Adjunct Superintendent Resolution on Prudential Supervision No. 061-2025-SMV/10

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 061-2025-SMV/10 Lima, December 30, 2025 Subject: The reconsideration appeal filed by Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. ex Collective Fund Administrator Company against the Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 016-2024-SMV/10 is declared unfounded. Administered by: Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. ex Collective Fund Administrator Company Subject: Reconsideration appeal against Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 016-2024-SMV/10 File No.: 2023037296

The Adjunct Superintendent of Prudential Supervision

SEEN:
The administrative file No. 2023037296, the reconsideration appeal presented by Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. ex Collective Fund Administrator Company and Report No. 1171-2024-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Superintendent of Prudential Compliance; and

CONSIDERING:

1. In accordance with 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 Superintendence (SMV), so that any reference to CONASEV in legal norms shall be understood as referring to the SMV;

I. Background
2. Through Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 016-2024-SMV/10 of April 15, 2024 (hereinafter, RESOLUTION), it was decided to sanction Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. ex Collective Fund Administrator Company (hereinafter, PLAN RENTABLE) with twelve (12) warnings and a fine of 22.95 UIT, for having committed seventeen (17) minor infractions typified in Annex I, numeral 3, subsection 3.1, of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), for failing to submit periodic information within the deadline established by applicable regulations, corresponding to interim audited financial information, management reports and annual report;

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship
3. Through a written submission presented on May 8, 2024,
PLAN RENTABLE filed an appeal against the RESOLUTION;
4. The reconsideration appeal has been the subject of
evaluation by the General Superintendent of Prudential Compliance in Report No.
1171-2024-SMV/10.3, which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Adjunct Superintendence;
5. In observance of the Principle of Due Process
contemplated both in Article IV, subsection 1, numeral 1.2, of the Preliminary Title, as well as 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) and Article 18° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION of the SMV, through Office No. 3951-2024-SMV/10, the administrative file to which this resolution refers was made available to PLAN RENTABLE for its review;

II. On the Admissibility of the Reconsideration Appeal
6. According to what is established in Article 32,
numeral 27 of the Regulation of Organization of Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216 2011-EF, it is the function of the Adjunct Superintendence of Prudential Supervision to resolve reconsideration appeals against the resolutions that it issues;
7. Likewise, Article 218 numeral 218.2 of the TUO OF
THE LPAG establishes that the term for filing appeals is fifteen (15) peremptory business days. In this regard, it has been verified that the reconsideration appeal was filed within said deadline;
8. In accordance with Article 219 of the TUO OF THE LPAG, the
reconsideration appeal is filed before the same body that issued the act subject to appeal and must be supported by new evidence. However, in the case of administrative acts issued by bodies that constitute a single instance, new proof is not required;

III. On the Arguments Presented by PLAN RENTABLE
9. PLAN RENTABLE states that on April 16, 2024,
they were notified with the RESOLUTION and that they are not satisfied with said resolution with respect to Article 19 of the operative part, in which PLAN RENTABLE is sanctioned with 22.95 UIT, for what is provided in Articles 4°, 6°, 10°, 11° and 12° of the aforementioned resolution, being satisfied with the rest. Therefore, they proceed to file a reconsideration appeal, in order to revoke what is stated in the RESOLUTION;
10. PLAN RENTABLE, grounds the appeal filed
in that its position be taken into consideration, which was to acknowledge that its representative had committed said faults, but that they had been remedied in time, moreover that at the date of said sanction, the appellant was not yet the General Manager, but even so, PLAN RENTABLE indicates they have acknowledged their fault, it is for this reason that in accordance with the guidelines of the SMV, PLAN RENTABLE specifies, a lesser sanction corresponds for having submitted to the administrative sanctioning process;

“Article 19°.- Sanction Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. ex EAFC with a fine of 22.95 UIT for what is provided in Articles 4°, 6°, 10°, 11° and 12° of this resolution.”

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship
11. Likewise, PLAN RENTABLE alleges that from the review
of the administrative process carried out by this adjunct superintendence, it can be pointed out that the guiding principles of the administrative process have been violated, such as the principle of reasonableness, the principle of legality, as well as the principle of due administrative process;
12. Thus, PLAN RENTABLE indicates, the norm
contemplates that to comply with the principle of reasonableness, a provision of cost (for example, an administrative sanction, the execution of an act, the limitation of a right, etc.), must comply with:
a. Adopted within the limits of the attributed faculty. That is, to comply with and not distort the purpose for which the competence to issue the cost act was agreed. b. Maintain the proportion between means and ends. This means that the authority when deciding the type of cost to issue or among the various degrees that the same sanction may entail, does not have full discretion for the option, but must choose that which is proportional to the purpose pursued by the legal norm;
13. PLAN RENTABLE, also points out, that at the
constitutional level, the Constitutional Tribunal in File No. 535-2009-PA/TC, exposes in its consideration 16 as follows:
“16. Reasonableness is a criterion intimately linked to justice and is in the essence itself of the constitutional State of Law. It is expressed as a mechanism of control or interdiction of arbitrariness in the use of discretionary faculties requiring that the decisions that are taken in that context respond to criteria of rationality and that they are not arbitrary. As this collegiate has sustained, this implies finding logical justification in the facts, conduct and circumstances that motivate every discretionary act of the public powers.”;
14. Additionally, they state that in file No.
0006-2003-AI/TC, foundation 9 it is stated as follows:
“9. The principle of reasonableness implies finding logical justification in the facts, conduct and circumstances that motivate every discretionary act of the public powers. This principle acquires greater relevance in the case of those situations referred to restricting rights or, for the purposes of the case, depriving of the prerogatives that act as functional guarantees for certain public officials.”;
15. PLAN RENTABLE also points out that, with respect to
the reasonableness of a decision, foundations 11 and 12 of the File No. 2698-2012-AA/TC must be considered, in which the following is detailed:
“11. Determining the level of justice or reasonableness of a decision is not, however, and whatever the scope from which it comes, something that can be measured according to a game or interpretation based on free discretion. In reality it depends on several factors that, although sometimes they may occur separately, they can also present themselves in a concurrent manner, being pertinent to mention, as situations in which control would proceed in safeguard of substantive due process: a) the respect or subjection to constitutional rights and values, b) the interdiction to arbitrariness, c) the requirement of common sense or rationality in decision making. 12. Verifying the compatibility between the adopted decision and constitutional rights and values, depends to no small extent on two criteria: one first in which the conception and interpretation about the attributes or goods in discussion managed in the pronouncement subject to control is evaluated, and not second that takes into account the scope to which the body or entity on which the control falls belongs. As for the first of said criteria, it is sufficient to point out that any analysis about what represents a

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship fundamental right, cannot suppose a disregard of its constitutional status and its essential content, so any controversy in which they are involved must take into account the Constitution as the first and direct norm of reference. As for the second criterion, it is convenient to specify that the incidence of control must distinguish the types of scope from which the decision object of questioning derives. When said scope is linked to bodies of a jurisdictional nature, the intensity of the supervision is much more limited, as it is presumed that the respective body or entity not only administers justice, but also assumes special competencies, whose reserve can only be restricted in the situations in which they may somehow overlap with those of the constitutional judge. It is not the same and it is necessary to specify it, when the scope of supervision refers to scenarios other than the strictly jurisdictional ones. In these last situations the level of evaluation is extremely intense and covers all types of reasoning in which for one reason or another constitutional rights and goods may be affected.”;
16. Likewise, PLAN RENTABLE holds that with respect to
the observance of the principle of reasonableness at the time of imposing sanctions, file No. 3167-2010-PA/TC, states as follows:
“10. In this regard, this collegiate considers that the establishment of sanctioning provisions – both by public entities, private entities, individuals, as well as by judicial authorities- cannot be limited to a mere mechanical application of the norms, but in it a reasonable application of the facts in each concrete case must be carried out, taking into account the particular circumstances that surround it. The result of this valuation and evaluation will therefore lead to adopting a reasonable, proportional and non-arbitrary decision. 11. In this sense, reasonableness is a criterion intimately linked to justice and is in the essence itself of the Constitutional State of Law. It is expressed as a mechanism of control or interdiction of arbitrariness in the use of discretionary faculties, requiring that the decisions that are taken in that context respond to criteria of rationality and that they are not arbitrary.”
17. By virtue of this principle, PLAN RENTABLE holds
that, “(…) it is had in the case at hand that, as indicated by Article 14 of the Regulation of the Collective Fund System and its Administrator Companies hereinafter Regulation, with respect to the transfer of shares, although it is true, said article does not specify the limits or parameters on which patrimonial goods are the optimal ones to support in the value of the shares as indicated by Article 4° to the satisfaction of the Securities Market Superintendence, this means, that the shareholders if comply with accrediting the economic solvency of their shares as corresponds to the value of the share that is sought to subscribe, therefore, there would be no reason for observation, because the regulation does not tell you what restrictions you must take into account, on the contrary said article refers in a general way. Situation that would be violating the principle of reasonableness, by not considering the competent authority the documents that accredit the economic and moral solvency of the two shareholders presented.”;
18. PLAN RENTABLE, also mentions that as
application of the principle of legality of the executive function, public agents must found all their actions – decisional or consultative – on the current regulations. It states that, the principle of subjection of the Administration to the legislation, known as the “positive binding of the Administration to the Law”, requires that the certainty of validity of any administrative action depend on the extent to which it can refer to a legal precept or that, starting from this, it can be derived as its necessary coverage or development. In this way, the principle of legality is the pivot of administrative law–and of public law in general–, given that without it all administrative regulations, as well as the doctrine on the subject, would completely lack reason for being;

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship
19. Being so, continues PLAN RENTABLE, the administrative
function is subject to the legal order and especially, to the Law, being the latter that determines the scope of what the Administration can do, that is, its competence;
20. Thus, PLAN RENTABLE states, the principle of legality
implies that authorities must act with respect to the Constitution, the Law and to the law, within the faculties attributed to them and in accordance with the purposes for which said faculties were conferred;
21. In this way, PLAN RENTABLE indicates, it is clear
that, in the administrative sphere, the entities that make up the public administration, must act with respect to the principle of legality, applying, integrating and interpreting the provisions of the legal order in accordance with the constitutional framework, this by virtue of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality;
22. All the above, PLAN
RENTABLE states, concludes that there is a binding of the administration to the Constitution, which is appreciated in Article IV of the Preliminary Title of the General Administrative Procedure Law, which, although formally it has been named in the law as “Principle of Legality”, in substance it is nothing other than the concretization of the legal supremacy of the Constitution, by providing that administrative authorities must act with respect to the Constitution, the Law and the law;
23. Continuing with the arguments raised, PLAN
RENTABLE states that “In the case at hand, Article 4 of the Regulation mentions that organizers must have a recognized economic, financial and moral solvency to the satisfaction of the SMV, here we can observe that the documents that will support the economic and moral solvency of the shareholders will be valued according to the criterion of the Securities Market Superintendence, this means, that what is established in the regulation would not be taken into account, since, what resulted by said entity would be resolving in a subjective way by its authorities by indicating that the approved would go along with “to their satisfaction”, violating the principle of legality by not acting according to law within the faculties attributed to them, likewise the principle of impartiality would be violated, due to the authorities that qualify and resolve would be acting in a discriminatory way, in addition to preventing them an equal protection at the time of resolving the remediations that would have been presented before the administrative authorities.”;
24. Thus, PLAN RENTABLE also refers to the
principle of Due Administrative Process, enshrined in Title IV numeral 2 of the Preliminary Title of the General Administrative Procedure Law, by which a series of levels of application are exposed: The of the right to the administrative process, as a right to the non-deviation of the purposes of the administrative process and as a right to the guarantees of the administrative process;
25. It also specifies that, it is taken into account that this
principle comprises a series of rights and guarantees that this article enounces but does not limit. Comprehending, the right to be notified; to access the file; to refute the charges imputed; to expose arguments and to present complementary statements; to offer and to produce evidence; to request the use of the word, when corresponds; to obtain a motivated decision, founded in law, issued by competent authority, and in a reasonable deadline; and, to appeal the decisions that affect them;
26. In this way, PLAN RENTABLE argues, it is clear
that due procedure is a manifestation of the right to due process in the administrative sphere, in which elements such as the right to defense,

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and authorship the right to the presentation of evidence, the right that the entity before which the process is substantiated necessarily employs the procedure pre-established by law, the motivation of the resolution issued, the right to a reasonable deadline for the issuance of the respective resolution, among others;
27. In that sense, PLAN RENTABLE states, “(…) it
would be violating the principle of due procedure, by not issuing a decision motivated in an objective way, at the time of resolving, it can also be observed the irregular procedure that is being carried out, due to the issuance of resolutions in randomness preventing compliance with reasonable deadlines as has been explained, in order to exhaust administrative avenues according to current regulations, this by issuing resolutions without allowing them to be appealed.”;

IV. Evaluation of the Arguments Presented
28. According to the arguments presented, PLAN
RENTABLE files a reconsideration appeal in the extent of what was resolved in Article 19 of the RESOLUTION, in which PLAN RENTABLE is sanctioned with 22.95 UIT for what is provided in Articles 4, 6, 10, 11 and 12 of the aforementioned resolution, insofar as according to PLAN RENTABLE, it would have acknowledged the faults in which it has incurred, therefore according to PLAN RENTABLE, a lesser sanction corresponds for having submitted to the administrative sanctioning process;
29. On this, it corresponds to indicate in the first place that,
according to what is stated in consideration 32 of the RESOLUTION, through Office No. 4018- 2023-SMV/10.3, notified on August 31, 2023 3 charges were filed against PLAN RENTABLE (hereinafter, OFFICE OF CHARGES) for infractions to the Regulation of the System of Collective Funds and its Administrator Companies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 020-2014-SMV/01 and its modifications and to the “Norms on preparation and presentation of financial statements and annual report by entities supervised by the Securities Market Superintendence”, approved by SMV Resolution No. 016-2015-SMV/01 and its modifications, in force at the time of the commission of the facts, for not having presented timely the information indicated in the aforementioned consideration 3 of the RESOLUTION;
30. With the OFFICE OF CHARGES, PLAN
RENTABLE was granted a deadline of 07 business days for the formulation of the corresponding defenses; which expired on September 11, 2023; nevertheless PLAN RENTABLE did not present defenses to the imputations made within the deadline granted nor after it, as seen in Article 54 of the RESOLUTION;
31. In the second place, through Office No. 731-2024-
SMV/10 notified on March 01, 2024, PLAN RENTABLE was informed that this Adjunct Superintendence of Prudential Supervision received Report No. 242-2024- SMV/10.3 issued by the General Superintendent of Prudential Compliance, which is

3. “2. As a result of said evaluation and under the shelter of what is provided by 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 Office No. 4018-2023-SMV/10.3, notified on August 31, 2023 (hereinafter, OFFICE OF CHARGES), charges were filed against PLAN RENTABLE for infractions to the Regulation of the System of Collective Funds and its Administrator Companies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 020-2014-SMV/01 and its modifications (hereinafter, REGULATION) and to the “Norms on preparation and presentation of financial statements and annual report by entities supervised by the Securities Market Superintendence”, approved by SMV Resolution No. 016-2015-SMV/01 and its modifications (hereinafter, NORMS), in force at the moment of the commission of the facts, for not having presented timely the following information: (…).” 3 The office of charges was notified on 08/31/2023 at 10:30 am, and was read by the general manager of the ex fund administrator company on the same date at 11:00 am. “5. The deadline granted by the OFFICE OF CHARGES was seven (07) business days, a deadline that expired on September 11, 2023; however, to date, PLAN RENTABLE has not presented defenses to the imputations made;”

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and the authorship were attached to said letter. In this sense, through the same, the file of the present administrative sanctioning procedure was made available to PLAN RENTABLE for its review by PLAN RENTABLE, in accordance with what is indicated in considering 75 of the RESOLUTION. It must be specified that, as can be verified in the file of the present administrative sanctioning procedure, PLAN RENTABLE did not formulate allegations regarding the report sent;

32. In this sense, as derived from what was stated
    previously, PLAN RENTABLE did not present the acknowledgment of the infractions in which it incurred, expressly and in writing within the term granted for the presentation of defenses, nor after the expiration of said term, nor during the term to formulate allegations, nor before the issuance of the RESOLUTION, that is, PLAN RENTABLE did not present the acknowledgment of the infractions, as it alleges, nor in the investigative phase, nor in the sanctioning phase;

33. In that context, although according to article
    219 of the TUO DE LA LPAG, regarding administrative acts issued by bodies that constitute a single instance, as is the case, the presentation of new proof is not required, considering the relevance that the acknowledgment of the infraction entails in the evaluation of the sanction, PLAN RENTABLE has not accredited with the present reconsideration appeal the position of acknowledging the infractions in which it has incurred, as it argues;

34. On the other hand, PLAN RENTABLE argues that from the
    review of the administrative process carried out by this Assistant Superintendency, governing principles of the administrative process have been violated, such as the Principle of Reasonableness, given that to comply with said principle, according to PLAN RENTABLE, a charge-imposing provision such as an administrative sanction must be adopted within the limits of the attributed faculty and maintain the proportion between means and ends, that is, opt for that which is proportional to the purpose pursued by the legal norm. Furthermore, it supports that what was stated by the Constitutional Tribunal regarding the Principle of Reasonableness previously exposed;

35. Being so, regarding the arguments
    related to the Principle of Reasonableness, the analysis must begin by specifying that, as derived from the considerations of the RESOLUTION, it has been issued in compliance with the parameters established regarding the principle of reasonableness in accordance with what is established in article IV, numeral 1.4 and article 248 of the TUO DE LA LPAG;

36. Thus, taking into account that in the present case we
    are dealing with infractions classified as minor, referred to the non-compliance with the deadline for submission of periodic information, in the evaluation of the sanction, the "Criteria Applicable to the Administrative Sanctioning Procedure for Non-Compliance with Regulations Regulating the Submission of Periodic or Occasional Information", approved by Resolution SMV No. 006-2012-SMV/01 and its modification (hereinafter, CRITERIA OF SANCTION), in force at the date of the commission of the facts, whose purpose according to its paragraph 1, is to establish sanction parameters within the framework of the General Administrative Procedure Law, the Securities Market Law and the Decree Law on Collective Fund Administrators

"7. In observance of the Principle of Due Process contemplated both in article IV, paragraph 1, numeral 1.2 of the Preliminary Title, as well as in article 248, numeral 2, of the TUO DE LA LPAG, through Letter No. 731-2024-SMV/10, the administrative file to which this resolution refers was made available to PLAN RENTABLE for its review;"

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and the authorship Collective Funds allow applying sanctions to persons obliged to present periodic or occasional information for non-compliance in the timely submission of said information that are classified as minor infractions in the annexes of the Sanctions Regulation, as has been stated in considerations 306 and 317 of the RESOLUTION;

37. These CRITERIA OF SANCTION observe the principle
    of proportionality established in the TUO DE LA LPAG, since it allows determining in a predictable manner for the regulated party, the sanctions to be imposed, for non-compliance with the deadlines for submission of information to which they are obligated by the regulations, as has been stated in consideration 328 of the RESOLUTION;

38. Additionally, it is necessary to mention that in the
    evaluation of the sanction to be imposed, not only the parameters established in the CRITERIA OF SANCTION have been taken into account, but also the evaluation criteria disposed in article 248, numeral 3, of the TUO DE LA LPAG, which regulates the principle of reasonableness in the administrative sanctioning power, in article 7 of Decree Law No. 21907 on Collective Fund Companies, modified by Law No. 27659, as well as in article 25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, as indicated in consideration 33 of the RESOLUTION 9;

39. In this sense, considering said regulatory framework
    and as observed in the considerations from 34 to 49, as well as in 71 and 72 of the RESOLUTION, the evaluation of the sanction considered: a) antecedents of the offender; b) recidivism; c) the circumstances of the commission of the infraction; d) the damage caused and the repercussion in the market; e) the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction; f) probability of detection of the infraction; g) gravity of the damage to the interest

"30. Considering that in the present case infractions classified as minor are evaluated, referred to the non-compliance with the deadline for submission of periodic information, the paragraph 1 of the "Criteria Applicable to the Administrative Sanctioning Procedure for Non-Compliance with Regulations Regulating the Submission of Periodic or Occasional Information", approved by Resolution SMV No. 006-2012-SMV/01 and its modification6 (hereinafter, CRITERIA OF SANCTION), in force at the commission of the facts, which establish that the purpose of the CRITERIA OF SANCTION is "to establish sanction parameters within the framework of the Law of the General Administrative Procedure, the Securities Market Law and the Decree Law on Companies Administrators of Collective Funds that allow applying sanctions to issuers with values registered in the Public Registry of the Securities Market, legal entities registered in the Registries under the responsibility of the SMV, and other persons obliged to present periodic or occasional information for non-compliance in the timely submission of said information that are classified as minor infractions in the annexes of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution CONASEV No. 055-2001-EF-94.10. The criteria that follow are developed exclusively for non-compliance with regulations regulating the submission of periodic or occasional information and are not applied extensively to other cases investigated by this Superintendency;"

"31. Therefore, to evaluate the sanction that must be imposed on PLAN RENTABLE for the non-compliance with the deadlines for submission of periodic information described in this resolution, it corresponds to apply the CRITERIA OF SANCTION;"

"32. Likewise, it must be mentioned that the application of these criteria observes the principle of proportionality established in the TUO DE LA LPAG, since it allows determining in a predictable manner for the regulated party, the sanctions to be imposed on issuers of securities, on persons registered in the Public Registry of the Securities Market and on collective fund management companies registered in the Special Registry of Other Entities, for non-compliance with the deadlines for submission of information to which they are obligated by the regulations and for omission in the submission of that information that is required by the SMV;"

"33. For the purpose of determining the sanction corresponding to the infractions subject to evaluation and in accordance with what is established in paragraph 3.2 of the CRITERIA OF SANCTION, the evaluation criteria disposed in article 248, numeral 3, of the TUO DE LA LPAG, in article 7 of Decree Law No. 21907 on Collective Fund Companies, modified by the Within this framework, the evaluation of the sanction must consider: a) antecedents of the offender; b) recidivism; c) the circumstances of the commission of the infraction; d) the damage caused and the repercussion in the market; e) the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction; f) probability of detection of the infraction; g) gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or legal good protected; h) the existence or non-existence of intent in the conduct of the offender; i) Voluntary declaration of the commission of the infraction and the contribution of the offender to its clarification;"

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and the authorship public interest and/or legal good protected; h) the existence or non-existence of intent in the conduct of the offender; i) Voluntary declaration of the commission of the infraction and the contribution of the offender to its clarification;

40. Thus, it must also be indicated that, as can be
    appreciated in considerations 50 to 5310 of the RESOLUTION in the determination of the sanction, not only the application of the parameters established in the CRITERIA OF SANCTION was evaluated, but also those established in the Regime of Gradual Sanctions for late submission of financial information, annual report and material events, approved by Resolution SMV No. 007-2023-SMV/01 (REGIME OF GRADUALITY OF SANCTIONS), in force from January 01, 2024, in order to determine if these were more favorable for the regulated party in accordance with what is established in article 248, numeral 5 of the TUO of the LPAG, which determined the application of warning sanctions in accordance with what is established in consideration 5811 of the RESOLUTION. As can also be observed in considerations 6112, 68 and 69 of the RESOLUTION;

41. In this way, in accordance with the considerations of the
    RESOLUTION, indicated previously, no violation of the Principle of Reasonableness, as one of the governing principles of the administrative procedure, has been evidenced; on the contrary, the sanctions imposed on PLAN RENTABLE are within the guidelines of the faculty attributed by the legal framework applicable to the present case, which, as stated, observe the principle of proportionality established in the TUO DE LA LPAG, since it allows determining in a predictable manner, the sanctions to be imposed, for non-compliance with the deadlines for submission of information

10 "50. Continuing with the analysis, it corresponds to determine the sanction to be imposed on PLAN RENTABLE. In this sense, the CRITERIA OF SANCTION establish that a warning sanction may be imposed when the following guidelines established in paragraph 4.2, numeral (ii) of said criteria are met concurrently: (i) the impact on market transparency is minimal; (ii) the infraction committed has not caused a concrete damage to investors or associates; (iii) the offending subject does not have antecedents or if it has, they are infractions classified as minor offenses imposed in the four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction being evaluated; (iv) the offending subject has not obtained a benefit from its illegal conduct; and, (v) it has not been proven that the offender acted with intent in the commission of the infraction;

51. Thus, these CRITERIA OF SANCTION establish that if it does not correspond to apply a warning sanction, a fine sanction must be imposed;

52. On the other hand, the Regime of Gradual Sanctions for late submission of financial
    information, annual report and material events, approved by Resolution SMV No. 007-2023-SMV/01 of September 04, 202310 (hereinafter, REGIME OF GRADUALITY OF SANCTIONS), in force from January 01, 2024, establishes in article 6, numeral 6.1 that the warning sanction may be applied when concurrently the following conditions are met: a) When the impact on market transparency is minimal. This statement is linked to the criterion of the gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or legal good protected; b) The infraction committed has not caused concrete damage to investors or associates; c) The offending subject does not have antecedents or if it has, they are sanctions corresponding to minor infractions imposed by the SMV that had become final in the four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction being evaluated; d) The offending subject is not a recidivist; e) The offender has not obtained benefits from its administrative infraction; and, f) It has not been proven that the offender acted with intent in the commission of the infraction;

53. In this sense, the evaluation of the conditions for the application of a warning sanction
    established in the CRITERIA OF SANCTION as well as in the REGIME OF GRADUALITY OF SANCTIONS is required, in order to determine those that are more favorable for the regulated party;"

11 "58. Therefore, as a result of the evaluation carried out for the infractions contained in letters a), b), c), e), g), h), i), m), n), o), p) and q) of the third consideration of this resolution PLAN RENTABLE meets the conditions established in article 6, numeral 6.1 of the REGIME OF GRADUALITY OF SANCTIONS, therefore, according to said conditions, it corresponds to apply a warning sanction for each infraction committed, given that they are more favorable for the regulated party;"

12 "61. However, it must be indicated that, in accordance with what is established in the CRITERIA OF SANCTION and the REGIME OF GRADUALITY OF SANCTIONS, the infractions analyzed in this section of the resolution, do not meet the requirement of minimal impact on the principle of transparency, therefore it does not correspond to apply a warning sanction;"

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and the authorship periodic information to which the regulated parties are obligated by the applicable regulations;

42. Being so, and regarding the grounds of the
    sentences issued by the Constitutional Tribunal argued by PLAN RENTABLE, It must be pointed out that the RESOLUTION does not constitute in that sense an act of arbitrariness, since it observes the application of the legal framework that corresponds to the case in concordance with the principles of the administrative sanctioning power established in the TUO DE LA LPAG such as the Principle of Reasonableness;

43. Now, regarding the arguments according to which
    the administrative process carried out by this assistant superintendency violates the principle of legality, which in summary refer that, based on said principle, public agents must base all their actions on the current regulations, that is, that authorities must act with respect to the Constitution, the Law and the law, within the faculties attributed to them and in accordance with the ends for which said faculties were conferred, it must be specified that the sanction to PLAN RENTABLE of 12 (twelve) warnings and a fine of 22.95 UIT in the administrative sanctioning process followed against it for non-compliance with the deadlines for submission of periodic information to which it was obligated in accordance with the applicable regulations, has been duly motivated, as expressed in the considerations of the RESOLUTION;

44. This, taking into account that the action of the SMV
    through this Assistant Superintendency has been effectively based on the norms that correspond to the case, as evidenced in the considerations of the RESOLUTION indicated previously, such as the evaluation criteria disposed in article 248, numeral 3, of the TUO DE LA LPAG, which regulates the principle of reasonableness in the administrative sanctioning power, in article 7 of Decree Law No. 21907 on Collective Fund Companies, modified by Law No. 27659, in article 25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, as well as the CRITERIA OF SANCTION and the REGIME OF GRADUALITY OF SANCTIONS, having merited their application to the infractions committed by PLAN RENTABLE and determining their application finally in accordance with the parameters established in them. Taking into consideration that which is most beneficial for the regulated party in attention to what is provided in the TUO DE LA LPAG;

45. Therefore, in accordance with what is supported in the
    RESOLUTION, no violation of the principle of legality is evidenced; on the contrary, it demonstrates that the action of this assistant superintendency has been based on the applicable regulations to the case, and in that sense its action has been within the faculties that said regulations attribute to it;

46. Additionally, PLAN RENTABLE exposes arguments
    according to which in the administrative process carried out by this assistant superintendency, the principle of due process has been violated, which refer that said principle comprises the right to be notified; to access the file; to refute the charges imputed; to expose arguments and to present complementary allegations; to offer and to produce evidence; to request the use of the floor, when corresponds; to obtain a motivated decision, based on law, issued by competent authority, and within a reasonable time; and, to challenge the decisions that affect them;

47. In sum, the company states that as a
    manifestation of the right to due process in the administrative venue, in said principle elements such as the right to defense, the right to the presentation of evidence, the right that the entity before which the process is substantiated necessarily employs the procedure pre-established by law, the motivation of the resolution issued, the right to a reasonable time for the issuance of the resolution

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and the authorship respective, among others;

48. Thus, it also states that "(...) the
    principle of due process would be violated by not issuing a motivated decision in an objective manner, when resolving, one can also observe the irregular procedure that is taking place, due to the issuance of resolutions at random preventing compliance with reasonable deadlines as has been explained, in order to exhaust administrative appeals in accordance with current regulations, this by issuing resolutions without allowing them to be appealed."

49. Regarding these arguments, it must be reiterated
    that, as stated in considerations 3 and 5 of the RESOLUTION, mentioned previously, the CHARGES LETTER was duly notified to PLAN RENTABLE, through which seven (7) business days were granted in order to present the corresponding defenses to the imputations made and present the pertinent means of proof according to the consideration of PLAN RENTABLE, that is, in order to exercise its right to defense. It is worth adding that, in accordance with what is provided in article 147 of the TUO DE LA LAPG and article 16, letter a) 13 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, PLAN RENTABLE could request an extension of the term for the presentation of its defenses; however, according to the file of the present administrative sanctioning procedure, PLAN RENTABLE not only did not present any request for extension, but it did not present its defenses to the imputations made;

50. Likewise, it must be reiterated that, in accordance with what is
    stated in consideration 7 of the RESOLUTION, mentioned previously, on March 01, 2023, Letter No. 731-2024-SMV/10 was notified to PLAN RENTABLE, through which it was communicated and attached Report No. 242-2024-SMV/10.3. Therefore, through said letter, the file of the present administrative sanctioning procedure was made available to PLAN RENTABLE for its review by PLAN RENTABLE. Being so, PLAN RENTABLE could access the file, review it and present the corresponding allegations, if it considered them necessary or request the use of the floor; however PLAN RENTABLE, according to the file of the present administrative sanctioning procedure, did not formulate allegations regarding the report issued, nor requested the use of the floor;

51. According to this, PLAN RENTABLE, despite
    having been duly notified with the CHARGES LETTER and with Letter No. 731-2024- SMV/10; and in that sense having the possibility of exercising its right to defense; it can be stated that PLAN RENTABLE did not exercise said right by its own decision;

52. Likewise, it must be indicated that, in accordance with article
    2014 of the RESOLUTION it is advised that it may be challenged through the interposition of the reconsideration appeal within the term of fifteen (15) business days counted from the day following its notification, in accordance with the legal term established in article 218 of the TUO DE LA LPAG;

“Article 16.- INQUIRY PHASE a) The inquiry phase begins with the charging of offenses by the General Inspectorates of Compliance, initiating the administrative sanctioning procedure. The charging of offenses is not subject to appeal. The General Inspectorates of Compliance grant the regulated parties a period of five (5) to fifteen (15) days to present their defense, counted from the day following the notification of the charge. The granted period may be extended by the General Inspectorates of Compliance for a maximum period equal to the initially granted period, depending on the complexity of the case. (…)” (underline added).

14 Article 20.- This resolution does not exhaust the administrative route, unless it is consented to, and may be challenged before the Adjunct Superintendent of Prudential Supervision by filing a reconsideration appeal, submitted to the same, within a period of fifteen (15) business days counted from the day following its notification.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

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

53. Therefore, it must be clarified that in the present case, there was no limitation on PLAN RENTABLE’s right to challenge the RESOLUTION, for which the period established by law was granted. A right that has been exercised by PLAN RENTABLE and which motivates this resolution;

54. Therefore, as has been exposed and can be evidenced from the considerations of the RESOLUTION, it is duly motivated and in accordance with the applicable regulations; likewise, PLAN RENTABLE was duly notified of the corresponding administrative acts, the possibility to exercise its right to defense was granted both in the inquiry phase and in the sanctioning phase, as well as there being no limitation on PLAN RENTABLE’s right to challenge the RESOLUTION, so that in the administrative sanctioning procedure followed against PLAN RENTABLE by which the RESOLUTION was issued, no violation of the principle of due process as alleged by PLAN RENTABLE is evident;

55. It should be indicated that, regarding the arguments referring to Article 415 and Article 1416 of the Regulations of the Collective Funds System and its Administrators, they have not been the subject of the present analysis, given that the topics regulated by said articles and the arguments related to them, have no incidence with respect to the non-compliance in the timely submission of periodic information by PLAN RENTABLE, the subject matter of the RESOLUTION;

56. For the above, it is concluded that the arguments pointed out by PLAN RENTABLE in its reconsideration appeal have not disproven the foundations of the RESOLUTION, which served as the basis for the imposition of the sanction applied to said administrator;

Being in accordance with what is established in Article 32, numeral 27, of the Regulations on Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF;

RESOLVES:

Article 1º.- To declare unfounded the reconsideration appeal presented by Plan Rentable Peru S.A.C ex Collective Fund Administrator for the reasons exposed in this resolution.

Article 2º.- To declare that the administrative route has been exhausted having become final the Resolution of the Adjunct Superintendent SMV No. 016-2024-SMV/10.

Article 3º.- This resolution must be published on the Institutional Website of the SMV on the Single Digital Platform of the Peruvian State,

15 Article repealed by Article 5 of SMV Resolution No. 039-2016-SMV/01.
16 “Article 14.- Transfer of Shares
Any transfer of shares that allows a natural or legal person to reach or exceed directly or indirectly five percent (5%) of the share capital in the Administrator, as well as any act of encumbrance, trust, management agreements or other legal acts that involve directly or indirectly five percent (5%) or more of the share capital, which grants a third party the exercise of voting rights in the administrator, must have the prior authorization of the SMV. (…).”

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

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

in observance of what is established by numeral 1, Article 7º of the Policy on dissemination of normative projects, norms of a general character, 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 established in Article 14º of the Sanctions Regulations, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01.

Article 4º.- To transcribe this resolution to Plan Rentable Peru S.A.C ex Collective Fund Administrator.

Register, communicate and publish.

Omar Gutiérrez Ochoa
Adjunct Superintendent
Adjunct Superintendent of Prudential Supervision