Adjunct Superintendent Resolution on Supervision of Conduct No. 064-2025-SMV/11 — SMV — PE

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendence of the Securities Market
Electronically signed document in the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 064-2025-SMV/11 Lima, October 07, 2025 Subject: Sanction Clasificadora de Riesgo Pacific Credit Rating S.A.C. with one (1) admonition for having committed one (1) infraction of a minor nature, typified in subsection 3.7 numeral 3 of Annex XI of the Sanctions Regulation. Administered Entity: CLASIFICADORA DE RIESGO PACIFIC CREDIT RATING S.A.C. Subject: Administrative Sanctioning Procedure File No.: 2025030846 The Adjunct Superintendent of Market Conduct Supervision SEEN:
The administrative file No. 2025030846 containing the administrative sanctioning procedure initiated by the General Intendancy for Conduct Compliance of the Superintendence of the Securities Market – SMV (hereinafter, the IGCC), against Clasificadora de Riesgo Pacific Credit Rating S.A.C. (hereinafter, PCR); as well as Report No. 1200-2025-SMV/11.2 (hereinafter, the Report), issued by the General Intendancy for Conduct Compliance of the Adjunct Superintendence of Market Conduct Supervision (hereinafter, the SASCM); CONSIDERING:
I. Function and competence of the SASCM
1. That, the administrative file No. 2025030846 contains the documentation and information regarding an administrative sanctioning procedure (hereinafter, PAS), which has been brought to the knowledge of the SASCM in observance of the exercise of the supervision function and the sanctioning faculty of the Superintendence of the Securities Market - SMV established through the Unified Concorded Text of its Organic Law, Decree Law No. 26126, and in the Unified Ordered Text of the Securities Market Law, Legislative Decree No. 861, approved by Supreme Decree No. 020-2023-EF (hereinafter, TUO of the LMV); as well as by what is provided in the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, Sanctions Regulation) and in articles 42 and 43 of the Organization and Functions Regulation of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF (hereinafter, ROF of the SMV), in the sense that it is a specific function of the SASCM to impose sanctions in the first administrative instance for the commission of infractions whose compliance control according to its competencies corresponds to said Adjunct Superintendence. Likewise, the SASCM has the faculties to issue corrective measures aimed at reversing the situation altered by the commission of the infraction;
II. Facts, charges, and defenses
2.1 Facts
2. That, it was evaluated whether PCR complied with the following obligations: (i) to present to the SMV the risk classification report, issued on October 29, 2021, which contained the risk classification of the Sixth Program of Financial Leasing Bonds of Total Financial Services EDPYME (formerly Leasing Total S.A.)” —now named “Sixth Program of Financial Leasing Bonds of Total Financial Services Credit Company (formerly Total Financial Services EDPYME)” (Charge No. 1); and, (ii) to disseminate on the corporate website the information required by article 21 of the Common Norms of Entities that Require Authorization of Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by SMV Resolution No. 039-2016-SMV/01 and its modifying norms (hereinafter, Common Norms of Entities) (Charge No. 2);
2.2 Charges
3. That, as a result of said evaluation, through Letter No. 3796-2025-SMV/11.2 notified on July 14, 2025 (hereinafter, Letter of Charges), the following charges were formulated to the Issuer:
Charge No. 1: Not presenting to the SMV the risk classification report, issued on October 29, 2021, which contained the risk classification of the Sixth Program of Financial Leasing Bonds of Total Financial Services EDPYME (formerly Leasing Total S.A.)” —now named “Sixth Program of Financial Leasing Bonds of Total Financial Services Credit Company (formerly Total Financial Services EDPYME)” (hereinafter, Sixth BAF Program), granted in the PCR Risk Classification Committee of the same date (hereinafter, the Report of Classification), despite the fact that the Sixth BAF Program was registered in the RPMV on June 30, 2021, so the Report of Classification could not remain confidential and had to be communicated to the SMV on the day of its issuance. Charge No. 2: Not disseminating on the corporate website the minimum information required by article 21 of the Common Norms of Entities, as observed from the review of the website https://ratingspcr.com, which is included in the annexes of the Letter of Charges, observing that on said website the following information was not disseminated as indicated by said article:
1. Full names, gender, year of birth, and resumes of the directors
This information has not been published regarding directors Antonio Forno Melendez and Carlos Adrian Linares Peñaloza, who are listed as ‘Directors’ in the Integrated Registration and Supervision System – SIRyS and published on the Institutional Page. In the case of the President of the Board (Oscar Jasaui) only his first name and first surname are indicated.
2. Full name of the General Manager
Only the first name and first surname (Ana Ortiz) of the General Manager is indicated.
3. Annual audited individual and interim individual financial information 1
It is not observed that the annual audited individual and interim individual financial information of PCR is published on the corporate website or that there is a link directing to the corresponding section of the Institutional Page of the SMV containing said information.
4. Annual Report
It is not observed that the Annual Report of PCR is published on the corporate website or that there is a link directing to the corresponding section of the Institutional Page of the SMV containing said information.
In this sense, it is noted that PCR would not have complied with disseminating on its corporate website the minimum information indicated in subsections i), ii), iii), v) and vii) of article 21 of the Common Norms of Entities; despite the fact that the First Complementary Final Provision of the Common Norms of Entities provided that, from August 01, 2020, it is mandatory for risk classification companies to disseminate said information.
2.3 Defenses and Allegations
4. That, through a document dated July 25, 2025, the Issuer presented its defenses, stating the following:
Charge 1
(i) Regarding the first charge, PCR states that as part of the service agreement with Total Financial Services EDPYME (hereinafter, the “Issuer”), the aforementioned company requested the private rating of its Sixth Program of Financial Leasing Bonds (hereinafter, the Sixth BAF Program), which was carried out as private, since the aforementioned program had not yet been registered in the Public Registry of the Securities Market (RPMV), so the obligation to publish said rating report does not apply, as it is a program in its private stage. (ii) PCR adds that the spirit of the norm and the purpose of publishing classification reports is to make known to the market the credit quality of a value registered in the RPMV, as its dissemination is necessary to guarantee that market participants make their investment decisions adequately informed, avoiding asymmetry in the market. Notwithstanding the above, PCR indicates in the present case that the Report of Classification was a private rating requested by the client, regarding a bond program that was not yet registered in the RPMV, so it did not have the condition of public and also, no issuance of securities had been made.

1 The mentioned financial information comprises the Financial Statements and Notes.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendence of the Securities Market
Electronically signed document in the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship (iii) Due to the above, PCR states that in the Classification Committee session of October 29, 2021, the referred Sixth BAF Program was rated with the character of private and for this reason said rating was not included in the Public Report made on the same date, which was communicated to the SMV. Likewise, PCR adds that as of October 29, 2021, the Issuer did not comply with: i) communicating the registration of said Program in the RPMV and, ii) not communicating as a material fact to the SMV about said registration. (iv) PCR states that as part of its procedures and in full compliance with what is indicated in subsection 25.3 of article 25 of the ECR Regulation, it complied with analyzing all the information sent by its client, as well as verifying the communications that its clients make to the SMV as material facts. PCR indicates that the above can be corroborated from the institutional page of the SMV itself, since between June 28 and July 09, 2021, no communication of the registration of the Sixth BAF Program in the RPMV appears. Likewise, it adds that this situation continued to not be communicated to it until October 29, 2021, the date on which PCR granted the private rating of the referred Sixth BAF Program. (v) PCR indicates that in accordance with what is established in article 28 of the LMV, it is the obligation of the issuer to make known to the SMV material facts, as soon as the fact occurs or the issuer takes knowledge. In this sense, it alleges that it only took knowledge of the registration of the Sixth BAF Program in the RPMV, through a direct communication from the Issuer in January 2022, proceeding to immediately issue the public risk classification report of January 13, 2022, using the interim separate financial statements of the Issuer as of September 30, 2021 and communicating, on the same date, to the SMV about the issuance of said report. (vi) On the other hand, PCR indicates that within the framework of the service provision contract signed with Total Edpyme, it was expressly agreed that the Issuer was obligated to inform PCR promptly about the registration of the programs immediately after this occurs, a situation regarding the Sixth Program that was not carried out until January 2022. (vii) PCR also states that one of the general principles applicable to Risk Classifiers is that contemplated in subsection 4.4 of article 4 of the ECR Regulation, which establishes the following:
“4.4 Confidentiality and Reserve of information: The Classifier must maintain the confidentiality of all non-public information communicated to them by issuers or their representatives, under the terms of a confidentiality agreement or another document that establishes the confidentiality of the information, without prejudice to the due observance of the general principles of transparency and article 290 of the LMV.” (viii)Additionally, PCR states that the Issuer did not make any issuance as of October 29, 2021, within the framework of the Sixth BAF Program registered in the RPMV, so the alleged infraction attributed would not have generated any exposure nor affected the market, and consequently, less so, generated any prejudice or economic damage.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendence of the Securities Market
Electronically signed document in the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship (ix) In this sense, PCR adds that in accordance with Clause Tenth of the Service Provision Contract signed with the Issuer, it maintained the obligation of confidentiality with said company, so that not having been informed about the registration of the Sixth BAF Program in the RPMV, it had to maintain the classification under the private framework. Likewise, PCR reiterates that as soon as it took knowledge of the registration of the Sixth BAF Program in the RPMV, it proceeded to communicate the Report of Classification to the SMV, publishing it on its corporate website on the same day of its issuance, complying in this way with what is expressly regulated by the ECR Regulation. Charge 2 (i) Regarding the second charge, PCR states that its website does comply with all the minimum information required in accordance with article 21 of the Common Norms of Entities, for these purposes it indicates that through Letter No. 5363-2023-SMV/11.2 the SMV verified the complete content of its corporate website. (ii) Likewise, PCR presents screenshots of its corporate website from March 2025, indicating that these would evidence the existence of the information required by article 21 of the Common Norms of Entities. Regarding this, PCR adds that in April 2025 its web platform was modified, so it seems that, due to an involuntary error of the systems area, not all the previous information that was already published on its website had been uploaded; for which it attaches screenshots from April 03, 2025, the date on which the launch of its corporate website was carried out. (iii) Regarding this, PCR adds that immediately after having taken knowledge of the letter subject of the present charge, it proceeded to review and update its website, on which all the minimum information established in article 21 of the Common Norms of Entities now appears. Likewise, PCR adds that the General Manager and directors are identified with their full names, qualification, gender and date of birth, proceeding also to upload the resumes of the directors. Therefore, PCR states that the infraction subject of the present charge is not configured. (iv) Additionally to what is stated, PCR indicates that in the present case the remediation carried out subsequent to the requirement or to the start of the administrative sanctioning procedure must be considered;
5. That, through Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS, the Unified Ordered Text of Law No. 27444, General Administrative Procedure Law (hereinafter, TUO of the LPAG) was approved, which contains common norms for the actions of the administrative function of the State and regulates all administrative procedures developed in the entities, including special procedures. Likewise, subsection 3) of article 248 of the TUO of the LPAG indicates the criteria regarding the graduation of the sanction: (a) The illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction, (b) The probability of detection of the infraction, (c) The gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal good, (d) The economic damage caused, (e) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infraction within a period of one (1) year from when the resolution sanctioning the first infraction became final, (f) The circumstances of the commission of the infraction and, (g) The existence or non-existence of intent in the conduct of the infringer;
6. That, the charges, the defenses and the criteria regarding the graduation of the sanction have been the subject of evaluation in the Report, which has been brought to the knowledge of the SASCM;
7. That, in observance of what is provided by subsection 5 of article 255 of the TUO of the LPAG, through Letter No. 4712-2025-SMV/11 of September 02, 2025, the Report was sent to the Issuer, so that it may send its allegations within a period of five (5) business days of notification;
8. That, through a document dated September 10, 2025, PCR presented its allegations to the Report stating, among others, the following:
(i) PCR ratifies what was indicated by the IGCC in the Report regarding the first charge in the sense that it is demonstrated that the infraction established in subsection 2.1 of numeral 2 of Annex XI of the Sanctions Regulation has not been configured.
(ii) Regarding the second charge linked to the corporate website, it refers that, after taking knowledge of the requirement, they proceeded to remediate the observations, incorporating all the elements required by article 21 of the Common Norms that regulate the supervised entities. It also refers that this action reflects its good disposition, responsiveness and commitment to regulatory standards, so they request that the application of the mitigating factor of responsibility be considered, as provided for in the Sanctions Regulation.
III. ISSUES TO DETERMINE
9. That, in the present PAS it corresponds to determine the following:
(i) Whether PCR incurred or not in the infractions indicated in the Letter of Charges and Report; (ii) Whether it corresponds or not to impose a sanction on PCR;
IV. ANALYSIS
4.1 Applicable Normativity
Presentation of issued risk classification reports (Charge No. 1)
10. That, subsection 4.3 of article 4, of the ECR Regulation, contemplates the principle of transparency and timely dissemination of risk classification, which establishes the following:
“Article 4.- General Principles
The Classifier and its Members, in the development of the risk classification activity, as well as in their other activities, must observe the following general principles:
(…)
4.3. Transparency and timely dissemination of risk classification: the classifier must disseminate in a timely and non-selective manner the risk classifications intended to be public. Likewise, it must disseminate sufficient information that allows understanding the classification methodologies and the meaning of the classifications assigned.” (Underline added);
11. That, in that same line, subsection 38.1 of article 38, of the ECR Regulation establishes the following:
“Article 38.- Complementary information to be sent to the SMV In addition to what is stated above, Classifiers must present to the SMV:
38.1. The classification reports issued regarding debt securities of public offering, as indicated in subsection 32.3 of article 32 and observing the minimum content indicated in Annex 5 of the Regulation. (…)” (Underline added);
12. That, for its part, subsection 32.3 of article 32 and subsection 33.2 of article 33, of the ECR Regulation establish the following obligations:
“Article 32.- Of the classification granted
(…)
32.3. On the same date of the issuance of the classification report, the Classifier will proceed to its publication in the list of classifications, referred to in subsection 33.2 of article 33 of the Regulation, to its remittance to the Issuer and to the SMV.
(…)” (Underline added);
13. 9. That, likewise, subsection 25.3 of article 25 of the ECR Regulation establishes the obligation of permanent surveillance of risk classification companies regarding the classification granted by them, in the following terms:
“Article 25.- First classification, update and surveillance of the classification (…)
25.3 Subsequent to the first classification of the debt security representative of public offering, and within the framework of the obligation to permanently monitor each risk classification granted, the Classifier must update the classification report at least two (2) times a year, by issuing the respective classification update reports, according to the following scheme:
(…)
25.3.2. Using the financial information as of June 30 or September 30 of each year, being the deadline for presentation and publication of this report November 30 of each year.” (Underline added);
14. That, an infraction typified in subsection 2.1 of numeral 2 of Annex XI of the Sanctions Regulation would have been committed, which states that it constitutes a serious infraction: “Not presenting to the SMV the issued classification reports, press notes on the withdrawal or suspension of the risk classification of a value, or the classification methodologies or their modifications, in accordance with what is established in the regulation of the matter” (Underline added);
15. That according to article 34 of the Sanctions Regulation, serious infractions are sanctionable, among others, with a fine not less than twenty-five (25) UIT and up to fifty (50) UIT;

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 authorship Dissemination of Securities Market information through the Corporate Website (Charge No. 2)
16. That, the second paragraph of article 13 of the TUO of the LMV states that: "(...) Legal entities registered in the Registry and securities issuers registered are obliged to present the information that this law and other general provisions establish, being responsible for the veracity of said information";
17. That, for its part, article 270, second paragraph, of the TUO of the LMV, provides that risk rating companies that register in the RPMV are subject to the control and supervision of the Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores – SMV;
18. That, on the other hand, article 21 of the Common Rules of Entities provides, among others, the following:
"Article 21.- Corporate Website
All Entities with operating authorization from the SMV must have a corporate website, on which they must disseminate, at least, the following information:
i) Full names of the Board of Directors members, their independence qualification, if applicable, gender, year of birth, their status as alternate or substitute, if applicable, and their resumes; ii) Full name of the General Manager; iii) Annual audited individual financial information; (...) v) Interim individual financial information; (...) vii) Annual report; and, (...) Additionally, the website must facilitate online electronic access for the filing of complaints from its clients.";
19. That, likewise, the First Final Complementary Provision of the Common Rules of Entities provided that, starting from August 01, 2020, it will be mandatory for entities authorized by the SMV to disseminate the information indicated in the previous paragraph;
20. That, regarding Charge 2, PCR would have committed an infraction typified in subsection 3.7, numeral 3 of Annex XI of the Sanctions Regulation, which states that it constitutes a minor infraction: "Not communicating to the general public, through its website, the information it is obliged to, according to the regulation on the matter, or others upon justified request of the SMV". (Underlining added);
21. That, according to article 35 of the Sanctions Regulation, such infractions are sanctionable with a reprimand or a fine not less than one (1) UIT and up to twenty-five (25) UIT;

4.2 Evaluation of the case
Charge 1

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

2 It must be taken into account that this statement by PCR must be taken as true, in application of the principle of presumption of veracity, established in numeral 1.7 of article IV of the Preliminary Title of the TUO of the LPAG:
"Article IV. Principles of administrative procedure

The administrative procedure is fundamentally based on the following principles, without prejudice to the validity of other general principles of Administrative Law:
(...)
1.7 Principle of presumption of veracity.- In the processing of the administrative procedure, it is presumed that the documents and declarations formulated by the regulated parties in the manner prescribed by this Law, respond to the truth of the facts they affirm. This presumption admits proof to the contrary."

PERÚ 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 authorship the obligation of the Issuer to inform PCR about the registration of the Sixth Program, taking into account that the same generated for the rating company normative obligations of a priority nature over the confidentiality agreement signed, such as that of communicating to the SMV and the market any risk classification issued on the Sixth BAF Program;
29. That, in that sense, as PCR states, the rating company complied with disseminating the following public update of risk classification of the Sixth BAF Program on January 13, 2022, using the financial statements as of September 30, 2021, once it was informed by the Issuer about the registration of the Sixth BAF Program in the RPMV;
30. That, additionally, it must be considered that the Issuer did not carry out any placement of securities under the Sixth Program on October 29, 2021, the date on which the Classification Report was issued. On the contrary, the registration date of the First Issuance of the Sixth BAF Program was carried out on February 09, 2022, a date for which the update of the risk classification report of the Sixth BAF Program of January 13, 2022 3 was already issued and published, as detailed in the evaluation carried out in the Report;
31. That, in that sense, the arguments and information presented by PCR can be considered as elements to refute the present charge, since although the registration of the Sixth BAF Program was published in a section of the Institutional Page of the SMV, the Issuer would not have communicated said registration in the RPMV as stated in the Service Provision Contract signed by both, which would have constituted the direct channel for the rating company to take knowledge of said event, in addition to the fact that the Issuer also did not communicate the registration of the Program as a material event, and; it must be considered that the registration of the First Issuance of the Sixth BAF Program was carried out on February 09, 2022, a date on which the update of the risk classification report of the Sixth BAF Program approved in the Classification Committee of January 13, 2022 and which was communicated to the SMV on the same date (File No. 2022001436) was already issued and published, without there being variations in the classification granted;
32. That, considering said evaluation and attending to what was analyzed in the Report, the present charge must be archived, in accordance with what is established in subsection e) of article 17 of the Sanctions Regulation 4, concordant with the final part of numeral 6 of article 255 of the TUO of the LPAG 5;

3 Furthermore, it must be taken into account that this update of the risk classification granted by PCR to the Sixth Program remained invariable in the PEAA category as well as in the Classification Report, and in the previous classification, granted on July 12, 2021.
4 Article 17.- SANCTIONING PHASE
(...) e) The final resolution must pronounce itself regarding the commission of the infraction, the application of a sanction or the decision to archive the procedure. Likewise, it may impose precautionary, provisional or corrective measures.
The Deputy Superintendent may dispose of the execution of the guarantees granted by legal entities under the competence of the SMV.
"Article 255.- Sanctioning procedure
Entities in the exercise of their sanctioning power adhere to the following provisions:
(...)
6. The resolution that applies the sanction or the decision to archive the procedure will be notified both to the regulated party and to the body or entity that formulated the request or to whoever denounced the infraction, if applicable. (...)".

PERÚ 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 authorship Charge 2
33. That, PCR states that its website does comply with including all the minimum information required by article 21 of the Common Rules of Entities, and that what happened was that in April 2025, due to an unintentional error of the systems area, when modifying its website, not all the previous information that was already published on its website would have been uploaded;
34. That, regarding this, the obligation to maintain on the website the minimum information required by article 21 of the Common Rules of Entities must be complied with at all times, so it was the responsibility of PCR that when modifying its website, said minimum information continues to be included, so that it can be freely accessible to the general public. In that sense, the existence of an unintentional error of PCR's systems area, when modifying its website, does not exempt it from responsibility;
35. That, likewise, the fact that PCR after taking knowledge of the Notice of Charges, proceeded to review and update the missing information on its website, does not exempt it from responsibility, but rather it will be taken into account as an element mitigating administrative responsibility, for remediation carried out after the Notice of Charges, as also requested by PCR;
36. That, therefore, having proven the conduct constitutive of the infraction of Charge 2 and determined the administrative responsibility of the Issuer, it corresponds to analyze the proposal for sanction in attention to what is provided by the principle of proportionality and the sanctioning criteria;

V. DETERMINATION OF THE SANCTION
37. That, having determined the commission of one (01) infraction, it corresponds to evaluate the sanction, in accordance with article 25 of the Sanctions Regulation, concordant with numeral 3) of article 248 of the TUO of the LPAG and article 344 of the TUO of the LMV, which develop the criteria for sanction graduation: (i) the sanctioning antecedents of the issuer, (ii) recidivism, (iii) the circumstances of the commission of the infraction, (iv) the economic damage caused and its repercussion on the market, (v) the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction, (vi) the probability of detection of the infraction, (vii) the gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal good, and (viii) the existence or not of intent in the conduct of the offender (hereinafter, Sanctioning Criteria);
38. That, on this particular, the non-compliance referred to not having disseminated on its corporate website the minimum information indicated in article 21 of the Common Rules of Entities, is typified in subsection 3.7, numeral 3 of Annex XI of the Sanctions Regulation, which states that it constitutes a minor infraction: "Not communicating to the general public, through its website, the information it is obliged to, according to the regulation on the matter, or others upon justified request of the SMV";
39. That, according to article 35 of the Sanctions Regulation, minor infractions are sanctionable with a reprimand or a fine not less than one (1) UIT and up to twenty-five (25) UIT;

PERÚ 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 authorship
40. That, in that sense, it corresponds to determine the sanction to be imposed on PCR considering the Sanctioning Criteria established in article 344 of the TUO of the LMV, numeral 3) of article 248 of the TUO of the LPAG and what is provided by article 25 of the Sanctions Regulation:
41. That, on the gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal good, it must be indicated that risk rating companies that register in the RPMV must disseminate on their corporate website the minimum information indicated in article 21 of the Common Rules of Entities, which constitutes an obligation that allows better access to information by investors or potential investors, and in that way it allows better transparency of the securities market and an orderly market. It should be noted that, considering that most of the information disseminated on the corporate website is published in the RPMV, no gravity of damage to the public interest is evidenced;
42. That, on the sanctioning antecedents, article 25 of the Sanctions Regulation establishes that the antecedents of the offender are the sanctions imposed on it by the SMV that became final within four (4) years prior to the moment of the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned. In application of said criterion, it has been verified that PCR does not have sanctioning antecedents, according to what was evaluated in the Report;
43. That on recidivism for the commission of the same infraction, subsection b) of article 25 of the Sanctions Regulation establishes that it takes into account that final sanction imposed by the SMV within the term of one (1) year prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned. Regarding this, from the verification carried out in the Sanctions System of the SMV, it has been noticed that PCR does not have the quality of recidivist, according to what was evaluated in the Report;
44. That, on the circumstances of the commission of the infraction, we must point out that PCR at the moment of the imputation of the charge had not disseminated on its corporate website the minimum information indicated in subsections i), ii), iii), v) and vii) of article 21 of the Common Rules of Entities. Subsequently, in its defense writing PCR stated that the above was due to an unintentional error of its systems area and that having taken knowledge of the Notice of Charges, it proceeded to update the missing information. Regarding this, from the review of said corporate website to date, it is observed that PCR has complied with disseminating on its corporate website the minimum information indicated in subsections i), ii), iii), v) and vii) of article 21 of the Common Rules of Entities;
45. That, regarding the economic damage and its repercussion on the market, it has not been evidenced that the non-compliance has produced a quantifiable damage, understood as an economic damage occasioned to one or several participants of the securities market;
46. That, regarding the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction, in the present case it is not observed that PCR has obtained an illicit benefit as a consequence of the commission of the infraction;
47. That, regarding the probability of detection of infractions, we must indicate that the facts subject to charge are verified through the review of PCR's corporate website, so it is considered that for this type of non-compliance, the probability of detection is high, as it results from

PERÚ 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 authorship consequence of the supervision activities of the SMV;
48. That on, the gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal good, it must be indicated that risk rating companies that register in the Public Registry of the Securities Market – must disseminate on their corporate website the minimum information indicated in article 21 of the Common Rules of Entities, which constitutes an obligation that allows better access to information by investors or potential investors, and in that way it allows better transparency of the securities market and an orderly market. It should be noted that, considering that most of the information disseminated on the corporate website is published in the RPMV, no gravity of damage to the public interest is evidenced;
49. That, on the existence or not of intent in the conduct of the offender, it is not evidenced that PCR acted with intent in the commission of the infractions; however, a lack in the duty of diligence is evidenced;
50. That, regarding this, according to the analysis of the sanctioning criteria described above, among which it is evaluated that PCR has complied with disseminating on its corporate website the minimum information indicated in subsections i), ii), iii), v) and vii) of article 21 of the Common Rules of Entities, and in attention to the principle of reasonableness that requires that the imposed measure (sanction) be proportional and not excessive and that in the present case subsection c) of article 26 of the Sanctions Regulation 6 applies since PCR remedied the non-compliance after the Notice of Charges; it corresponds to impose a sanction of reprimand for Charge No. 2;
51. That, in attention to the evaluation carried out by this Deputy Superintendency and considering what was analyzed in the Report, it corresponds to apply a sanction of one (01) reprimand to PCR, for not having disseminated on its corporate website the information indicated in subsections i), ii), iii), v) and vii) of article 21 of the Common Rules of Entities; and,
Being in accordance with what is provided in numerales 13 and 36 of article 43 of the Regulation of Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF;

RESOLVES:
Article 1º.- Declare the archive of the charge related to not presenting to the SMV the Risk Classification Report, issued on October 29, 2021 (Charge No. 1) in accordance with what is stated in this Resolution and consequently, consider concluded the present administrative sanctioning procedure in this regard.
Article 2º.- Declare that Pacific Credit Rating S.A.C. Risk Rating Company has committed one (1) infraction of a minor nature, typified in subsection 3.7, numeral 3 of Annex XI of the Sanctions Regulation, for

"Article 26.- MITIGATING CONDITIONS OF LIABILITY FOR INFRACTIONS Constitute mitigating conditions of liability for infractions the following:
(...) c) The remediation carried out after its request or the start of the administrative sanctioning procedure."

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

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

having failed to disseminate on its corporate website the minimum information indicated in items i), ii), iii), v) and vii) of Article 21 of the Common Rules of Entities Requiring Authorization for Organization and Functioning of the SMV, approved by SMV Resolution No. 039-2016-SMV/01 and its amending rules (Charge No. 2).

Article 3rd.- Sanction Risk Classifier Pacific
Credit Rating S.A.C. with a (1) reprimand, pursuant to the provisions of Article 2 of this resolution.

Article 4th.- This Resolution does not exhaust the administrative
path, it may be challenged before this Deputy Superintendency of Supervision of Market Conduct by filing the appeal of reconsideration or appeal, administrative remedies recognized in Article 218 of the Unified Text of the Law No. 27444, Law of the General Administrative Procedure, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS, within the period of fifteen (15) business days counted from the day following its notification, as it is a procedure of double administrative instance.

Article 5th.- In case this resolution is not
subject to challenge, it must be published on the Institutional Page of the SMV on the Digital Platform of the Peruvian State for Citizen Orientation (www.gob.pe/smv), in observance of the provisions of item 1 of Article 7 of the Policy on publicity of normative projects, rules of a general nature and other administrative acts of the SMV, approved by SMV Resolution No. 014-2014- SMV/01, and by the provisions of the last paragraph of Article 14 of the Regulation of Sanctions, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01.

Article 6th.- Transcribe this resolution to
Risk Classifier Pacific Credit Rating S.A.C.
Register, communicate and publish.

Carlos Rivero Zevallos
Deputy Superintendent
Deputy Superintendency of Market Conduct Supervision

Lineage