOS SAF, through a letter dated May 27, 2021, manifested that: “(...), the criterion for considering these clients as institutional investors was that they have portfolios of investments in securities exceeding S/ 2 million according to the updated amount of the norm, indicated in paragraph 4 of Annex 1 of the Regulation of Institutional Investors Market”;
203. The following list shows the clients considered as Institutional but who do not meet the conditions established in Annex 1 of the REGULATION OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS:
UNI_CODE UNI_CODE
0015189327 0013385291 *
0010366855 0008763350 *
0009186672 * 0015839592
0008800414 * 0016442964 *
*Attached Profiling Certificates generated subsequent to the inspection
204. It must be specified that subsequent to the INSPECTION, through a letter dated May 27, 2021, INTERFONDOS SAF sent the profiling certificates of five (5) clients, as detailed in the previous list. Likewise, through the RESPONSE to OBSERVATIONS24 INTERFONDOS SAF indicated that “(...) upon receiving the observation from the SMV inspection team, the respective profiling of the clients mentioned in the table was proceeded with, except for (...), which is indeed considered an institutional investor according to Annex 1, paragraph 3, of the Regulation of Institutional Investors Market”;
205. On this matter, it must be indicated that paragraph 4 of Annex 1 of the REGULATION OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS establishes that for a legal person to be considered an institutional investor, they must have investment in securities as one of their activities and in the case of non-state legal entities, it will additionally be required that they have a portfolio of investments in securities equal to or greater than one million Soles (S/ 1,000, 000.00). However, the managing company has not evidenced in the INSPECTION that the participants - legal persons - detailed in the previous list meet these characteristics, so as it was not substantiated that they were institutional investors according to Annex 1 of the REGULATION OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS, INTERFONDOS SAF was not exempted from the obligation indicated in Article 86-A. Therefore, it was necessary to perform profiling for said participants - legal persons - according to what is established in the aforementioned article;
206. Likewise, although INTERFONDOS SAF sent the Profiling Certificates of five (5) clients, detailed in the preceding list, this was done subsequent to the observations made in the INSPECTION;
207. Therefore, INTERFONDOS SAF would not have complied with what is established in Article 86-A of the REGULATION, due to not having determined the risk profile of the aforementioned participants according to what is established in the aforementioned article;

24 Annex I - Page 20.

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
208. Therefore, INTERFONDOS SAF would have incurred in the infraction classified as serious typified in item 2.9, numeral 2, of Annex VII of the SANCTIONS REGULATION which establishes as an infraction of a serious nature: “Not comply with the obligations and functions that correspond to it in accordance with what is established in the participation regulation of the fund, or simplified prospectus of the fund or in the contracts celebrated on behalf of the fund with participants and third parties or those established in the regulations.”;
3.4.3 OF THE DEFENSES PRESENTED
209. Regarding this, INTERFONDOS SAF indicates that, they recognize in a precise, concise, clear, express, unconditional, and written manner, the facts described in this charge; therefore, they request that the benefit of a 50% reduction in the amount to be imposed be granted to them;
210. Likewise, they manifest that, without prejudice to the recognition of the facts, they request that when evaluating the imposition of the sanction, the mitigating circumstances of responsibility established in Article 26 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION be considered, considering the following:
a. Recognition of responsibility by the offender in an express and written manner, once the administrative sanctioning procedure has been initiated.
The managing company reiterates that, regarding this charge, INTERFONDOS SAF recognizes the fact in which it has incurred and that such recognition is made within the term granted for the presentation of the defense. b. Contribution of the offender to the clarification of the infraction.
To clarify the infraction, INTERFONDOS SAF states that on October 14, 2021, the managing company responded to what was indicated in the OBSERVATION OFFICE and that in said response it stated that the profiling of the clients observed during the INSPECTION had been requested, which was even informed at the time, according to what the managing company states.
c. The remediation carried out subsequent to its requirement or to the start of the administrative sanctioning procedure.
Regarding this, INTERFONDOS SAF argues that during the INSPECTION and in the subsequent responses, it proceeded to remedy the missing profilings.
Additionally, they indicate that this situation did not generate any harm to the mutual funds nor to their participants;
3.4.4 EVALUATION OF DEFENSES
211. With regard to this charge, INTERFONDOS SAF, relying on Article 26 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, has expressly recognized its responsibility for the imputed infraction, declaring that it recognizes in a precise, concise, clear, express, unconditional, and written manner, the facts described in the CHARGE OFFICE;
212. Without prejudice to the above, it is necessary to note that INTERFONDOS SAF is a company supervised by the SMV, with operating authorization granted by CONASEV Resolution No. 163-95-EF/94.10 of April 25, 1995, and has knowledge of the regulations under which mutual fund management companies for investment in securities operate, and must

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 comply with the REGULATION, which establishes that the managing company must determine the risk profile of potential participants;
213. However, it has been proven that INTERFONDOS SAF did not determine the risk profile of the participants indicated in the CHARGE OFFICE, prior to the first subscription made by them, so it has failed to comply with Article 86-A of the REGULATION;
214. On the other hand, it is worth indicating that what INTERFONDOS SAF mentioned regarding sanctioning criteria and mitigating circumstances of responsibility established in Article 26 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION will be considered at the time of evaluating the sanction to be imposed;
215. Consequently, INTERFONDOS SAF has incurred in the infraction classified as serious, typified in Annex VII, numeral 2, item 2.9 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
3.5 FIFTH CHARGE: NOT COMPLYING WITH UPDATING THE PROCEDURES MANUAL ACCORDING TO THE REGULATIONS
3.5.1 OF THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
216. With regard to the Procedures Manual, Article 7 of the REGULATION establishes the following:
“Article 7th.- ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS MANUALS, AND PROCEDURES MANUALS (...)
The procedures manual is the document that contains the detailed description of the activities that officials or dependents must follow in the fulfillment of their functions, including activities that have been entrusted to third parties. This manual includes the positions or posts involved in a process, specifying their responsibility and participation. Likewise, this manual contains the description of internal controls that ensure the correct and timely compliance with the established procedures, as well as the internal policies for public disclosure of the portfolio. (...).”
3.5.2 OF THE CHARGE FORMULATED
217. During the INSPECTION, the Mutual Funds Procedures Manual (hereinafter, MAPRO) 25 was reviewed regarding the procedure established in client linkage and client profiling, evidencing that not in all modalities offered to potential participants to subscribe to participation shares in the mutual funds managed by INTERFONDOS SAF, it indicates performing profiling as a process for client linkage. As shown in the following table:
CLIENT PROFILING IN THE PROCEDURES MANUAL
1.MUTUAL FUND OPENING PROCEDURES MANUAL
1.a. Natural Person - store network yes indicates profiling in FONDIPERFIL 1.b. Natural Person - Select Channel Executives Does not indicate 1.c. Legal Entity - Store Network Does not indicate 1.d. Natural/Legal Person - Interfondos yes indicates profiling in FONDIPERFIL

25 Updated as of June 30, 2020, as observed in the change control sheet that forms part of the MAPRO.

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
218. Regarding this, through RESPONSE to OBSERVATIONS INTERFONDOS SAF stated that “(...) it will proceed to modify the MAPRO, updating the missing procedures in client linkage for their profiling”
26. In this sense, through Office No. 5112-2023-SMV/10.2 of November 13, 2023 27, INTERFONDOS SAF was required to send documentary support for the updates to the MAPRO, so in response, on November 21, 2023, INTERFONDOS SAF sent the updated MAPRO as of June 23, 2023 28, in which it is observed that profiling is part of the procedure required in the opening of mutual funds;
219. Thus, it must be taken into account that according to Article 7 of the REGULATION, the Procedures Manual must contain the detailed description of the activities that officials or dependents of the managing company must follow in the fulfillment of their functions, so considering that the obligation to determine the risk profile of the potential investor was included in the REGULATION in September 2018 and has been in effect since March 1, 2019, INTERFONDOS SAF had the obligation to have the MAPRO updated in concordance with said obligation from its effectiveness and prior to the observations made in the INSPECTION;
220. In this sense, INTERFONDOS SAF would not have complied with having the Procedures Manual duly updated according to the provisions established in the REGULATION;
221. Consequently, it was attributed to INTERFONDOS SAF that it would have incurred in the infraction classified as serious typified in item 2.31, numeral 2, of Annex I of the SANCTIONS REGULATION which establishes as an infraction of a serious nature: “Not have, approve, implement, update, nor comply with, or modify without communicating it to the SMV, according to the regulations in the matter, the Integrated Risk Management Manual, or the Valuation Manual or the Valuation Methodology, or the Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Prevention Manual or any other manual;
3.5.3 OF THE DEFENSES PRESENTED
222. Regarding this, INTERFONDOS SAF indicates that, they recognize in a precise, concise, clear, express, unconditional, and written manner, the facts described in this charge; therefore, they request that the benefit of a 50% reduction in the amount to be imposed be granted to them;
223. Likewise, they manifest that, without prejudice to the recognition of the facts, they request that when evaluating the imposition of the sanction, the mitigating circumstances of responsibility established in Article 26 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION be considered, considering the following:
a. Recognition of responsibility by the offender in an express and written manner, once the administrative sanctioning procedure has been initiated.
The managing company reiterates that, regarding this charge, INTERFONDOS SAF recognizes the fact in which it has incurred and that such

26 ANNEX I - Page 22.
27 File No. 2023047469.
28 File No. 2023047469.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship recognition is carried out within the deadline granted for the presentation of the defense. b. Contribution of the offender to clarify the infraction. To clarify the infraction, INTERFONDOS SAF states that on October 14, 2021, the managing company responded to what was indicated in the OBSERVATIONS OFFICE and that in said response it stated that "(...) it will proceed to modify the MAPRO, updating the missing procedures in client linking for their profiling". Likewise, they specify that the MAPRO did not lack a defined client profiling process, but rather that the profiling was detailed generally (for all cases) and not specifically for each channel (store network, selective channel, legal entities). Which, INTERFONDOS SAF points out, has been incorporated as of this date.
c. The remediation carried out subsequent to its request or to the start of the administrative sanctioning procedure.
Regarding this, the managing company states that in response to Office No. 5112-2023-SMV/10.2, on November 21, 2023, INTERFONDOS SAF sent the MAPRO updated to June 23, 2023, in which it is observed that profiling is part of the procedure required in the opening of mutual funds;

3.5.4 EVALUATION OF DEFENSES
224. Just like the charge evaluated previously,
INTERFONDOS SAF, based on article 26 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, has expressly recognized its responsibility for the imputed infraction, declaring that it recognizes precisely, concisely, clearly, expressly, unconditionally and in writing, the facts described in the CHARGES OFFICE;
225. Without prejudice to the above, it is worth reiterating that
INTERFONDOS SAF is a company supervised by the SMV, with authorization to operate granted in 1995 and has knowledge of the regulations under which mutual fund management companies operate, having to comply with the REGULATIONS, which stipulates that the managing company must comply with having the Manual of Procedures duly updated;
226. However, it has been proven that
INTERFONDOS SAF did not have the MAPRO updated in accordance with the obligation to determine the risk profile of the potential investor, which was included in the REGULATIONS in September 2018 and has been in effect since March 1, 2019, given that it was evidenced that not in all modalities offered to potential participants to subscribe to participation units in the mutual funds managed by INTERFONDOS SAF, it was indicated to perform profiling as a process for client linking; therefore it failed to comply with what is established in article 7 of the REGULATIONS. It should be added that the MAPRO was updated by INTERFONDOS SAF to June 23, 2023, in which it is observed that profiling is part of the procedure required in the opening of mutual funds;
227. On the other hand, it is worth indicating that what is mentioned by
INTERFONDOS SAF regarding the mitigating circumstances of responsibility established in the

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship
article 26 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION will be considered when carrying out the evaluation of the sanction to be imposed;
228. Consequently, INTERFONDOS SAF has incurred
the infraction classified as serious typified in Annex I, numeral 2, clause 2.31 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;

3.6 SIXTH CHARGE: NOT COMPLYING WITH THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND TERRORIST FINANCING PREVENTION MANUAL

3.6.1 ON THE APPLICABLE NORMATIVE
229. In numeral 4.1 of the Compliance Manual for
Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risk Management of INTERFONDOS SAF, updated on March 30, 2020, valid until April 4, 2021, (hereinafter, PLAFT MANUAL 2020), the following is established:
“4. Prevention mechanisms
(...)
4.1 Description of procedures and methodology for obtaining, verifying and
updating customer information
Due Diligence in customer knowledge
(...)
Verification
Interfondos applies the following information verification procedures reached by the client:

Natural person information:
Review of the client's ID through consultation with RENIEC.
Legal entity information: Consultation of the client's RUC through the page
SUNAT website, as well as review of the ID of shareholders and legal representatives.
Special Clients Central: OFAC, UN, Clinton, FATF lists and bank's own lists.
(...)
Enhanced Due Diligence in Customer Knowledge
Enhanced due diligence (EDD) will be applied to High-Risk Clients, both in linking and during the commercial relationship. Regarding this matter, to identify high-risk clients, the methodology for segmentation of high-risk clients will be applied, as detailed in PLAFT Client Risk Matrix (Annex 6). The objective is to monitor more frequently those clients who represent greater LAFT risk. As a minimum, the following enhanced due diligence activities will be carried out:
(...) o Perform at least once a year a review of the profile, background, documentation, among other aspects of the client, as well as, if located in Peru, carry out a visit to their home or offices, when deemed necessary, in case the review of the profile, background, client documentation does not match what was declared. (…).”;

In numeral 7.4.1.3 of the Compliance Manual
for Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risk Management, valid since April 5, 2021, (hereinafter, PLAFT MANUAL 2021), the following is established:
“7.4. Criteria to establish customer and market knowledge (...)
7.4.1.3 Description of procedures and methodology for obtaining, verifying
and updating customer information
A. Due Diligence in customer knowledge
(...)
Verification
Interfondos applies the following information verification procedures reached by the client:

Natural person information: Review of the client's ID through consultation with
RENIEC.
Legal entity information: Consultation of the client's RUC through the page
SUNAT website, as well as review of the ID of shareholders and legal representatives.
Special Clients Central: OFAC, UN, Clinton, FATF lists and own lists.
(...)
B. Enhanced Due Diligence in Customer Knowledge Enhanced due diligence (EDD) will be applied to High-Risk Clients, both in the linking and during the commercial relationship. Regarding this matter, to identify high-risk clients, the methodology for segmentation of high-risk clients will be applied, according to what is detailed in LAFT Client Risk Matrix (Annex 4: LAFT Client Risk Matrix). The objective is to monitor more frequently those clients who represent greater LAFT risk. As a minimum, the following enhanced due diligence activities will be carried out:
(...)
Perform at least once a year a review of the profile, background,
documentation, among other aspects of the client, as well as, if located in Peru, carry out a visit to their home or offices, when deemed necessary, in case the review of the profile, background, client documentation does not match what was declared.
(…)”

Likewise, in numeral 4.1 of “Annex No. 6 PLAFT Client Risk Matrix” of the PLAFT MANUAL 2020 it states the following:
“4.1 Calculation of Risk Variables
(...)
Client informed to the regulatory body
It considers higher risk those clients to whom a ROS has been issued. The ranges and risk levels are shown below

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship (...)
22. Market
According to the market variable, funds distributed in the national market will be considered low risk, and those distributed in the foreign market will be considered high risk. In the case of Interfondos, funds are distributed only in the national market, therefore it is considered low risk.”

3.6.2 ON THE CHARGE FORMULATED
NOT APPLY THE VERIFICATION PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED IN THE PLAFT MANUAL
232. In the INSPECTION, no documentary evidence was found of the performance of the client's ID review through the RENIEC consultation and of the client's RUC Consultation on the SUNAT website, as well as of the review of the ID of shareholders and legal representatives. The aforementioned is evidenced in the comment of INTERFONDOS SAF contained in the Excel file sent regarding the control of Client Files as of May 5, 2021: "There is no evidence it is done online in the Interbank store (agency)";
233. Regarding this, in the RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS,
INTERFONDOS SAF states that "natural person clients are linked in Interbank agencies where they follow the bank's identification and verification processes. These processes involve direct contact with the client, presentation of the ID using online validations of the agency, without leaving documentary evidence (screenshots of consulted systems), however, as being an entity regulated by the SBS, they comply with PLAFT regulatory standards. With regard to legal person clients, from September Interfondos has implemented a process to document the reviews carried out on companies, their shareholders and their legal representatives". In relation to this point, INTERFONDOS SAF attached evidence of the checklist where the reviews entrusted to advisors are established as well as the archiving process of these reviews;
234. Therefore, INTERFONDOS SAF would not have complied with what is established in the "Verification" section of numeral 4.1 of the PLAFT MANUAL 2020 and in the "Verification" section of paragraph A of numeral 7.4.1.3 of the PLAFT MANUAL 2021;
DO NOT CARRY OUT ENHANCED DUE DILIGENCE ACTIVITIES ESTABLISHED IN THE PLAFT MANUAL
235. In the INSPECTION, from the review of the DDCC the case of clients qualified by INTERFONDOS SAF as high risk of ML/FT was identified, to whom he would not have performed at least one (1) time per year a review of the profile, background, documentation, among other aspects, as established in the section "Enhanced Due Diligence in Customer Knowledge" of numeral 4.1 of the PLAFT MANUAL;
236. In the following table, the case of nine (9) high-risk ML/FT clients to whom INTERFONDOS SAF did not perform

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship at least one (1) time per year a review of the profile, background, documentation, among other aspects is detailed:
No. CONTRACT NO.
OPENING DATE
LAST UPDATE DATE
WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERFORMED
1 7203770 17/01/2017 17/1/2021
2 A010320 23/01/2017 23/01/2021
3 7095315 19/03/2011 19/3/2021
4 A022523 20/04/2017 20/4/2021
5 A107156 27/09/2019 27/9/2020
6 A115436 27/12/2019 27/12/2020
7 A034686 26/07/2017 26/07/2020
8 A008077 5/01/2017 5/01/2021
9 A111635 13/11/2019 13/11/2020
237. Regarding this, in the RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS,
INTERFONDOS SAF indicated that "with regard to the updating of documentation and data of high-risk clients, an updating procedure will be implemented, although it is specified that all high-risk clients are monitored at their operational level";
238. In that sense, by letter sent on July 3, 2023, INTERFONDOS SAF communicated to SMV 29 that it had implemented in June 2023 the modification of the high-risk ML/FT client file updating procedure;
239. Therefore, INTERFONDOS SAF would not have complied with what is established in the section "Enhanced Due Diligence in Customer Knowledge"
of numeral 4.1 of the PLAFT MANUAL 2020 with respect to the clients indicated in numbers 1 to 3 and 5 to 9 of said table and in section B "Enhanced Due Diligence in Customer Knowledge" of numeral 7.4.1.3 of the PLAFT MANUAL 2021 with respect to the client indicated in number 4 of said table; NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE METHODOLOGY USED BY INTERFONDOS SAF FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE ML/FT RISK PROFILE ESTABLISHED IN THE PLAFT MANUAL
240. The PLAFT Client Risk Matrix (Annex 6 of the PLAFT MANUAL 2020) develops the methodology used by INTERFONDOS SAF for the determination of the Client Risk Profile, through scores of 22 risk variables. In this sense, in order to validate the methodology, the Excel file "Client Risk Profile Calculation"30 of a sample of 39 clients was reviewed, observing the following;
a. The methodology applied to variable V11- Client informed to the Regulatory Body, in the case of a client with code 0015454716 does not correspond to the methodology described in numeral 4.1 of Annex No. 6 of the PLAFT MANUAL 2020, in which it indicates that the resulting values of the variable, according to the cases are:
TABLE METHODOLOGY OF VARIABLE CLIENT INFORMED TO THE REGULATOR
V11- CLIENT INFORMED TO THE REGULATORY BODY
Unusualness Level Risk Value
ROS HIGH 100
IOR MEDIUM 50
Other clients LOW 0
In the case of this client, INTERFONDOS SAF has considered the value "1" as value in Variable 11, generating a total score for the client of 1,527 determining a MEDIUM RISK profile. However, if it is considered that the V11 value for said client should actually have been 100; the resulting total score would be 1,725; which would determine a HIGH risk profile. In the table, the summary is shown:
TABLE CHANGES OF PROFILE BY ERROR IN APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY
Code
Client
V11 – Client
Informed to
Regulator
Final Score
Resulting Risk
0015454716 1 1527 MEDIUM
0015454716 100 () 1725 HIGH
() value that should have been considered.
Regarding this, in the RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS, INTERFONDOS SAF states the following: "It is correct, with respect to the client in question there was an involuntary error that marked 1 instead of 100, which determined a score that assigned a MEDIUM risk level instead of HIGH. It should be specified that this error affected 0.03% (19 cases) of the total INTERFONDOS clients, which have already been corrected." b. Four (4) clients do not provide information in variable V22. This variable in the final score calculation has been penalized; however, it would not correspond since in Annex 6 - PLAFT Client Risk Matrix in V22 it indicates: "According to the market variable, funds distributed in the national market will be considered low risk, and those distributed in the foreign market will be considered high risk. In the case of Interfondos, funds are distributed only in the national market, therefore it is considered low risk".
TABLE DATA INTEGRITY OF MARKET VARIABLE
V22_MARKET
Code
Client V22_MARKET
Value placed for score calculation
Correct Value
0010955240 DOES NOT INDICATE 100 0
0008290157 DOES NOT INDICATE 100 0
0014986798 DOES NOT INDICATE 100 0
0009066015 DOES NOT INDICATE 100 0
Regarding this, in the RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS, INTERFONDOS SAF states the following: "The source used for this variable linked to client products will be reviewed in order to avoid it repeating in the next exercise run. However, the absence of this data in the scoring calculation does not decrease the risk level assigned to the client, but penalizes it by assigning a higher score under a conservative scenario."
241. Consequently, with respect to the clients
mentioned above, INTERFONDOS SAF would have failed to comply with the methodology for the determination of the Risk Profile established in Annex No. 6 of the PLAFT MANUAL 2020;

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship
242. Therefore, INTERFONDOS SAF would have incurred
the infraction classified as serious typified in clause 2.31, numeral 2, of Annex I of the SANCTIONS REGULATION which establishes as a serious nature infraction: "Not having, approving, implementing, updating, nor complying with, or modifying without communicating it to the SMV, in accordance with the normative of the matter, the Integrated Risk Management Manual, or the Valuation Manual or the Valuation Methodology, or the Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Manual or any other manual";

3.6.3 ON THE DEFENSES PRESENTED
243. Regarding this, INTERFONDOS SAF indicates that,
they recognize precisely, concisely, clearly, expressly, unconditionally and in writing, the facts described in this charge; therefore they request that they be granted the benefit of a 50% reduction of the amount to be imposed;
244. Likewise, they state that, without prejudice to the
recognition of the facts, they request that when evaluating the imposition of the sanction, the mitigating circumstances of responsibility established in article 26 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION be considered, considering the following:
a. Recognition of responsibility of the offender expressly and in writing, once the administrative sanctioning procedure has started.
The managing company reiterates that, with respect to this charge, INTERFONDOS SAF recognizes the fact in which it has incurred and that such recognition is carried out within the deadline granted for the presentation of the defense. b. Contribution of the offender to clarify the infraction.
To clarify the infraction, INTERFONDOS SAF states that on October 14, 2021, the managing company responded to what was indicated in the OBSERVATIONS OFFICE, document through which it stated that: (i) natural person clients are linked in Interbank agencies where they follow the bank's identification and verification processes. Likewise, they state that these processes involve direct contact with the client, presentation of the ID using online validations of the agency, fact that can be corroborated in an inspection in a linking through the placing agent, so that as being an entity regulated by the SBS, they comply with PLAFT regulatory standards. Thus also, they highlight that the update is indeed carried out, the main issue is that there is no evidence given that this procedure is carried out in the IBK store; (ii) with respect to the updating of documentation and data of high-risk clients, the omission was recognized and, as of this date, an updating procedure has been implemented, without prejudice to the fact that all high-risk clients are monitored at their operational level, (the implementation was communicated to the SMV on July 3, 2023); and, (iii) with respect to the methodology to calculate the client's risk level, INTERFONDOS SAF pointed out at the time, that there was an involuntary error whereby 1 was marked instead of 100, which determined a score that assigned a MEDIUM risk level instead of HIGH. This error affected 0.03% (19 cases) of the total INTERFONDOS SAF clients, which were corrected. In that sense, it specifies that in all cases, there was no intention to commit any infraction, or violation of the norm, but that we have a knowledge process

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

31
“Article 25.- SANCTION CRITERIA
The administrative sanctions imposed must take into account the following criteria:
a) Antecedents, for firm sanctions imposed by the SMV within the period of four (4) years prior to the commission of the infringement to be sanctioned. The commission of the same infringement in the year prior to the infringement to be sanctioned is not considered antecedent. b) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infringement, that firm sanction imposed by the SMV within the period of one (1) year prior to the commission of the infringement to be sanctioned is taken into account. c) Circumstances of the commission of the infringement. d) Economic damage caused and its repercussion on the market. e) Illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infringement. f) Probability of detection of the infringement. g) Severity of the damage to public interest and/or protected legal good. h) Existence or non-existence of intent in the infringer's conduct. When, from the evaluation of the aforementioned criteria, it is observed that there is no proportionality between the sanction to be imposed and the alleged facts, by exception and through a reasoned resolution, a sanction corresponding to a classification lower than that provided may be imposed.” 32 Article 230°, paragraph 3 of Law No. 27444 (hereinafter, LPAG). 33 “Article 248.- Principles of 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 become more advantageous for the infringer 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 infringement, observing the following criteria indicated for their graduation:
a) The illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infringement; b) The probability of detection of the infringement; c) The severity of the damage to public interest and/or protected legal good; d) The economic damage caused; e) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infringement within the period of one (1) year from when the resolution sanctioning the first infringement became final. f) The circumstances of the commission of the infringement; and g) The existence or non-existence of intent in the infringer's conduct”.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

34
“Article 257°.- Exemptions and mitigating circumstances of responsibility for infringements 1.- The following constitute conditions exempting responsibility for infringements:
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 infringement. d) Mandatory order of 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 infringement, prior to the notification of the charges referred to in subsection 3) of article 253. 2.- The following constitute conditions mitigating responsibility for infringements:
a) If an administrative sanctioning procedure has started, the infringer recognizes their responsibility in an express and written manner.
In cases where the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced up to an amount no less than half of its amount. b) Others that are established by special regulation.”
35
Article 2° of Legislative Decree No. 1272 modified article 236-A of the LPAG, and in this sense incorporates and
restructures the exemption and mitigation scenarios of responsibility.
36
Notified on October 17, 2017.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

37
Notified on July 12, 2019.
38
Notified on September 15, 2019.
39
Notified on December 30, 2016.
40
Notified on October 28, 2021.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations, and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship Charge No Resolution Resolved Finality 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th vi Resolution of Deputy Superintendent SMV No 001-2023- SMV/10 41 INTERFONDOS SAF is sanctioned with ten (10) UIT equivalent to S/ 42,000.00 (Forty-two thousand and 00/100 Soles) for having incurred three (03) infringements: two very serious typified in the
Annex I, paragraph 1, subsections 1.4 and 1.12 of the
Sanctions Regulation; and one serious typified in Annex VII, letter A), paragraph 2, subsection 2.5 of the Previous Sanctions Regulation and Annex VII, letter A), paragraph 2, subsection 2.3 of the Sanctions Regulation, for presenting inaccurate information to the SMV that is disclosed to the market; for not making modifications to the participation regulation and simplified prospectus observing the regulation; and for non-compliance with provisions on subscription of participations. 14/02/2023 X
256. With regard to recidivism for the commission of the
same infringement, that firm sanction imposed by the SMV within the period of one (1) year prior to the commission of the infringement to be sanctioned is taken into account. Within this framework, it must be stated that INTERFONDOS SAF does not record sanctions for the commission of the same infringements subject of analysis in the present administrative sanctioning procedure, within the aforementioned period, so the situations that configure recidivism do not arise;
257. As for the circumstances of the commission of the
infringements, it should be noted that INTERFONDOS SAF, in its capacity as a company supervised by the SMV, with operating authorization granted by Conasev Resolution No. 163-95-EF/94.10 of April 25, 1995, knows of the norms that regulate the securities market and, in this sense, the provisions contained in the REGULATION, ACCOUNTING NORMS, the PLAFT NORMS and its own PLAFT MANUAL, as well as their mandatory compliance, with respect to the cases evaluated in the present administrative sanctioning procedure;
258. Nevertheless, INTERFONDOS SAF did not act with
diligence in fulfilling its obligations as a managing company in accordance with the norms applicable to it, as it did not carry out the reconciliation of investments of the mutual funds, specified previously; nor did it comply with investigating and regularizing the differences found in said investments, as required by the ACCOUNTING NORMS; nor did it have a RECORD OF OPERATIONS that complies with the minimum content, at least until April 2021; it did not adopt the corresponding measures to identify the ultimate beneficial owner of its natural person clients; it did not register the minimum information required in customer identification, as indicated in the specific charge; it did not comply with the provisions established in its PLAFT MANUAL corresponding to 2020 and 2021 in the terms indicated in the charge imputed. That is, it did not observe what is established in the PLAFT NORMS, as well as the own provisions established in its PLAFT MANUAL;
259. Likewise, the managing company did not act with
diligence by not performing the evaluation and determination of the risk profile of some natural and legal person participants, prior to the first subscription, in accordance with what is established in article 86-A of the REGULATION and by not having the Procedures Manual duly updated, regarding the risk profile of the potential investor, as required by article 7 of the REGULATION;
260. In this sense, it should be indicated that the duty of
diligence of the managing company should have directed it to adequately review the regulation applicable to it as a managing company of mutual investment funds in values, in order to adopt the measures or actions pertinent that would have allowed it to comply with the requirements demanded by the regulation as previously indicated and in this way it would have avoided incurring in the infringements subject of the present procedure;
261. Without prejudice to the above, with regard to the fourth
charge, referred to the non-compliance of determining the risk profile of the potential investor, it must be taken into account that, considering that the purpose of the determination of the risk profile of the potential investor in the cases of subscription of funds implies the subsequent individualized recommendation that will be given to the potential participant on the mutual funds that adjust to their profile so that they make their investment decision with adequate information, by not having carried out said profiling, in the cases mentioned above, prior to the subscription of the mutual funds; and even if it had been regularized according to the managing company, this implies that said participants adopted investment decisions that do not necessarily adjust to their risk profile which in the short or long term could indicate some possibility of affecting their investments;
262. On the other hand, with regard to the sixth charge, referred to the
non-compliance of the PLAFT MANUAL, and specifically to the non-compliance with the application of client information verification procedures established in its PLAFT MANUAL, INTERFONDOS SAF states that natural person clients are linked in Interbank agencies where they follow the bank's identification and verification processes, given that as a regulated entity by the SBS, they comply with regulatory standards of AML/CFT. Likewise, it states that the managing company does perform the update, but there is no evidence;
263. Regarding this, it is necessary to note that, although the placement agent as a banking entity also has the obligation to comply with the norms in matter of money laundering prevention applicable to it, it does not imply that INTERFONDOS SAF does not have the obligation to adopt the corresponding measures in order to comply with the money laundering prevention regulation applicable to it and even more so when dealing with those established in its own PLAFT MANUAL;
264. Likewise, with regard to said charge and specifically to the non-compliance with the methodology used by INTERFONDOS SAF for the determination of the ML/TF risk profile established in the PLAFT MANUAL, the managing company stated that there was an involuntary error by which 1 was marked instead of 100, which determined a score that assigned a MEDIUM risk level instead of HIGH and that said error affected 0.03% (19 cases) of the total clients of INTERFONDOS SAF, which were corrected;
265. Regarding this, it must be noted in principle that,
although according to the administrator said error would have affected 0.03% of the cases, it demonstrates that the respective procedures and actions were not applied to clients who should have been from the beginning with an adequate assignment of level of

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Electronically signed document under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and the authorship risk, which if only a single case (client) were to occur, the managing company could not have foreseen the possibility that it be exposed to being used for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes and as a consequence of this affect not only the managing company but also other clients;
266. In this way, this demonstrates that its actions did not fall within the duty of diligence stated, which must be fulfilled by every company authorized by the SMV, including managing companies, so that such errors should not occur in an entity with more than 20 years of activity in the securities market and even less so be corrected as a consequence of information requests and evaluations carried out in an INSPECTION and not as a consequence of internal controls;
267. Regarding the damage caused and the repercussion in the market, it is necessary to point out that in the present case, it has not been evidenced that the infractions incurred by INTERFONDOS SAF have produced a concrete quantifiable detriment in the market, that is, it has not been determined that there has been concrete impact or caused economic damage to one or more investors, so it has also not been evidenced that there was any repercussion in the market;
268. However, regarding the profiling of clients in cases of subscription to funds, regarding which the company states that no damage has been caused to the participants, it must be taken into account that, considering that the purpose of determining the risk profile of the potential investor implies the subsequent individualized recommendation that will be given to the potential participant on the mutual funds that adjust to their profile so that they make their investment decision with adequate information, having not been carried out, in the aforementioned cases, prior to the subscription of the mutual funds; and even if it had been regularized according to the managing company, this implies that said participants adopted investment decisions that do not necessarily adjust to their risk profile, which in the short or long term could warn of some possibility of affecting their investments;
269. Regarding the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction, it must be noted that it has not been proven that INTERFONDOS SAF obtained an illicit benefit as a result of having incurred in the infractions subject of analysis in the present administrative procedure;
270. Regarding the probability of detection of the infractions, it must be indicated that in the present case, the facts constituting the infractions in which INTERFONDOS SAF has incurred were evidenced as a result of the supervision and control actions carried out by the SMV regarding compliance with the regulations governing the activities of managing companies in the securities market; that is, in the INSPECTION carried out on INTERFONDOS SAF and as a consequence of the review and analysis of the information, as well as documentation delivered by the managing company as a consequence of said diligence. Therefore, it is considered that the probability of detection of the infractions was low;
271. Regarding the gravity of the damage to public interest and/or protected legal good, it has not been possible to prove that the actions of INTERFONDOS SAF in the commission of the infractions analyzed in the present sanctioning procedure have caused damage to public interest;

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Electronically signed document under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and the authorship
272. However, regarding the first charge, referred to the failure to carry out the reconciliation of the investments of the mutual funds, it must be indicated that, according to the regulation cited above, this obliges the managing company to carry out a reconciliation of the investments of the mutual funds with the statements sent by the custodians, at least monthly, as well as to investigate and regularize the differences that arise. Which, as has been pointed out in the present sanctioning procedure, the managing company did not comply with carrying out during the evaluated period;
273. It is important to note, the reconciliation and subsequent investigation and regularization in case of difference in the investments that the regulation obliges managing companies to carry out, has the purpose that the information from the managing company's system, the Custodian's system, as well as the information provided by entities that provide the primary source of ownership or registration of the investments, such as the securities clearing and settlement institution, is the same, for effective control and management of the investments of the mutual funds;
274. In this way, by not observing what is established in the applicable regulation, this not only affects the confidence that investors can have in mutual fund managing companies in the diligent development of their activities in the securities market, but also affects the legal goods related to the protection of the mutual fund industry and duties of the managing society to manage its activity prudently;
275. Regarding the second charge, referred to failing to comply with the minimum content of the REGISTER OF OPERATIONS, it must be noted that within the framework of the AML/CFT RULES, obligated subjects, such as INTERFONDOS SAF, have the obligation to keep and maintain updated the referred register according to the minimum information content required by these rules; which allows them to have the information to effectively follow up on operations carried out, review and/or evaluate them and in this way be able to analyze the existence of unusual operations and determine the existence of suspicious operations, allowing them thus to adopt pertinent measures in a timely manner; however, the managing company did not comply with having the Register of Operations according to the requirements established in the AML/CFT RULES. Therefore, this not only affects the integrity of the market, but also affects investor protection and contributes to decreasing confidence in the market.
276. Likewise, regarding the third charge, referred to not carrying out the customer due diligence process according to the AML/CFT RULES,
It must also be noted that within the scope of said norms, the principle of knowing the customer allows obligated subjects, which includes managing companies, to collect information from their clients, which in turn allows comparing the characteristics of their clients' transactions with those of their economic activity, continuously monitoring clients' operations, and having judgment elements that allow analyzing unusual transactions of these clients and determining the existence of suspicious operations;
277. In this context, it is necessary to point out that the due diligence process in knowing the customer is a key component within the regulatory framework of the securities market, which allows the achievement of its objectives such as the protection of investors, ensuring that markets are

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Electronally signed document under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and the authorship fair, efficient and transparent; as well as the prevention of illegal use of the securities market, which helps prevent the occurrence of frauds and market abuse practices; as well as money laundering and terrorist financing. In this sense, an effective identification of clients and procedures for this purpose is necessary for the transparency of the market, protection of investors and to maintain the integrity of the market;
278. It should be noted that the fact of not carrying out due diligence procedures or not carrying them out with the rigor that they imply; exposes the managing company to initiating or maintaining links with people who could imply a high exposure to ML/TF risks, which could lead to consequences from reputational, legal, operational and contagion points of view that could even affect the continuity of the administrator's business;
279. Regarding the fourth charge, referred to failing to determine the risk profile of the potential investor, as has been exposed in the present sanctioning procedure, it must be taken into account that, considering that the purpose of determining the risk profile of the potential investor implies the subsequent individualized recommendation that will be given to the potential participant on the mutual funds that adjust to their profile so that they make their investment decision with due information, having not been carried out previously to the subscription of the mutual funds; and even if it had been regularized according to the managing company, it implies that said participants adopted investment decisions that do not necessarily adjust to their risk profile and trusting in the managing company in compliance with the regulations applicable to them since it is a company authorized by the SMV; in such a way that this affects legal goods such as investor protection and market integrity, creating distrust in it;
280. Likewise, it must be noted that the obligation established in article 86-A of the REGULATION is one of the obligations that the managing company must fulfill in the administration of mutual funds, considering moreover that this constitutes a fiduciary obligation, so the managing company must carry out its activities complying with the regulations applicable to it in order to avoid that the confidence of the market participants is deteriorated. In this way, by not observing what is established in the applicable regulation, this not only affects the confidence that investors can have in mutual fund managing companies in the diligent development of their activities in the securities market, but also affects the legal goods related to the protection of the mutual fund industry and duties of the managing society to manage its activity prudently, caring for the interests of the participants as if they were their own;
281. With respect to the fifth charge, referred to failing to update the procedures manual, it must be noted that the fact that the Procedures Manual of the managing company had not been updated as exposed above, affects the Internal Control System of the administrator, decreases the possibility of detecting errors and applying corrective measures, limits the possibility of acting with greater effectiveness and efficiency; situations that are accentuated and take on greater importance in entities such as INTERFONDOS SAF that receive funds from investors, so situations like the described one affect their protection and contribute to decreasing confidence in the market;

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Electronically signed document under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and the authorship
282. Regarding the sixth charge, referred to failing to comply with the Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Manual, it is precise to note that according to the AML/CFT RULES said manual embodies the anti-money laundering and financing prevention system of the obligated subject, that is, of the managing company, with a risk-based approach by which they establish in it the policies, mechanisms and procedures for the prevention and detection of ML/TF, therefore the non-compliance with said regulation established by the managing company itself, within the framework of the applicable anti-money laundering prevention norms, not only affects the integrity of the market, but also creates distrust among investors when the company's non-compliance with its own norms is observed, even more so when dealing with aspects that imply procedures that must be applied in the enhanced due diligence of certain clients or in the determination of the risk profile;
283. It is worth reiterating that the fact of not carrying out due diligence procedures or not carrying them out with the corresponding periodicity, or with the rigor that they imply; exposes the managing company to initiating or maintaining links with people who could imply a high exposure to ML/TF risks, which could lead to consequences that could even affect the continuity of the administrator's business;
284. Regarding the existence or non-existence of intent in the infringer's conduct, it has not been evidenced that INTERFONDOS SAF acted with intent in the commission of the infractions, subject of analysis in the present administrative sanctioning procedure;
285. In addition to the above, it corresponds to analyze the exemptions and mitigating circumstances of responsibility established in article 257° of the SINGLE TEXT OF THE LPAG, as well as the mitigating and exempting conditions of responsibility established in articles 26° and 27° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
286. Regarding this, in accordance with what is determined in article 27°42 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, in concordance with article 257, numeral 1 of the SINGLE TEXT OF THE LPAG, it is not observed that in the present case any of the scenarios that constitute conditions exempting responsibility regarding the infractions analyzed have been configured;
287. Regarding the voluntary declaration of the commission of the infractions and the contribution of the infringer to their clarification, established in article 26°43, letters a) and b) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, in

42 “Article 27.- EXEMPTIONS FROM LIABILITY FOR INFRACTIONS” The following constitute conditions exempting liability for infractions:
a) Force majeure, fortuitous event or other exceptional situation that, in the opinion of the SMV, would be 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 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 referred to in paragraph 3) of article 253 of the LPAG and always that no communication demanding compliance with the obligation had been sent.” 43 “Article 26.- MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF LIABILITY FOR INFRACTIONS The following constitute mitigating conditions of liability for infractions:
a) Express and written recognition of responsibility by the infringer once the administrative sanctioning procedure has been initiated.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Electronically signed document under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and the authorship concordance with what is established in article 257°, numeral 2, paragraph a) of the SINGLE TEXT OF THE LPAG, it must be indicated that, regarding the fourth, fifth and sixth charges, INTERFONDOS SAF has recognized its responsibility for the infractions incurred expressly and in writing, within the deadline granted for the presentation of defenses, and precisely, concisely, clearly and unconditionally, without ambiguous or contradictory expressions, as well as has contributed to the clarification thereof;
288. Likewise, it must be noted that INTERFONDOS SAF has contributed to the clarification of the infractions;
289. Likewise, what is established in article 26°, letter c) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION applies, since except for the facts described regarding the first charge, the facts described regarding the other charges were remedied after the SMV's requests;
290. From the above, it is concluded that INTERFONDOS SAF has incurred the commission of six (6) infractions qualified as grave;
291. Therefore, it would correspond to impose a sanction on said managing company in accordance with what is established in article 34° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, which establishes that grave infractions are sanctioned with a fine not less than twenty-five (25) and up to fifty (50) UIT or with the suspension of the operating authorization for up to (20) days; however, to the extent that INTERFONDOS SAF has recognized its responsibility regarding the fourth, fifth and sixth infractions, the mitigating condition of responsibility mentioned in article 26, letter a), paragraph 1) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION applies to these, which provides that, if the recognition of the infraction is presented within the deadline granted for the presentation of defenses, the amount of reduction will be fifty percent (50%), so the fine for the infractions must fluctuate between 12.5 UIT and 25 UIT; that is, 50% of the range established for grave infractions;
292. Nevertheless, taking into account the analyzed sanction criteria, and in application of the Principle of Reasonableness contemplated in article 248°, numeral 3 of the SINGLE TEXT 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 infractions have produced any detriment to the participants nor repercussion in the market, that the managing company is not a repeat offender in the commission of the infractions, that intent in the commission of the infractions has not been accredited and that INTERFONDOS SAF

When the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced, taking into account the following:

If the recognition of the infraction is presented within the deadline 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 deadline granted for the presentation of defenses and before the expiration of the deadline 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 deadline 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 infraction must be made precisely, concisely, clearly, expressly and unconditionally, and must not contain ambiguous or contradictory expressions; otherwise, it will not be understood as a recognition. If defenses are presented, despite having carried out 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 infringer to the clarification of the infraction. c) Remediation carried out after its request or the start of the administrative sanctioning procedure.”

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Electronically signed document in the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship have contributed to the clarification of facts, as well as remediated the infractions after the requirements of the SMV;
293. In this sense, considering the analysis performed,
it is proposed to impose a fine sanction on INTERFONDOS SAF, applicable to minor infractions, in accordance with what is established in Article 35 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION; In view of what is provided by Articles 32, numeral 16, of the Organization and Functions Regulation of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree Nº 216-2011-EF and its amendments. RESOLVES:
Article 1st.- Declare that Interfondos S.A. Sociedad Administradora de Fondos has committed one (1) infraction classified as serious as established in Annex VII, numeral 2, clause 2.9 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having carried out the reconciliation of the investments of the mutual funds with the statements sent by the custodians, at least monthly, as well as to investigate and regularize the differences that arise.
Article 2nd.- Declare that Interfondos S.A. Sociedad Administradora de Fondos has committed one (1) infraction classified as serious as established in Annex XVI, numeral 2, clause 2.6 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having the Register of Operations of the Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention System as of April 2021, according to the content of minimum information.
Article 3rd.- Declare that Interfondos S.A. Sociedad Administradora de Fondos has committed one (1) infraction classified as serious as established in Annex XVI, numeral 2, clause 2.3 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01, for not carrying out the customer due diligence process in accordance with the applicable regulations, by not adopting the corresponding measures to identify the beneficial owner of its natural person clients, as well as by not registering the minimum information in client identification.
Article 4th.- Declare that Interfondos S.A. Sociedad Administradora de Fondos has committed one (1) infraction classified as serious as established in Annex VII, numeral 2, clause 2.9 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01, for failing to comply with determining the risk profile of participants.
Article 5th.- Declare that Interfondos S.A. Sociedad Administradora de Fondos has committed one (1) infraction classified as serious as established in Annex I, numeral 2, clause 2.31 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having the Procedures Manual duly updated.
Article 6th.- Declare that Interfondos S.A. Sociedad Administradora de Fondos has committed one (1) infraction classified as serious as established in Annex I, numeral 2, clause 2.31 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01, for failing to comply with what

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Electronically signed document in the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship established in the Manual for the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing of 2020 and 2021.
Article 7th.- Sanction Interfondos S.A. Sociedad Administradora de Fondos with a fine amounting to seventeen (17) UIT, equivalent to S/ 73,100.00 (Seventy-three thousand one hundred and 00/100 Soles) for the commission of the infractions indicated in articles 1st to 6th.
Article 8th.- This resolution does not exhaust the administrative route, unless it is consented, and may be challenged before the Assistant Superintendent of Prudential Supervision by filing a reconsideration or appeal resource presented before the same, within the term of fifteen (15) business days counted from the day following its notification.
Article 9th.- In the event that this resolution is not subject to challenge through reconsideration or appeal resource within the term of fifteen (15) business days of being notified and becomes final, it must be published on the Institutional Page of the SMV in the Unique Digital Platform of the Peruvian State (www.gob.pe/smv), in observance of what is provided by numeral 1, article 7th of the Policy on dissemination of normative projects, general character legal norms, early agenda and other administrative acts of the SMV, approved by SMV Resolution Nº 014-2014-SMV/01 and its amendment, and by what is provided in Article 14 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01.
Article 10th.- Transcribe this resolution to Interfondos S.A. Sociedad Administradora de Fondos.
Register, communicate and publish.
Omar Gutiérrez Ochoa
Assistant Superintendent
Assistant Superintendent of Prudential Supervision

Lineage

Similar documents from other regulators