Adjunct Superintendent Resolution on Prudential Supervision No. 017-2025-SMV/10 — SMV — PE

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 017-2025-SMV/10 Lima, April 1, 2025 Subject: Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A. is sanctioned with a reprimand for having committed two (02) infractions: one (1) serious infraction typified in Annex XIII, number 2, item 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation, for failing to comply with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract entered into with the associate by not having sent all payment receipts to the associate, and one (1) minor infraction typified in Annex XIII, number 3, item 3.7 of the Sanctions Regulation, for failing to communicate the schedule of the first three (3) assemblies in which the associate was required to participate. Administered Entity: Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A. Subject: Administrative sanctioning procedure File No.: 2024029060 The Adjunct Superintendent of Prudential Supervision SEEN:
The administrative file No. 2024029060, and Report No. 375-2025-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Superintendent of Prudential Compliance; as well as the defenses of Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A.; and, CONSIDERING:

Pursuant to Article 1 of Law No. 29782, Law for the Strengthening of Securities Market Supervision, the name of the National Commission for the Supervision of Companies and Securities (CONASEV) is replaced by that of the Securities Market Superintendency (SMV), so that any reference to CONASEV in legal norms shall be understood as referring to the SMV;
I. FACTS

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
2. On March 23, 2022, as indicated by COMPLAINANT 1, they signed with Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A. (hereinafter, AUTOPLAN EAFC) the “Collective Fund Administration Contract. Purchase Certificate Modality of the Autoplan-002 Program” No. 039377, Group No. 94, for the allocation of a purchase certificate for US$ 13,000.00 (Thirteen thousand and 00/100 US dollars) (hereinafter, CONTRACT);
3. By the letter received on May 2, 2022, the COMPLAINANT filed a complaint 2 with the Securities Market Superintendency (SMV) against AUTOPLAN EAFC, in which they refer, among other things, that AUTOPLAN EAFC did not inform them of the assembly dates clearly, adding that the SELLER never formally informed them of the date of their first three (3) associate assemblies and that the administrator company also did not deliver the schedule for their realization. Likewise, the COMPLAINANT complains that AUTOPLAN EAFC has not sent them the payment receipt (invoice) for the deposit of S/ 3,315.00 (Three thousand three hundred fifteen and 00/100 soles) which they made on March 23, 2022, for which reason the complainant indicates not knowing how said payment was distributed. The COMPLAINANT attaches as part of their complaint, among others, the following documents:
a. Copy of payment receipt in favor of AUTOPLAN EAFC for the amount of S/ 3,315.00 (Three thousand three hundred fifteen with 00/100 soles) dated March 23, 2022. b. Copy of payment receipt in favor of AUTOPLAN EAFC, for the amount of US$ 258.15 (Two hundred fifty-eight with 15/100 soles) dated April 6, 2022.
c. Copy of the assembly results for the allocation Program Autoplan-002 of the month of April 2022 of AUTOPLAN EAFC, held on April 7, 2022, which covers groups 094 to 095;
4. With Letter No. 2313-2022-SMV/10.3, notified on May 13, 2022 (hereinafter, LETTER), the complaint filed by the COMPLAINANT was transferred to AUTOPLAN EAFC so that they would send the corresponding comments and they were requested, among other information, the following documentation and/or information:
“(...) d. Copy of the notification receipt of the call to the (3) first Assemblies in which the Complainant was required to participate, as well as the respective Calendar of Associate Assemblies, for each of the Contracts signed.
(...) h. Copy of the payment receipts issued by Autoplan EAFC to the Complainant, as well as the copy of the receipt of their transmission, particularly that corresponding to the payment made by the Complainant on March 23, 2022, for the amount of S/ 3,315.00.”;
5. With the letter presented on June 13, 2022, AUTOPLAN EAFC requests an additional period for the presentation of the information

1 In the Annex attached to this resolution, the complete data of the natural persons to whom the denominations used in this resolution belong are detailed, and likewise, if applicable, the email addresses.
2 File No. 2022018914

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship required via the LETTER; which was granted via Letter No. 466-2023-SMV/10.3 notified on January 30, 2023;
6. With the letter presented on February 8, 2023, AUTOPLAN EAFC requests an additional period for the presentation of the information required via the LETTER;
7. By email of January 3, 2024, the SMV requested AUTOPLAN EAFC to present the information requested by the LETTER;
8. In response to the LETTER, on January 5, 2024, AUTOPLAN EAFC sent their comments regarding the complaint, as well as part of the information required by the SMV. They also request an additional period for the presentation of the information required via the LETTER;
9. Furthermore, AUTOPLAN EAFC informed, among other things, that as of the date of presentation of their letter of January 5, 2024, they have proceeded with the total return of the quotas paid in favor of the COMPLAINANT, due to what was ordered by the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and the Protection of Intellectual Property (Indecopi) 3, for the amounts of US$ 256.35 (Two hundred fifty-six and 35/100 US dollars), S/ 3,315.00 (Three thousand three hundred fifteen and 00/100 soles) and S/36.00 (Thirty-six and 00/100 soles) for procedure costs, since this case was attended under Exp. 143-2022/CPC-PIU;
10. Via Letter No. 090-2024-SMV/10.3 notified on January 8, 2024 (hereinafter, LETTER 1), AUTOPLAN EAFC was informed of the granting of the additional period and it was reiterated to present the missing information;
11. In response to the LETTER, on January 23 and 30, 2024, AUTOPLAN EAFC sent part of the information required by the SMV. In this sense, AUTOPLAN EAFC presented, among others, the following documentation, which are in the file:
a. Copy of the electronic sales invoice No. B001-00301269 issued by AUTOPLAN EAFC in favor of COMPLAINANT, for the amount of US$ 1.21 (one and 21/100 US dollars) issued on March 23, 2022. b. Copy of the electronic sales invoice No. B001-00301335 issued by AUTOPLAN EAFC in favor of COMPLAINANT, for the amount of US$ 257.56 (two hundred fifty-seven and 56/100 US dollars) issued on March 23, 2022.
c. Copy of the electronic sales invoice No. B001-00301403 issued by AUTOPLAN EAFC in favor of COMPLAINANT, for the amount of US$ 613.60 (six hundred thirteen and 60/100 US dollars) issued on March 23, 2022;
12. Via Letter No. 1341-2024-SMV/10.3 notified on April 4, 2024 (hereinafter, LETTER 2), it was reiterated to AUTOPLAN EAFC the presentation of part of the information requested by the LETTER;

3 According to the search performed on the INDECOPI website, a complaint has been found registered before said entity by the COMPLAINANT against AUTOPLAN EAFC, under File No. 0143-2022/CPCINDECOPI-PIU-DENUNCIA, which has Final Resolution No. 862-2022/INDECOPI-PIU of December 14, 2022, which declares the complaint filed by the COMPLAINANT founded due to the waiver of AUTOPLAN EAFC. Additionally, among other things, it was ordered as a corrective measure that AUTOPLAN EAFC comply with returning all contributions made by the sums of S/3,315.00 and US$ 256.35.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
13. Via Letter No. 2863-2024-SMV/10.3 notified on July 10, 2024 (hereinafter, LETTER OF CHARGES), an administrative sanctioning procedure was initiated against AUTOPLAN EAFC, imputing charges for some facts related to the complaint of the COMPLAINANT;
14. Via letter of July 24, 2024, AUTOPLAN EAFC presented their defenses to the administrative sanctioning procedure initiated via the LETTER OF CHARGES;
15. The charges formulated against AUTOPLAN EAFC have been subject to evaluation by the General Superintendent of Prudential Compliance in Report No. 375-2025-SMV/10.3, which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Adjunct Superintendency;
16. In observance of the Principle of Due Process contemplated both in article IV, item 1, number 1.2 of the Preliminary Title, as well as in article 248°, number 2, of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law, Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS, published on January 25, 2019 (hereinafter, TUO OF THE LPAG), via Letter No. 1530-2025-SMV/10, the administrative file to which this resolution refers was made available to AUTOPLAN EAFC for its review;
II. ISSUES TO DETERMINE
17. In the present administrative procedure, in the opinion of this Adjunct Superintendency, it corresponds to determine the following:
a. Whether AUTOPLAN EAFC incurred or did not incur an infraction provided for in Annex XIII, number 3, item 3.7 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), for failing to comply with communicating the schedule of realization of the first three (3) assemblies in which the COMPLAINANT was required to participate corresponding to the CONTRACT signed. b. Whether AUTOPLAN EAFC incurred or did not incur an infraction provided for in Annex XIII, number 2, item 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for failing to comply with sending to the COMPLAINANT all the payment receipts corresponding to their CONTRACT.
c. Whether it corresponds or does not correspond to impose sanctions on AUTOPLAN EAFC;
III. ANALYSIS
3.1. Of the Applicable Normative
ON THE CONTRACT
18. Regarding the CONTRACT, article 21°, first paragraph, of the Regulation of the Collective Funds System and its Administrator Companies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 020-2014-SMV-01 and its amendments (hereinafter, REGULATION) provides:
“Article 21.- Contract
The Contract is of a private nature and has a collective character, it regulates the relationships between the Associates and the Administrator, and in it the rights and obligations of both parties are established; its content is governed by what is established in article 95 of the Regulation.
(...).” (Underline added);
A. ON THE DELIVERY OF THE ASSEMBLY SCHEDULE CORRESPONDING
19. Clause 10, number 10.4 literal I) of the CONTRACT, establishes that the functions and obligations of AUTOPLAN EAFC are the following:
“10.4 FUNCTIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF AUTOPLAN:
The following are the functions and obligations of the Administrator:
(...)
I) Others provided for in the Regulation
(...);
20. Regarding this, article 70° second paragraph of the REGULATION indicates the following:
“Article 70.- Obligation to provide periodic information to Associates The Administrator has the obligation to provide information to its Associates about their account statements and the schedule of Assemblies. When applicable, it will send information about the price variation of the goods under specific Goods Programs and other services they contract. Account statements must be sent at least with the periodicity in which the Assemblies are held. The schedule of Assemblies must be sent with a minimum periodicity of three (03) months. The price variation of the goods under specific Goods Programs may be included in the account statement that the Administrator sends to the Associate. The Associate's account statement must contain as a minimum the information contained in Annex 8. The modality to be used to provide the aforementioned information must be agreed upon in the Contracts. Additionally, the Administrator may use different electronic communication means that allow the Associate to be able to take adequate and timely knowledge of the respective information. In the event that email is used, said means must guarantee non-repudiation and allow the traceability of the communication”. (Underline added). B. ON THE TRANSMISSION OF PAYMENT RECEIPTS
21. Regarding payment receipts, clause seventh number 7.6 of the CONTRACT establishes the following:
“SEVENTH CLAUSE: OF THE PAYMENTS
(...)
7.6. AUTOPLAN will issue the respective payment receipts in the name of the Associate, which will be sent to the address indicated by the Associate in the General Conditions of this Contract. Prior to what is stated, AUTOPLAN must validate the payment made in the Receiving Accounts and identify that it has been made which is done for the obtaining of the Purchase Certificate. (...);”
3.2. Of the Charges Formulated
A. On the transmission of the assembly schedules corresponding to the CONTRACT

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
22. According to what is established in the normative exposed, the administrator company has the obligation to provide information to the associate, about the assembly schedule. Likewise, it is specified that the assembly schedules must be sent with a minimum periodicity of three (3) months, through the modality established in the CONTRACT. In this sense, AUTOPLAN EAFC had to send to the COMPLAINANT, in their capacity as associate of the “Autoplan-002” Program, Group No. 94, their assembly schedules during the validity of the CONTRACT, with a minimum periodicity of three (3) months;
23. Regarding this, the COMPLAINANT indicates that AUTOPLAN EAFC never formally informed them of the date of realization of their first three (3) associate assemblies, nor the schedule for their realization. In this sense, the complainant states that the administrator company must present the receipt of delivery of the document through which they were informed about the dates of realization of the first three (3) assemblies of Group 94 in which they were required to participate;
24. In response to the above, via the LETTER it was requested to the administrator company the notification receipt of the call to the (3) first Assemblies in which the complainant was required to participate, said information request was reiterated via email of January 3, 2024, LETTER 1 and LETTER 2. However, as of the date of issuance of the LETTER OF CHARGES, AUTOPLAN EAFC has not presented the receipt of reception of the schedule of the first three (3) assemblies, despite being requested on more than one occasion, in order to prove that they complied with delivering to the COMPLAINANT the schedule of the first three (3) assemblies in which they were required to participate;
25. In this sense, it is observed that AUTOPLAN EAFC would have breached clause 10, number 10.4, literal I) of the CONTRACT, article 70° of the REGULATION, since AUTOPLAN EAFC had not complied with sending to the COMPLAINANT the schedule of realization of the first three (3) assemblies of the associate, corresponding to the CONTRACT;
26. Therefore, AUTOPLAN EAFC would have incurred a (1) minor infraction typified in Annex XIII, number 3, item 3.7 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infraction: “Not to timely send to associates the information on account statements or assembly schedules”;
B. On the transmission of payment receipts
27. In accordance with the normative exposed, AUTOPLAN EAFC has the obligation to issue the respective payment receipts in the name of the associate, which will be sent to the address indicated by the latter;
28. On this particular matter, the COMPLAINANT refers that AUTOPLAN EAFC, as of the date of presentation of their complaint, has not sent them the payment receipts for the deposit of S/ 3,315.00 (three thousand three hundred fifteen and 00/100 soles) which they made on March 23, 2022. Therefore, the complainant requests that AUTOPLAN EAFC present the receipt of sending of the payment receipts for said payment and specify the way in which it was distributed in the CONTRACT;
29. Regarding this, the COMPLAINANT presented with their complaint letter, two (2) payment receipts in favor of AUTOPLAN EAFC for the amounts of S/ 3,315.00 (made on March 23, 2022) and US$ 256.35 (made on April 6, 2024);

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
30. In response to the above, the SMV via LETTER requested, among other things, to the administrator company the receipt of transmission of the payment receipts issued by AUTOPLAN EAFC to the complainant as well as the receipt of reception of the same, particularly that corresponding to the payment of S/ 3,315.00 (three thousand three hundred fifteen and 00/100 soles) which they made on March 23, 2022, which is equivalent to approximately US$ 879.54 4. Said information request was reiterated via email of January 3, 2024 and via LETTER 1;
31. Regarding this, AUTOPLAN EAFC in their letters of January 23 and 30, 2024, in response to the request made 5, presented to the SMV copies of three (3) electronic invoices issued on March 23, 2023 in the name of the COMPLAINANT, regarding the CONTRACT, for the total amount US$ 872.37. However, they did not present the respective receipts of transmission to the COMPLAINANT, nor did they present the remaining payment receipts nor their respective receipts of transmission. Therefore, AUTOPLAN EAFC has not presented any probative means that allows proving that they sent to the COMPLAINANT all the payment receipts corresponding to the payments made by the complainant according to what is established in the CONTRACT;
32. Therefore, AUTOPLAN EAFC would have failed to comply with what is provided for in clause seventh number 7.6 of the CONTRACT, since they would not have complied with sending all the payment receipts to the COMPLAINANT regarding the payments made within the framework of the CONTRACT;
33. In this sense, AUTOPLAN EAFC would have incurred a (1) infraction qualified as serious, according to Annex XIII, number 2, item 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infraction: “Not to comply with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract entered into with the associate”;
3.3. Of the Defenses
34. AUTOPLAN EAFC indicates that regarding the two (2) imputations made against them established via the LETTER OF CHARGES, in accordance with article 26° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, in an express, precise, concise, clear and unconditional manner, and through this means, they recognize their responsibility for the alleged infractions attributed against their represented party, for which they request the application of this mitigating factor of responsibility in favor of their represented party;
35. Additionally to the mitigating factor mentioned, AUTOPLAN EAFC exposes that through the information contained in the file and which they presented in due course, it could be considered ex officio, if they are in the situation established in literal b) of article 26° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, taking into consideration all the information presented for the clarification of the infraction; so that after the evaluation that corresponds to be made, this mitigating factor of responsibility is additionally considered in the determination of the sanction that will correspond to be imposed;

4 According to the average interbank exchange rate of sale (S/. per US$) published by the Central Reserve Bank of Peru on March 23, 2022.
5
“h. Copy of the payment receipts issued by AUTOPLAN EAFC to the COMPLAINANT, as well as the copy of the receipt of their transmission, particularly that corresponding to the payment made by the COMPLAINANT on March 23, 2022, for the amount of S/ 3,315.00.”

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendency of the Securities Market
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship

The administrator company states that it attaches to its defenses the records of credit in favor of the COMPLAINANT for the return of the total installments paid by the amounts of S/ 3,315.00 (three thousand three hundred fifteen and 00/100 soles) and USD$ 256.36 (two hundred fifty-six and 36/100 US dollars), as well as the costs of S/ 36.00 (thirty-six and 00/100 soles) of the procedure at INDECOPI under File No. 143-2022/CPC-PIU;
Therefore, AUTOPLAN EAFC requests that its recognition of responsibility exposed in the preceding considerations be accepted, and additionally, that its contribution to the clarification of the infringement be considered as another mitigating factor, as provided in article 26 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION and in article 257 of the SINGLE TEXT OF THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE LAW (TUO DE LA LPAG);
AUTOPLAN EAFC attached the following documents to its defenses: i) Copy of the bank transfer to the COMPLAINANT for the amount of US$ 256.36 (Two hundred fifty-six and 36/100 US dollars) dated February 6, 2023, ii) Copy of the bank transfer to the COMPLAINANT for the amount of S/ 3,315.00 (three thousand three hundred fifteen and 00/100 US dollars) dated February 6, 2023 and iii) Copy of the bank transfer to the COMPLAINANT for the amount of S/ 36.00 (thirty-six and 00/100 soles) dated February 6, 2023;

3.4 Evaluation of the defenses

This analysis must begin by stating that AUTOPLAN EAFC has expressly recognized its responsibility for the commission of the two (2) infringements under analysis, based on the provisions of article 26 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, which will be considered when carrying out the evaluation of the sanction to be imposed;
Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is necessary to point out that AUTOPLAN EAFC is a company supervised by the SMV, with a license of operation granted by Superintendent Resolution No. 024-2015-SMV/02 of February 17, 2015 6 and has knowledge of the regulations under which the collective fund system operates, as well as the rights and obligations established in the contracts it administers, which is why it has the obligation to act diligently as a collective fund administrator, however, this did not occur, since the administrator company committed the two (2) infringements subject to charges; which impacts the fulfillment of its functions and obligations as a collective fund administrator;
Additionally, AUTOPLAN EAFC has the obligation to safeguard the rights of the members and in this sense must comply with the applicable regulations as well as with the contract signed with its members, which establishes the rights and obligations of the members and the administrator company; and whose model is authorized by the SMV, at the request of the administrator company;

A. Regarding the submission of the assembly calendars corresponding to the contract

Taking into account that AUTOPLAN EAFC has not presented the charges of submission to the member of said assembly calendars, as well as the recognition of its responsibility for the commission of the infringement subject to charges, in the present case it has been proven that AUTOPLAN EAFC has not complied with sending the assembly calendars to the COMPLAINANT, corresponding to the first three

6 Published in the Official Gazette El Peruano on February 20, 2015.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

(3) first assemblies of the CONTRACT; and therefore, it has failed to comply with what is established in clause 10, numeral 10.4, literal l) of the CONTRACT and article 70 of the REGULATION;

In this sense, it is warned that AUTOPLAN EAFC has incurred in one (1) infringement classified as minor, according to Annex XIII, numeral 3, item 3.7 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infringement: "Not to timely send to the members the information on the account statements or assembly calendars";

B. Regarding the submission of payment receipts

Indeed, in the present case, taking into account that AUTOPLAN EAFC has not presented the charges of submission of the payment receipts requested, as well as the recognition of its responsibility made, it is observed that AUTOPLAN EAFC has not complied with sending to the COMPLAINANT the entirety of the payment receipts, in attention to the payments made corresponding to the CONTRACT; and, therefore, it has failed to comply with what is established in clause 7, numeral 7.6 of the CONTRACT;
Consequently, it is warned that AUTOPLAN EAFC has incurred in one (1) serious infringement typified in Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infringement: "Not to comply with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract celebrated with the member";
For its part, it must be indicated that the evaluation of what is mentioned by AUTOPLAN EAFC regarding that it has contributed to the clarification of the infringements subject to charges will be considered when carrying out the evaluation of the sanction to be imposed;

IV. EVALUATION OF THE SANCTION

According to article 7 of Decree Law No. 21907 on Collective Fund Companies and article 25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION; in concordance with article 248, numeral 3 7 of the Single Text of Law No. 27444, General Administrative Procedure Law, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO DE LA LPAG), and article 257 8

7
"Article 248.- Principles of the administrative sanctioning power The sanctioning power of all entities is additionally governed by the following special principles:
(...)
3. Reasonableness.- The authorities must foresee that the commission of the sanctionable conduct does not result in more advantage for the infringer than complying with the infringed rules or assuming the sanction. However, the sanctions to be applied must be proportional to the non-compliance classified as an infringement, observing the following criteria that are indicated for the purposes of their graduation:
a) The illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infringement; b) The probability of detection of the infringement; c) The gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or legal good protected; d) The economic harm caused; e) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infringement within a 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 not of intent in the conduct of the infringer".

8
"Article 257°.- Exemptions and mitigating factors 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.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

of the aforementioned normative body; the administrative sanctions that are imposed must take into account the criteria established by Decree Law No. 21907, the SANCTIONS REGULATION and the TUO DE LA LPAG;

Within that framework, the evaluation of the sanction must consider: a) Antecedents of the infringer; b) Recidivism; c) Circumstances of the commission of the infringement; d) Economic harm caused and its repercussion in the market; e) Illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infringement; f) Probability of detection of the infringement; g) Gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or legal good protected; h) Existence or not of intent in the conduct of the infringer;
In this sense, for the purpose of coordinating the criteria of the TUO DE LA LPAG, with those indicated in Decree Law No. 21907 and in the SANCTIONS REGULATION, and for these criteria to be considered adequately so that their valuation observes the principle of reasonableness and that the sanction to be imposed adapts to these, it proceeds to analyze the following criteria;
With regard to sanction antecedents, in accordance with what is established by article 25, literal a) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, antecedents constitute the final sanctions imposed by the SMV within a period of four (4) years prior to the commission of the infringement to be sanctioned. The aforementioned article specifies that the commission of the same infringement in the year prior to the infringement to be sanctioned is not considered as antecedents;
In this sense, from the review carried out in said period, it has been verified that AUTOPLAN EAFC has the following final sanctions:

No. Resolution Resolved Finality i) Superintendent Resolution Adjunta SMV No. 017-2018-SMV/10 9 AUTOPLAN EAFC is sanctioned with six (6) warnings and a fine of 15.48 UIT for having incurred in eleven (11) minor infringements typified in Annex XIV, numeral 3, item 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation approved by Resolution CONASEV No. 055-2001-EF/94.10 and its modifying norms (hereinafter PREVIOUS SANCTIONS REGULATION), for having failed to present periodic information within By Superintendent Resolution Adjunta SMV No. 070-2021-SMV/10, the reconsideration appeal filed by Autoplan EAFC was declared founded in part and consequently the amount of the fine imposed by article 17 of the Superintendent Resolution Adjunta SMV No. 017-2018-SMV/10 was graduated to 9.675 UIT. 30/12/2021 ii) Superintendent Resolution Adjunta SMV No. 011-2019-SMV/10 10 AUTOPLAN EAFC is sanctioned with two (02) warnings for having incurred in two (02) serious infringements typified in Annex XIV, numeral 2, item 2.21 and Annex XIV, numeral 2, item 2.41 of the PREVIOUS SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not having determined 11/04/2019

e) The 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 an administrative infringement, prior to the notification of the charges referred to in item 3) of article 255.
2.- The following constitute mitigating conditions of responsibility for infringements:
a) If an administrative sanctioning procedure has been initiated, the infringer expressly and in writing recognizes their responsibility.
In cases where the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced to an amount no less than half of its amount. b) Others that are established by special norm".

9 Notified on May 11, 2018.
10 Notified on March 21, 2019.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

No. Resolution Resolved Finality adequately the order of preference of the awarded substitutes. iii) Superintendent Resolution Adjunta SMV No. 004-2020-SMV/10 11 AUTOPLAN EAFC is sanctioned with a fine of three (03) UIT for having incurred in two infringements; one (01) of a serious nature typified in Annex XIV, numeral 2, item 2.22 of the PREVIOUS SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not complying with the conditions established in the regulation for the convocation or for the celebration of assemblies; and, one (01) of a minor nature typified in Annex XIV, numeral 3, item 3.13 of the Sanctions Regulation, for not timely sending to the member the information on the assembly calendar. By RSUP No. 119-2020-SMV/02, the appeal filed by AUTOPLAN EAFC was declared founded in part and consequently the sanction imposed as a fine in article 3° of the Superintendent Resolution Adjunta SMV No. 004-2020-SMV/10 was modified, reducing it from three (3) UIT to two (2) UIT, valid at the time of effective payment of the fine; and, revoking the corrective measure established in article 4° of the mentioned Superintendent Resolution Adjunta. 01/12/2020 iv) Superintendent Resolution Adjunta SMV No. 013-2021-SMV/10 12 AUTOPLAN EAFC is sanctioned with three (03) warnings and a fine of 28.0045 UIT for having incurred in twenty (20) minor infringements typified in Annex XIV, numeral 3, item 3.1 of the PREVIOUS SANCTIONS REGULATION and in two (02) minor infringements typified in Annex I, numeral 3, item 3.1, of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not having complied with presenting periodic information within the period established by the applicable regulation referred to intermediate financial information and management report. 21/04/2021 v) Superintendent Resolution Adjunta SMV No. 060-2021-SMV/10 13 AUTOPLAN EAFC is sanctioned with a fine of 18.3345 UIT for having incurred in twelve (12) minor infringements typified in Annex I, numeral 3, item 3.1, of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not having complied with presenting periodic information within the period established by the applicable regulation. 24/01/2022 vi) Superintendent Resolution Adjunta SMV No. 003-2022-SMV/10 14 AUTOPLAN EAFC is sanctioned with four (04) UIT for having incurred in one (01) serious infringement typified in Annex XIV, numeral 2, item 2.6 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for granting loans to third parties exceeding the limit established by the regulation. 18/03/2022

With regard to recidivism for the commission of the same infringement, that final sanction imposed by the SMV within a 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 AUTOPLAN EAFC does not present sanctions within the period indicated above, for the commission of the same infringements subject to analysis, in the present administrative sanctioning procedure, so that recidivism is not configured;
With regard to the circumstances of the commission of the infringements, it must be mentioned that AUTOPLAN EAFC, in its capacity as a company supervised by the SMV, knows the regulations that regulate the collective fund system and in this sense, the regulations that oblige it to deliver the assembly calendars to the members and payment receipts to its members as established in the REGULATION and contracts it administers;
Notwithstanding the above, in the present case it has been proven that AUTOPLAN EAFC did not comply with delivering the calendar of the (3) first assemblies in which the COMPLAINANT was supposed to participate, nor did it provide the entirety of the payment receipts corresponding to the CONTRACT;
On this matter, it should be noted that AUTOPLAN EAFC, in the development of its activities, is obliged to comply with the regulations that regulate the exercise of its activities and its own internal procedures established in the corresponding manuals. Regarding this, the administrator company must implement the necessary procedures and controls for their due observance. Likewise, it must be reiterated that AUTOPLAN EAFC has the obligation to comply with the contract signed with its members, which establishes the rights and obligations of the members and the administrator company; and whose model is authorized by the SMV, at the request of the administrator company;
Without prejudice to the above, it is worth adding that in the present case the administrator company informed that it proceeded with the return of the total installments paid in favor of the COMPLAINANT, due to what was ordered by INDECOPI 15 for the amounts of S/ 3,315.00 (Three thousand three hundred fifteen and 00/100 soles) and US$ 256.35 (Two hundred fifty-six and 35/100 US dollars). Likewise, AUTOPLAN EAFC has presented copies of the transfer records in favor of the COMPLAINANT for the aforementioned amounts, which were attached along with the defenses of the administrator company in the present administrative sanctioning procedure;
With regard to the harm caused and its repercussion in the market. In the present case, it has not been evidenced that the infringements in which AUTOPLAN EAFC has incurred have produced a concrete quantifiable harm in the market; however, these facts affect the confidence of the members or potential members in the collective fund system;
Regarding the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infringements. Regarding this, it must be pointed out that it has not been proven that AUTOPLAN EAFC has obtained a benefit that is directly related to the infringements subject to analysis in the present administrative procedure;
With regard to the probability of detection of the infringement. On this matter, it must be indicated that the facts constitutive of the infringements committed by AUTOPLAN EAFC were evidenced when verifying the compliance with the applicable regulation for the development of its functions, based on the facts exposed by the COMPLAINANT in the complaint filed against the administrator company; therefore, the probability of detection of the infringement was low;
On the gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or legal good protected. In the present case it has not been possible to prove that the conduct

15 Ordered by Final Resolution No. 862-2022/INDECOPI-PIU of December 14, 2022, under file No. 0143-2022/CPC-INDECOPI-PIU-DENUNCIA.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

of AUTOPLAN EAFC in the commission of the infringements subject to analysis in the present sanctioning procedure has caused damage to the determinable public interest;

However, a protected legal good has been affected, consisting in the protection of the member, since AUTOPLAN EAFC has failed to comply with the obligation to provide the calendar of the three (3) first assemblies in which the COMPLAINANT was supposed to participate for the CONTRACT signed;
Likewise, according to what is established in clause 7, numeral 7.6, of the CONTRACT, the administrator company was obliged to send the payment receipts corresponding to the payments made by the members. In this sense, and in order to avoid a possible impact on its clients, AUTOPLAN EAFC should have established procedures to comply with the obligations established in the contract and the regulations of the collective fund system;
In this way, taking into account that collective fund administrator companies have the obligation to act in strict compliance with the regulation that applies to them, such as the provisions established in the CONTRACT and the REGULATION, in safeguarding the collective fund system, the transgression of said regulation affects the legal good referred to the integrity of the market, that is, of the collective fund system and especially affects the confidence of the members or potential members in the collective fund system;
Regarding the existence or not of intent in the conduct of the infringer. Regarding this, it must be specified that intent has not been verified in the conduct of AUTOPLAN EAFC regarding the infringements subject to analysis;
In addition to the above, it corresponds to analyze the exemptions and mitigating factors of responsibility established in article 257 of the TUO DE LA LPAG, as well as the mitigating and exempting conditions of responsibility established in articles 26 and 27 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
In accordance with what is determined in article 257, numeral 1 of the TUO DE LA LPAG and article 27 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, it is not observed that in the present case any of the scenarios that constitute conditions exempting responsibility have been configured;
With regard to the voluntary declaration of the commission of the infringements (article 257, numeral 2 of the TUO DE LA LPAG) and the contribution of the infringer to their clarification, established in article 26, literals a) and b) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, it must be indicated that AUTOPLAN EAFC has recognized its responsibility for the infringements incurred in an express and written manner, after the period granted for the presentation of defenses, in a precise, concise, clear, express and unconditional way, without ambiguous or contradictory expressions; therefore, according to what is established in article 26, literal a), numeral 2 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, it would correspond to reduce the amount of the applicable fine by thirty percent (30%) 16. Likewise, AUTOPLAN EAFC has contributed to the clarification of the facts imputed as charges;

16 The recognition was presented by AUTOPLAN EAFC on July 24, 2024; that is, after the expiration of the period granted in the CHARGES OFFICE, which was notified on July 10, 2024 and granted seven (7) business days to AUTOPLAN EAFC for the presentation of its defenses.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

From the foregoing, it is concluded that AUTOPLAN EAFC has committed one (1) infraction classified as minor in Annex XIII, numeral 3, subsection 3.7 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION and one (1) infraction classified as serious in Annex XIII, numeral 2, subsection 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, with respect to which it is appropriate to impose on AUTOPLAN EAFC a sanction corresponding to infractions classified as serious in accordance with Article 38 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
In this regard, it should be noted that because the determined infractions are of different nature, it is appropriate to impose the sanction for the most serious infraction, as stated in the second paragraph of Article 29 17 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
In accordance with what is established in Article 38° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, the serious infraction is punishable with a fine greater than twenty-five (25) and up to fifty (50) Tax Units (UIT) or with the prohibition of forming new groups; however, it must be reiterated that to the extent that AUTOPLAN EAFC acknowledged the commission of the infractions, and has not obstructed the clarification of the same; it is appropriate to apply what is provided for in Article 26° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
However, taking into account the analyzed sanction criteria, and in application of the Principle of Reasonableness contemplated in Article 248, numeral 3 of the TUO OF THE LPAG which states that sanctions to be applied must be proportional to the non-compliance classified as an infraction, it must be considered that with respect to the infractions subject to charges, it has not been evidenced that these have caused economic harm or that they have had repercussions in the market. Likewise, it has not been verified that the administrator company has obtained illicit benefit with the commission of the infractions subject to charges, nor that it has had intentionality in its actions regarding the same. Similarly, it has been verified that AUTOPLAN EAFC is not a repeat offender with respect to the infractions;
In addition to the above, it must be indicated that AUTOPLAN EAFC has returned the total of the contributions made by the COMPLAINANT, based on what was ordered by Indecopi 18 for the amounts of US$ 256.35 (Two hundred fifty-six and 35/100 American dollars) and S/ 3,315.00 (Three thousand three hundred fifteen and 00/100 soles), whose transfer receipts have been presented as support for the total return made in favor of the COMPLAINANT;
Likewise, it must be considered that through Final Resolution No. 862-2022/INDECOPI-PIU of December 14, 2022 19,
INDECOPI sanctioned AUTOPLAN EAFC, among others, with a reprimand, for not informing the COMPLAINANT of the dates of the first three assemblies in which it was entitled to participate;
In that sense, , in accordance with what is provided in the last paragraph of Article 25° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, this Superintendency

17 “Article 29.- CONCURSUS OF INFRACTIONS
(…) Likewise, when several behaviors qualify as more than one infraction, the sanction corresponding to the most serious infraction is imposed” 18 Ordered through Final Resolution No. 862-2022/INDECOPI-PIU of December 14, 2022, under file No. 0143- 2022/CPC-INDECOPI-PIU-DENUNCIA.
19 Under file No. 143-2022/CPC-INDECOPI-PIU

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship Adjunct considers that it is appropriate to impose on AUTOPLAN EAFC a sanction lower than that provided for serious infractions, in accordance with what is provided in Article 39° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;

Being subject to what is provided for in articles 32°, numeral 16, of the Regulation of Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree Nº 216-2011-EF and its amendments;

RESOLVES:
Article 1º.- Declare that Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A. has committed one (01) infraction classified as serious as established in Annex XIII, numeral 2, subsection 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N°035-2018-SMV/01, for not having complied with remitting all payment vouchers to the associate.

Article 2º.- Declare that Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A has committed one (01) infraction of a minor nature typified in Annex XIII, numeral 3, subsection 3.7 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N°035-2018-SMV/01, for not having complied with communicating the schedule of the three (3) first assemblies in which it was entitled to participate to the associate.

Article 3º.- Sanction Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A. with a reprimand for the commission of the infractions referred to in articles 1° and 2° of this Resolution.

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

Article 5º.- In the event that this resolution is not subject to challenge through reconsideration or appeal within the term of fifteen (15) business days of being notified and remains consented, it must be published on the Institutional Page of the SMV in the Unique Digital Platform of the Peruvian State, in observance of what is provided for in numeral 1, article 7º of the Policy on dissemination of normative projects, laws of a general nature, early agenda and other administrative acts of the SMV, approved by SMV Resolution Nº 014-2014-SMV/01 and by what is provided for in article 14° of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01.

Article 6º.- Transcribe this resolution to Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A. and to Mrs. Rosa Fiorella Silupu Durand.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
"Year of the recovery and consolidation of the Peruvian economy " Document electronically signed digitally under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship Omar Gutiérrez Ochoa Adjunct Superintendent Adjunct Superintendency of Prudential Supervision