PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance
SMV
Superintendency of the Market in Securities

"Decade of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men" "Year of the Bicentennial, of the consolidation of our Independence, and of the commemoration of the heroic battles of Junín and Ayacucho"

Deputy Superintendency Resolution SMV

No. 001-2024-SMV/10

Lima, 18 January 2024

Summary: Credicorp Capital Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. is sanctioned with 9 UIT equivalent to S/ 37,800.00 (Thirty-seven thousand eight hundred and 00/100 Soles) for having incurred in three (03) infractions: One (1) very serious, typified in Annex X, numeral 1, subparagraph 1.11, in one (1) serious, typified in Annex X, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.4 and in one (1) minor, typified in Annex I, numeral 1, subparagraph 3.6 of the Sanctions Regulation, for assigning operations without observing the provisions established in the corresponding regulations, executing operations without verifying the existence of the financial instruments necessary to settle the operations and for not presenting the information to which they are obligated in accordance with the technical specifications regarding the assignment of operations.

Administered
:
Credicorp Capital Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A.
Subject
:
Administrative sanctioning procedure
File No.:
2023044638

The Deputy Superintendent of Prudential Supervision

VIEWS:

Administrative file No. 2023044638, and Report No. 1758-2023-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Intendancy of Prudential Compliance; as well as the discharges presented by Credicorp Capital Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A.;

CONSIDERING:

1. In accordance with article 1 of Law No. 29782, Law of Strengthening of the Supervision of the Securities Market, the denomination of National Supervisory Commission of Companies and Securities (CONASEV) is replaced by that of Superintendency of the Securities Market (SMV), therefore all reference to CONASEV in the legal norms shall be understood as made to the SMV;

I. FACTS

2. As a result of the supervision activities, the General Intendancy of Supervision of Entities (hereinafter, IGSE) put to consideration of the General Intendancy of Prudential Compliance (hereinafter, IGCP) the findings of indications of possible infractions to the securities market regulations by Credicorp Capital Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. (hereinafter, CREDICORP SAB);

3. Under the provisions of the Single Ordered Text of the Law of General Administrative Procedure, Law No. 27444, approved by D.S. No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO DE LA LPAG), through Official Letter No. 4874-2023-SMV/10.3 (hereinafter, OFFICIAL LETTER OF CHARGES), notified on 25 October 2023, the IGCP initiated an administrative sanctioning procedure against CREDICORP SAB, for allegedly having breached provisions contained in the regulations;

4. With a brief presented to the SMV on 08 November 2023, CREDICORP SAB presented the discharges to the charges formulated through the OFFICIAL LETTER OF CHARGES;

5. The charges formulated against CREDICORP SAB and the discharges of the latter have been subject to evaluation in Report No. 1758-2023-SMV/10.3 (hereinafter, REPORT), which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Deputy Superintendency;

6. In observance of the Principle of Due Process contemplated both in Article IV, numeral 1.2, of the Preliminary Title and in article 248, subparagraph 2, of the TUO de la LPAG, through Official Letter No. 5675-2023-SMV/10, the administrative file referred to in Report No. 1758-2023-SMV/10.3 was made available to CREDICORP SAB for its review;

II. ISSUES TO DETERMINE

7. In the present administrative procedure, in the opinion of this Deputy Superintendency, it corresponds to determine the following:

a) Whether CREDICORP SAB incurred or not in infraction to the provisions of article 56 of the Regulation of Intermediation Agents, approved by SMV Resolution No. 034-2015-SMV/01 and its amendments (hereinafter, RAI), for making assignments of operations without observing the provisions established by the corresponding regulations.

b) Whether CREDICORP SAB incurred or not in infraction to the provisions of article 195, literal f) of the Securities Market Law (LMV) and in article 55 of the RAI, for executing operations without previously verifying the existence of the financial instruments necessary for the settlement of the operations.

c) Whether CREDICORP SAB incurred or not in infraction to the provisions of numeral 2.7 of the Manual of Technical Specifications for the Remission to the SMV of Information of the Intermediation Agents, approved by Superintendency Resolution No. 026-2012-SMV/01 and its amendments (hereinafter, MANUAL OF SPECIFICATIONS) for not remitting the information corresponding to the original assignments regarding the operations that were annulled.

d) Whether it corresponds or not to sanction CREDICORP SAB for what is indicated in the previous subparagraphs;

III. ANALYSIS

FIRST CHARGE: ASSIGNMENT OF OPERATIONS WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PROVISIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

8. Article 47 of the RAI establishes the following:

"Article 47.- Intermediation Process The intermediation activity is a process that fundamentally comprises the realization of any of the following acts, whether in the local or foreign market:

a) Reception of orders on behalf of third parties.

b) Registration of orders on behalf of third parties.

c) Transmission of orders on behalf of third parties.

d) Execution and assignment of operations.

(...)."

9. Likewise, in accordance with article 51 of the RAI, the registration of orders is done correlatively in chronological order and their assignment is by order of arrival:

"Article 51.- Registration of orders Orders must be entered into the Agent's Registration and Assignment System in chronological order of reception by the Agent. The system must automatically assign a correlative order number in strict chronological order, according to the reception of each order that enters the System, regardless of its means of reception.

(...)

The Agent is responsible for safeguarding the unalterability of the records made in said order registration and allocation system. In this regard, the order number must be unalterable and its allocation is on a first-come, first-served basis.

(…).”

10. Additionally, article 56 of the RAI specifies the following:

“Article 56.- Execution and allocation of transactions Once the orders have been executed in the corresponding market, the Agent must immediately allocate all the transactions it intermediates. To carry out said allocation, the Agent must observe the chronological sequence of their execution, in addition to the criteria and procedures developed in its client policy.

In the case of orders instructed by the following clients: i) mutual fund management companies; ii) private pension fund management companies; and, iii) foreign intermediaries authorized by a foreign supervisory body similar to the SMV, on behalf of the managed funds or third parties, respectively, the Agent may reassign to the respective final holders in accordance with the instruction given by the aforementioned clients. The clients mentioned must indicate the number of Financial Instruments to be allocated to each of the final holders, within the maximum period established by the Securities Settlement Systems Regulation and other applicable regulations. (…).”

11. Likewise, the CAVALI Internal Regulation, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 57-2002-EF/94.10 (hereinafter, CAVALI INTERNAL REGULATION) provides in Chapter VII, article 6, the following:

“Article 6.- On registration of the modification of transactions Any Direct Participant responsible for the negotiation that wishes to make modifications to the allocation information of transactions provided to CAVALI, initially, may do so by complying with the requirements, schedules and deadlines established in Linked Provision No. 04.

The modification request may be entered into the System by the Direct Participant responsible for the negotiation, directly, or through CAVALI, provided that the transaction subject to modification is not settled and that this modification does not contravene the current legal framework. Likewise, the responsibility for the modifications shall be that of the requesting Participant

After the modification is registered in the CAVALI System, it will be processed, with prior authorization from the BVL, the counterparty Participant of the transaction and/or the Direct Participant in Charge of Settlement, as the case may be.

The types of modification are the following:

a. Reallocation of holders in the transaction.

(…).”

12. Also, article 9, second paragraph of the Stock Exchange Operations Regulation approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 0021-1999-EF/94.10 and its amendments (hereinafter, OPERATIONS REGULATION), establishes the obligation of stock brokerage firms to comply with transactions:

“Article 9.- On transactions. (…) Transactions bind the participating Companies to comply with what has been stipulated, unless they have been left without effect by the Markets Directorate.

The Markets Directorate must substantiate the decisions it adopts in application of the powers established in article 119 of the Law.

Transactions carried out may not be modified, except in exceptional cases and under the procedure established by the Board in cases where this does not entail an impact on the market. Said modification only proceeds at the request of the intervening parties, is subject to the approval of the Markets Directorate and may only be made before its settlement.

Transactions that have been left without effect as well as modifications must be communicated to CONASEV and to the ICLV on the day they occur.” (Underline added)

13. In this context, article 49 of the OPERATIONS REGULATION establishes the procedure for non-compliance in the settlement of transactions, the text of which is as follows:

“Article 49.- On the procedure In the event of any non-compliance in the settlement, as well as in the delivery or replacement of collateral or guarantee margins of the transactions regulated by this regulation, except in the case of repurchase transactions, the following procedure shall be observed:

1. The ICLV shall inform, immediately upon the non-compliance occurring, the affected Company so that it may opt for forced execution or for the abandonment of the transaction.

(…)

2. The communication from the ICLV regarding the non-compliance referred to in the previous numeral entails the suspension of the Company that failed to comply, and the following must be observed:

(…)

2.3 In the case of non-compliance in the delivery of securities, the company that failed to comply, with the consent of its counterparty, may request from the Markets Directorate, on a one-time basis, a period to regularize the delivery of said securities. The maximum period for the regularization of the non-compliance shall be established by the Board of Directors through a complementary provision.

The requests referred to in the preceding paragraph may only be approved when any of the following assumptions occurs: i) non-compliance in the delivery of securities deposited in the Depository Trust Company – DTC of the United States, global custodians, other depositories abroad ii) non-compliance in the delivery of securities of holders who do not reside in Peru to be made through a Custodian Bank, iii) transactions whose non-compliance originates from being the affected party in the non-compliance in the delivery of securities of non-resident holders made through a Custodian Bank.

Immediately after the period for regularization is granted, the BVL must inform the ICLV and the SMV, attaching the corresponding substantiation.

During the course of the granted term, the defaulting Company must regularize the breach by delivering its client's securities. Likewise, during said period, the affected Stock Brokerage Company may not opt to abandon the operation. In order to comply with the delivery of securities, the defaulting company may act as principal, provided that it has previously exhausted the different alternatives and mechanisms contemplated by the regulations for the regularization of the settlement. This modification may be made until the expiration of the granted regularization term. Upon expiration of said term without the delivery of securities being made, forced execution or abandonment shall proceed, as applicable. The ICLV shall inform the SMV of the changes of principal made in application of the provisions set forth in this paragraph.

(…).” Underlining added

OF THE FACTS THAT OCCURRED

14. From the evaluation of the information provided by CREDICORP SAB regarding the sample of operations1, the following reassignments made by CREDICORP SAB were identified, which would not have support under the applicable regulations in force, and are detailed below:

Number of securities in sell orders greater than the seller's holdings

N	OPERATION DATE	OPE No.	B/S	TICKER	QTY	ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL		FINAL PRINCIPAL
						RUT	NAME	RUT	NAME
1	2/09/2021	104	V	AENZAC1	1,316	01336439	FERNANDO MAURICIO AGUERO DEL-C	01287861	JORGE ENRIQUE KRSTULOVIC VELAR

[1] Which includes documentation on orders from the original and final principals, which are part of this file.

N DATE
OPERATION
No.
OPE B/S TICKER QTY
ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL FINAL PRINCIPAL
RUT NAME RUT NAME
2 2/09/2021 104 V AENZAC1 5,550 00001121 EDGARDO AUGUSTO ALVAREZ CHAVEZ 3 28/08/2020 429 V SIDERC1 15,000 00326638 JUAN HARRY GALDO STURLA 00381872 JOSE ALEJANDRO SANDOVAL CAMPOS 4 8/11/2019 131 V NEXAPEC1 5,000 01295228 MBI PERU FONDO DE INVERSION 00001360 ALBERTO ARISTIDES GUBBINS ALZA

15. In the operations of items 1 and 2, sell operations were carried out for a number of shares greater than what the original principal had in his portfolio, due, as indicated by CREDICORP SAB, to a problem in updating the information in the systems of the stock brokerage company. That is, they would have displayed in their systems a number of AENZAC1 shares greater than what Mr. Fernando Mauricio Agüero Del-Carpio (hereinafter, Mr. AGÜERO), original principal, had in his portfolio;

16. Indeed, from the review carried out, Mr. AGÜERO instructed the “sale of his total position” and in that regard, the SAB registered the order for 89,372 AENZAC1; however, said principal was the holder of only 43,363 AENZAC1. Therefore, as observed from the detail of the previous table, part of the difference necessary for the settlement of the operation was assumed by Mr. Jorge Enrique Krstulovic Velar (hereinafter, Mr. KRSTULOVIC) and Mr. Edgardo Augusto Alvarez Chávez (hereinafter, Mr. ALVAREZ), with whom the reassignment was previously coordinated, in accordance with what was indicated by CREDICORP SAB;

17. Likewise, in relation to the operation of item 3, the reassignment originated, according to CREDICORP SAB, in the context of the reduction of share capital of Empresa Siderúrgica del Perú S.A.A. and the corresponding amortization of shares. In that sense, according to the stock brokerage company, as a result of said corporate event, when processing the operation it was identified that the original principal had in his portfolio a number of shares less than what was required to settle the sell operation, so the difference of 15,000 shares was reassigned to Mr. Jose Alejandro Sandoval Campos (hereinafter, Mr. SANDOVAL) in order to settle the operation;

18. Finally, the reassignment presented in the operation of item 4, in accordance with what was indicated by the stock brokerage company, was made because the original principal sent two (2) sell orders on two (2) consecutive days and requested to void the sale of 6,000 NEXAPEC1 shares, without having previously verified the confirmation of the execution of the first sell order sent. Therefore, said sold quantity was assumed by other clients with whom the reassignment was coordinated, among whom is Mr. Alberto Arístides Gubbins Alza, to whom the sale of 5,000 NEXAPEC1 shares was reassigned;

Non-compliance by foreign broker

only with respect to 11,900 shares. In this case, according to CREDICORP RUT NAME DATE RUT NAME DATE RUT NAME 5 14/12/2020 18 V FERREYC1 6900 01318395 CBS BESTINVER LATAM F.I.I 16/12/2020 01328664 BROWN ADVISORY LATIN AMERICAN 16/12/2020 00949259 DANIEL CARLOS TITO LAURA 6 14/12/2020 85 V FERREYC1 6600 01318395 CBS BESTINVER LATAM F.I.I 16/12/2020 01328664 BROWN ADVISORY LATIN AMERICAN 16/12/2020 00403964 RAFAEL EDUARDO GARCÍA MELGAR ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL FIRST MODIFICATION SECOND MODIFICATION No. DATE OPERATION OPE No. B/S TICKER QTY

19. As for the operations detailed in items 5 and 6, CREDICORP SAB indicated that its client JPMorgan, foreign broker of the initial principal CBS Bestinver Latam F.I.I, did not recognize, for settlement purposes, the sell order for the original instructed amount of 37,791 FERREYC1 shares, but SAB, the difference of 25,981 shares was assumed by the stock brokerage company and other clients, reassigning part of the operation initially to Brown Advisory Latin American (first modification), that is, two (2) packages of 6,900 and 6,600 shares, since the reassignment could not be made directly to the principals Daniel Carlos Tito Laura and Rafael Eduardo Garcia Melgar, as indicated by the agent company. Finally, the reassignment of the operation was carried out (second modification) considering as holders Mr. Daniel Carlos Tito Laura and Mr. Rafael Eduardo Garcia Melgar;

Others

N DATE
OPERATION
No.
OPE C/V TICKER QTY
ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL FINAL PRINCIPAL
RUT NAME RUT NAME
7 26/11/2019 257 V CREDITC1 41,886 00313426 SANTANDER INVESTMENT SECURITIE 01323883 EDUARDO CRISTOBAL ASCUÑA GAMIO 8 29/10/2019 45 V BBVAC1 1,514 01275382 CREDICORP CAPITAL LTD. 00293766 MARIA ELVIRA BUSTAMANTE OLIVAR 9 10/11/2020 550 V INRETC1 217 01268170 RBC EMERGING MARKETS SMALL-CAP 00285585 MIGUEL REHDER CASTRO

E C/V TICKER QTY ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL FIRST

20. According to CREDICORP SAB, regarding the operation detailed in numeral 7, CREDICORP SAB should have been registered as the holder thereof (first reassignment); however, due to an operational error, according to the agent company, Santander Investment Securities was registered as the holder. Once this circumstance was identified, coordination was made with Mr. Eduardo Cristobal Ascuña Gamio (hereinafter, Mr. ASCUÑA) so that he could assume the sell position, which is why on the following day (27 November 2019), the operation was reassigned under the ownership of Mr. ASCUÑA (second reassignment);

21. Likewise, regarding the operation in numeral 8, the agent company states that CREDICORP SAB should have been registered as the holder thereof (first reassignment); however, due to an operational error, Credicorp Capital Ltd. was registered as the holder. Once this circumstance was identified, coordination was made with Mrs. María Elvira Bustamante Olivar (hereinafter, Mrs. BUSTAMANTE) so that the aforementioned principal could assume the sell position, which is why on 31 October 2019, the operation was reassigned under the ownership of Mrs. BUSTAMANTE (second reassignment);

22. Finally, in relation to the operation in numeral 9, CREDICORP SAB indicated that, due to an operational error, the operation was registered considering RBC Emerging Markets Small-Cap as the selling principal, who appeared as the original principal; however, said principal had not issued a sell instruction regarding said securities. Therefore, upon identifying such circumstance and after coordination with Mr. Miguel Rehder Castro, according to the stock brokerage firm, the sell operation was reassigned under his ownership;

23. It should be noted that the cases previously indicated correspond to sell operations that could not be assumed by the original principals, due to alleged operational errors in the processes of registration and transmission of orders, alleged errors at the time the stock brokerage firm had to assume as principal in order not to affect the settlement of the operation or the third counterparty, as well as the non-compliance of one of the principals. Likewise, said operations were reassigned to third-party clients who previously had the securities in their portfolio in order to assume the sell position and settlement of the operation with the delivery of these securities, with whom CREDICORP SAB would have coordinated previously;

24. In this regard, it must be specified that according to the provisions of articles 47, 51 and 56 of the RAI, previously cited, within the intermediation process, after an order is executed, the intermediation agent makes the assignment of the operation following an objective criterion based on the chronological sequence of receipt of orders and the execution of operations, that is, by order of arrival;

25. Notwithstanding this, assignments may be corrected or annulled. Corrections or annulments could occur when there is a material error in the process of assignment of operations; for example, if when entering the code of the holder who instructed the operation, the code of another principal was erroneously entered. In this case, the correction of the assignment would be made with the purpose of entering the principal who did instruct the operation;

26. Also, according to article 56, second paragraph of the RAI, in the case of orders instructed by mutual fund management companies; private pension fund management companies; and foreign intermediaries, acting on behalf of the managed funds or third parties, respectively, the agent company may modify the operations, that is, reassign the operations to the respective final holders;

27. In that context, the CAVALI INTERNAL REGULATIONS contemplates in its Chapter VII, article 6, the registration of the modification of operations, among them, those referring to the reassignment of holders in the operation. According to said article, the reassignment is made through a request for modification of operations that affects the attributes of the assignment initially made by the intermediation agent. Likewise, it establishes that the intermediation agent is responsible for the requested modifications, which must not contravene the current legal framework;

28. Therefore, according to the cited regulations, the modifications of operations that are requested to CAVALI with the purpose of changing the holder of an operation, can only be made for reassignments to final holders or for correction of assignments due to errors in the assignment of operations, but not due to errors in the registration and transmission of orders or errors at the time the stock brokerage firm had to assume as principal in order not to affect the settlement of the operation, nor the third counterparty;

29. Additionally, it is necessary to point out that according to article 9 of the OPERATIONS REGULATIONS, operations on the stock exchange oblige the intervening stock brokerage firms to comply with what has been stipulated, that is, to the purchase or sale of the securities at the prices at which the operations were executed. In this regard, it is the obligation of the brokerage firm, in its role as intermediary, to assume all positions that had not been instructed by its clients, whether due to operational errors in the recording and transmission of orders or operational errors in the order allocation stage; or those that had been unknown or unfulfilled;

30. Thus, if a brokerage firm does not comply or cannot comply with the settlement of transactions, Article 49 of the OPERATIONS REGULATIONS establishes the mechanisms for situations of non-compliance in the settlement of transactions;

31. Consequently, as set forth above, the transactions detailed previously were reassigned by CREDICORP SAB for reasons other than those permitted by the applicable regulations. Likewise, in accordance with the cited regulations, CREDICORP SAB was also responsible for assuming compliance with said transactions, instead of reassigning them to other third-party clients;

32. In this regard, by reassigning to third-party clients as a result of alleged errors in the recording and transmission of orders or alleged errors at the time the brokerage firm had to assume as principal in order not to affect the settlement of the transaction or the third counterparty, instead of assuming on its own account the settlements of the transactions without involving third-party clients and, if applicable, applying the provisions of Article 49 of the OPERATIONS REGULATIONS, which details the mechanisms established for situations of non-compliance, CREDICORP SAB would have breached the provisions of Article 56 of the RAI regarding the allocation of transactions, since only in the cases indicated in said rule may the intermediation agent carry out a reassignment of holders;

33. Therefore, CREDICORP SAB was charged with having incurred one (1) infraction classified as very serious, in accordance with Annex X, numeral 1, subsection 1.11 of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS; according to which it constitutes an infraction “To allocate transactions without observing the provisions of the corresponding regulations”;

ON THE DEFENSES SUBMITTED

a. Quantity of securities in sell orders greater than the seller's holdings

34. Regarding the transactions in numerals 1 and 2, in which sell transactions were carried out for a quantity of AENZAC1 shares greater than that which the original principal held in its portfolio, CREDICORP SAB states that this fact was the result of a problem in updating the information in the brokerage firm's system;

35. Likewise, with regard to the transaction in numeral 3 corresponding to SIDERC1 shares, it indicates that there was a failure in the controls for verifying the total position of Mr. Juan Harry Galdo Sturla (hereinafter, Mr. GALDO) by the custody area;

36. Also, CREDICORP SAB points out that the reassignment presented in the transaction in numeral 4 was carried out as a result of the original principal, MBI Perú Fondo de Inversión, sending two (2) sell orders on two (2) consecutive days and requesting to cancel the sale of 6 000 NEXAPEC1 shares, without having previously verified the confirmation of the execution of the first sell order sent;

37. Regarding what was indicated in the previous recital, CREDICORP SAB specifies that MBI Perú Fondo de Inversión is a foreign client, for which CREDICORP SAB does not carry out the custody of its securities. In this regard, it states that it was not possible to verify the position of the principal's securities after the first transaction was executed. Likewise, the brokerage firm indicates that a confirmation email was sent to the client, which was not viewed, which is why it requested the second transaction;

b. Non-compliance by foreign broker

38. As for the transactions in numerals 5 and 6, CREDICORP SAB states that JPMorgan, a foreign broker, did not recognize the sell order made for the original instructed amount of 37 791 FERREYC1 shares but only for 11 900 shares, for which the client reassignment process was carried out to cover the difference;

c. Others

39. Regarding the transactions in numerals 7 and 8, the brokerage firm indicates that, due to an operational error, CREDICORP SAB registered Santander Investment Securities and Credicorp Capital Ltd., respectively, as holders, instead of the final principal;

40. Finally, with regard to the transaction in numeral 9, due to an operational error, CREDICORP SAB states, the transaction was recorded considering RBC Emerging Markets Small-Cap as the selling principal, who appeared as the original principal; however, said principal had not issued a sell instruction regarding said securities;

41. In this regard, CREDICORP SAB states that “with respect to the present charge, we comply with indicating that, having reviewed the facts subject of the Official Letter, we expressly acknowledge the facts charged described in numerals a., b. and c. above”;

42. Additionally, CREDICORP SAB states that, as a result of the occurrence of the described facts, it adopted the following measures:

i) The CREDICORP SAB team in charge of securities custody was changed.

ii) The CREDICORP SAB Client Policy was modified.

iii) The Regulatory Compliance Manual was updated, in which a section referring to the monitoring of reassignment transactions was included.

iv) An internal control was implemented as of January 2023 in order to verify that the reassignments made are in accordance with the provisions of the current regulations. It submits the internal record where, as it states, the control carried out can be verified.

EVALUATION OF DEFENSES

43. On this matter, in accordance with the provisions of the OFFICIAL NOTICE OF CHARGES within the intermediation process, after an order has been executed, the intermediation agent must allocate the transaction following an objective criterion based on the chronological sequence of receipt of orders and the execution of transactions, that is, on a first-come, first-served basis. This, in accordance with the provisions of articles 47, 51 and 56 of the RAI;

44. However, allocations may be corrected or annulled when there is a material error in the transaction allocation process; for example, if when recording the code of the holder who instructed the transaction, the code of another client was erroneously recorded. In this case, the correction of the allocation would be made for the purpose of recording the client who did instruct the transaction;

45. Additionally, in accordance with article 56, second paragraph of the RAI, in the case of orders instructed by mutual fund management companies; private pension fund management companies; and foreign intermediaries, which act on behalf of the managed funds or third parties, respectively, the agent company may modify the transactions, that is, reallocate the transactions to the respective final holders;

46. Thus, article 6 of Chapter VII of the CAVALI INTERNAL REGULATIONS, which regulates the registration of the modification of transactions, including those referring to the reallocation of holders in the transaction, establishes that the intermediation agent is responsible for the requested modifications, which must not contravene the current legal framework;

47. In this regard, in accordance with the cited regulations, modifications of transactions that are requested from CAVALI for the purpose of changing the holder of a transaction may only be made for reallocations to final holders or for correction of allocations due to errors in the allocation of transactions, but not for errors in the recording and transmission of orders or errors at the time when the stock brokerage firm should have assumed as client in order not to affect the settlement of the transaction or the third counterparty;

48. Therefore, considering this and the defenses submitted by CREDICORP SAB, it has been demonstrated in this administrative sanctioning proceeding that the aforementioned sale transactions were reallocated to third-party clients so that they assume the sale position and settlement of the transaction with the delivery of the securities, in contravention of the aforementioned legal framework;

49. Indeed, CREDICORP SAB, by reallocating the aforementioned sale transactions to third-party clients as a consequence of, as argued by CREDICORP SAB, errors in the recording and transmission of orders or errors at the time when the stock brokerage firm should have assumed as client in order not to affect the settlement of the transaction or the third counterparty, instead of assuming on its own account the settlements of the transactions without involving third-party clients and, if applicable, applying the provisions of article 49 of the OPERATIONS REGULATIONS, has breached the provisions of article 56 of the RAI regarding the allocation of transactions;

50. On the other hand, with regard to the measures that, according to what was indicated by CREDICORP SAB, it has adopted as a result of the occurrence of the events that occurred, it should be noted that this does not exempt the stock brokerage firm from liability for the breach of the provisions of the RAI;

51. In view of the foregoing, CREDICORP SAB has not rebutted the charge imputed;

52. For the foregoing reasons, it is evident that CREDICORP SAB has incurred an infringement classified as very serious, in accordance with Annex X, numeral 1, subsection 1.11 of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS; according to which it constitutes an infringement “To allocate transactions without observing the provisions of the corresponding regulations”;

53. As regards the acknowledgment of the facts, it should be noted that this will be analyzed in the section on the evaluation of the sanction to be imposed;

SECOND CHARGE: EXECUTING TRANSACTIONS WITHOUT VERIFYING THE EXISTENCE OF THE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS OR SECURITIES TO WHICH THEY RELATE

ON THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

54. Regarding the prohibition of executing sale transactions without verifying the existence of the financial instruments or securities to which they relate, article 195, literal f) of the LMV2 states the following:

“Article 195.- PROHIBITIONS Agent companies are subject to the following prohibitions, without prejudice to those contemplated in Article 177 and the others arising from this law: (…)

f) Execute and/or register transactions without verifying the existence of the resources and the financial instruments or securities to which they relate, or process orders corresponding to transactions of such nature, except in the cases established by the SMV through general provisions.

(…).”

55. Likewise, in relation to the provisions of article 195, literal f) of the LMV, article 55 of the RAI states the following:

“Article 55.- Prior conditions for the transmission of orders The Agent, prior to the transmission of an order to the respective market, must verify the existence of the Financial Instruments or resources that allow compliance with the obligations generated, as well as the conditions established in the Client Policy. This obligation is excepted in the following cases:

a) That the resources or Financial Instruments are held in custody by an entity authorized to perform this task, other than the Agent. The custody function is that established in article 253 of the LMV, article 221 of Law 26702 and others of a similar nature. The Agent must establish control policies, criteria and limits for accepting transmissions to the market of this type of clients.

b) When they are short sales carried out in centralized trading mechanisms, provided that they are identified as such in the order register and that some credit risk control mechanism for said transactions has been implemented, in accordance with the provisions of the corresponding rule.

[2] Today article 191 of the Single Ordered Text of the Securities Market Law, approved by Supreme Decree No. 020-2023-EF.

(…).3

OF THE FACTS THAT OCCURRED

56. From the evaluation of the information provided by CREDICORP SAB regarding the reassignments made, the following was observed:

a) Transmission of the sale order for AENZAC1

57. In relation to the reassignment of sale transaction No. 104 of AENZAC1, which was carried out on the BVL on 2 September 2021, CREDICORP SAB indicated that the reassignment was made because, due to a problem in updating the information, a number of AENZAC1 shares greater than that which the original client, Mr. AGÜERO, had in his portfolio was displayed in the system; for which reason, at the time of registering the transaction of the aforementioned client, who had instructed the “sale of his entire position,” it was identified that the settlement of the same could not be completed. Therefore, according to CREDICORP SAB, the difference necessary for said purposes was assumed by Messrs. KRSTULOVIC and ALVAREZ, with whom the reassignment was previously coordinated;

58. On this matter, according to the master account that CREDICORP SAB has assigned in the CAVALI Accounting Registry, as of 1 September 2021, Mr. AGÜERO was the holder of 43 363 AENZAC1;

59. Now then, according to CREDICORP SAB, Mr. AGÜERO instructed the “sale of his entire position.” Said order, according to the information sent by CREDICORP SAB to the SMV regarding its order register, was registered on 02 September 2021 at 8:56 hours, with No. 100013 and for the sale of 89 372 AENZAC1 at the limit price of S/ 1.41 on the BVL;

60. In this sense, the aforementioned sale order was transmitted by CREDICORP SAB on 2 September 2021 to the BVL for execution, the aforementioned order being executed the same day in three (3) transactions, at the price of S/ 1.41 on behalf of Mr. AGÜERO, according to the following detail4:

No. Op.	Quantity	Price (S/)
75	59,806	1.41

[3] In relation to the obligation to execute orders and the cases of exception, article 176 of the LMV (today article 175 of the TUO LMV) establishes the following: “Article 176 .- EXECUTION OF ORDERS Intermediation agents are obliged to execute on behalf of their clients the orders they receive from them for the negotiation of securities. Notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph, intermediation agents may subordinate compliance with the order only in the following cases and provided that the client has prior knowledge thereof: a) When they are cash transactions, that the client proves ownership of the securities or delivers them or the funds, as the case may be, according to whether they ordered to sell or buy respectively; and, (…) In the cases of exception established by CONASEV in accordance with subsection f) of Article 195, if after the transaction is carried out, the client fails to deliver the securities or funds, as the case may be for sale or purchase transactions respectively, the agent company may dispose of any sum of money that said client has in accounts of the agent company exclusively for the settlement of such transactions, provided that said funds are not destined for transactions that have already been executed and are pending settlement. In the case of purchase transactions in which the respective funds have not been delivered, the agent company may sell the securities resulting from said transaction.”

[4] According to the information provided by the BVL to the SMV in compliance with its obligations to send daily information on proposals and transactions, as well as the information of MR. AGÜERO that appears in the CAVALI Accounting Registry, which is consulted through the WARI system of CAVALI.

No. Op.	Quantity	Price (S/)
82	22,700	1.41
104	6,866	1.41
	89,372

61. Consequently, CREDICORP SAB would have executed Mr. AGÜERO's sale transactions without having previously verified the existence of the securities to which they refer; that is, CREDICORP SAB would not have verified, prior to the transmission of the sale order of 89 372 AENZAC1 to the BVL, the existence of the securities that allow the settlement of the transactions, given that as of 1 September 2021, the day prior to the registration of the order, Mr. AGÜERO only possessed 43 363 AENZAC1, a quantity less than the 89 372 AENZAC1 sold on the BVL on behalf of said client;

b) Transmission of the sale order for SIDERC1

62. In relation to the reassignment of sale transaction No. 429 of SIDERC1, which was carried out on the BVL on 28 August 2020, CREDICORP SAB indicated that the reassignment was made in the context of the reduction of share capital of Empresa Siderúrgica del Perú S.A.A. – SIDERPERÚ, agreed by the general shareholders' meeting of said company on 13 January 2020 and by virtue of which the board of directors of said company agreed on 11 August 2020 to pay S/ 340 000 000 for the return of contributions due to amortization of shares;

63. As a result of said “corporate event” and the corresponding amortization, at the time of processing the transaction initially instructed by Mr. GALDO, it was identified that he had in his portfolio a number of shares less than that required to settle the sale, for which reason, after coordination with Mr. SANDOVAL, the reassignment of the sale of 15 000 SIDERC1 shares to his name was proceeded with;

64. On this matter, according to the master account that CREDICORP SAB has assigned in the CAVALI Accounting Registry, as of 27 August 2020, Mr. GALDO was the holder of 400 000 SIDERC1 shares;

65. However, according to CREDICORP SAB, as a result of the return of contributions for amortization of shares and the corresponding amortization agreed by Empresa Siderúrgica del Perú S.A.A. - SIDERPERÚ, at the time of assigning the sale operation on behalf of Mr. GALDO, it was identified that said client had in his portfolio a number of shares less than that required to settle the sale;

66. Nevertheless, it should be noted that, according to the information provided by SIDERPERÚ, by means of a material event dated 11 August 2020, its board of directors agreed to set 31 August 2020 as the record date to determine the holders of the shares issued by the company for the return of contributions for amortization of shares, as a consequence of the reduction of the company's share capital, agreed at the general shareholders' meeting of 13 January 2020. Likewise, on 13 January 2020 SIDERPERÚ reported as a material event that the capital reduction factor was 0.27689137;

67. Therefore, since 13 January 2020 the number of shares issued by SIDERPERÚ that was to be reduced by a factor of 0.27689137 was already public information. Likewise, since 11 August 2020, it was already public information that the record date was set for 31 August 2020, so that on that date the reduction of the number of shares would be effected considering the capital reduction factor;

68. Additionally, according to the records of operations carried out by CREDICORP SAB on behalf of Mr. GALDO, on 26 August 2020 it had sold on behalf of this client a total of 82 848 SIDERC1, which had to be settled on 28 August 2020. Likewise, on 27 August 2020 it had sold on behalf of this client a total of 233 859 shares, which had to be settled on 31 August 2020;

69. Consequently, taking into account that as of 27 August 2020, Mr. GALDO's holding was 400 000 SIDERC1 shares, minus the sale of 82 848 shares to be settled on 28 August 2020 and minus the sale of 233 859 shares to be settled on 31 August 2020, the number of shares as of 31 August 2020 amounted to 83 293 SIDERC15 . However, according to the material event communicated by SIDERPERÚ on 11 August 2020, 31 August 2020 was the record date of the capital reduction, so that on said date the number of shares would be reduced by applying the capital reduction factor, which would result in the number of shares available to Mr. GALDO at the close of 31 August 2020 amounting to 60 230 SIDERC16;

70. In this context, according to the information sent by CREDICORP SAB to the SMV regarding its order record, on 28 August 2020 at 12:16 hours, CREDICORP SAB registered order No. 100133 and for the sale of 83 293 SIDERC1 at the limit price of S/ 0.67 on the BVL Stock Exchange, instructed by Mr. GALDO;

71. In that sense, the aforementioned sale order was transmitted by CREDICORP SAB on 28 August 2020 to the BVL for execution, said order being executed on the same day (28 August 2020) in six (6) transactions at the price of S/ 0.67 and in one (1) transaction at the price of S/ 0.71 on behalf of Mr. GALDO, according to the following detail7:

No. Op.	Quantity	Price (S/)
351	2,464	0.67
356	20,000	0.67
359	20,000	0.67
360	14,000	0.67
362	3,000	0.67
363	8,829	0.67
429	15,000	0.71
	83,293

[5] (400 000 – 82 848 – 233 859) = 83 293.

[6] (83 293)*(1-0.27689137) = 60 230.

[7] In accordance with the information provided by the BVL to the SMV in compliance with its obligations to submit daily information on proposals and operations, among others, as well as the information contained in the CAVALI Accounting Registry, which is consulted through the CAVALI WARI system.

72. Consequently, CREDICORP SAB would have executed Mr. GALDO's sale operations without having previously verified the existence of the securities to which they relate; that is, CREDICORP SAB would not have verified, prior to the transmission of the sale order of 83 293 SIDERC1 to the BVL, the existence of the securities that allow the settlement of the operations, given that as of 1 September 2020, the settlement date of said operations, Mr. GALDO only had 60 230 SIDERC1, an amount less than the 83 293 SIDERC1 sold on the BVL on behalf of this client. This, because CREDICORP SAB should have taken into account for its verification that on 31 August 2020 a reduction of the number of SIDERC1 shares would be effected as a consequence of the capital reduction for amortization of shares agreed by the issuer of the shares;

73. In accordance with the foregoing, with respect to the operations carried out on behalf of two (2) clients, which are described in literals a and b of this section, CREDICORP SAB would have transmitted sale orders of financial instruments in the local market for execution, without having previously verified the existence of the necessary financial instruments owned by the client to comply with the settlements of its operations;

74. Therefore, it was imputed to CREDICORP SAB that it would have breached the provisions of article 195, literal f) of the LMV and article 55 of the RAI; therefore, it would have incurred an infraction classified as serious, according to Annex X, numeral 2, subsection 2.4 of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS, according to which it constitutes an infraction: “To process orders, or register or execute operations without verifying the existence of the resources or the securities or financial instruments necessary to settle them”;

OF THE DEFENSES SUBMITTED

a. Transmission of the sale order of AENZAC 1

75. With regard to the reassignment of sale operation No. 104 of AENZAC1, which was carried out on the BVL on 2 September 2021, CREDICORP SAB states that it was carried out due to a system error, as a result of which a number of AENZAC1 shares was displayed that was greater than the one the original principal had in its portfolio; therefore, upon verification of such erroneous information, the sale order for Mr. AGÜERO's entire position was processed, considering 89 372 AENZAC1 shares, instead of 43 363 AENZAC1 shares;

b. Transmission of the sale order for SIDERC 1

76. With regard to the reassignment of sale operation No. 429 of SIDERC1, which was carried out on the BVL on 28 August 2020, CREDICORP SAB points out that the transmission of the sale order for 83 293 SIDERC1 shares was processed taking into account the information as of 28 August 2020, in which the existence of 83 293 SIDERC1 shares owned by Mr. GALDO was evidenced;

77. Additionally, it points out that, although Empresa Siderúrgica del Perú S.A.A. – SIDERPERU notified by means of a material fact dated 11 August 2020, 31 August 2020 as the effective date of the capital reduction, this was not evidenced in the system until 1 September 2020, two (2) days after the sale order had been entered;

78. Regarding the aforementioned charge, CREDICORP SAB states that “we comply with stating that, having reviewed the facts subject to the Oficio, we expressly acknowledge the facts charged as described in numerals a., b. and c. above.”;

79. Likewise, CREDICORP SAB points out that, as a result of the occurrence of the facts described, they have made modifications to the Operating Procedures Manual (MPO) of the brokerage firm, in order to incorporate the treatment for the occurrence of local corporate events and to set out supervision tasks for announcements and their execution;

EVALUATION OF THE DEFENSE

a. Transmission of the sale order for AENZAC 1

80. According to CREDICORP SAB, the transmission of the sale order to the BVL, instructed by Mr. AGÜERO, was carried out due to a system error, as a result of which a number of AENZAC1 shares was displayed that was greater than the one Mr. AGÜERO held in his portfolio;

81. In this regard, it must be pointed out that, in accordance with the provisions of article 195, literal f) of the LMV and article 55 of the RAI, brokerage firms may not process orders without verifying the existence of the resources or securities necessary for them to be settled. In that sense, the erroneous information contained in CREDICORP SAB's systems does not exempt the brokerage firm from the obligation established in the aforementioned regulations, to transmit the orders, in this case the sale order, after previously verifying the existence of the securities that allow compliance with the settlement of the operation;

82. It should be noted, additionally, that the system errors alleged by CREDICORP SAB have not been evidenced in this sanctioning procedure;

83. Accordingly, CREDICORP SAB failed to verify, prior to the transmission of the sale order for 89 372 AENZAC1 to the BVL, the existence of the securities that allow compliance with the settlement of the operations, given that as of 1 September 2021, the day before the order was recorded, Mr. AGÜERO only held 43 363 AENZAC1, an amount lower than the 89 372 AENZAC1 shares sold on the BVL on behalf of said principal;

b. Transmission of the sale order for SIDERC 1

84. According to CREDICORP SAB, the transmission of the sale order for 83 293 SIDERC1 shares was processed taking into account the information as of 28 August 2020, in which the existence of 83 293 SIDERC1 shares owned by Mr. GALDO was evidenced, and that although SIDERPERU notified by means of a material fact of 11 August 2020, 31 August 2020 as the effective date of the capital reduction, this would not have been evidenced in its systems until 1 September 2020;

85. On this matter, it must be pointed out that, in accordance with what is indicated in the facts that occurred in this charge, as a consequence of the reduction of SIDERPERU's share capital, agreed at the general shareholders' meeting of 13 January 2020, said company reported as a material fact on that date that the capital reduction factor was 0.27689137. Likewise, by means of a material fact of 11 August 2020, it reported that its board of directors agreed to set 31 August 2020 as the record date to determine the holders of the shares issued by the company for the return of contributions due to share amortization. Which constituted public information as of those dates;

86. In that sense, although CREDICORP SAB alleges that such information was only evidenced in its systems on 01 September 2020, which has not been evidenced by the brokerage firm in this administrative sanctioning procedure, the verification of the securities that should allow compliance with the sale operation was not carried out by the firm prior to the transmission of the order, considering also that the information for its verification was public as of 11 August 2020 and could have been entered into the brokerage firm's systems;

87. It must be taken into account that it is the responsibility of the brokerage firm to transmit the orders instructed by its clients to the market in accordance with the provisions of the applicable regulations, specifically, in accordance with the provisions of article 195, literal f) of the LMV and article 55 of the RAI;

88. Consequently, CREDICORP SAB transmitted the sell order for 83 293 SIDERC1 to the BVL, instructed by Mr. GALDO, without having previously verified the existence of said securities that would allow the settlement of the transactions to be fulfilled, given that as of 1 September 2020, the settlement date of said transactions, Mr. GALDO only had 60 230 SIDERC1, an amount less than the 83 293 SIDERC1 sold on the BVL on behalf of this client. Considering that CREDICORP SAB did not take into account for its verification that on 31 August 2020 the reduction in the number of SIDERC1 shares would take effect as a consequence of the capital reduction by amortization of shares agreed by the issuer of the shares, information that as of 11 August 2020 was public;

89. On the other hand, with regard to the modifications in the Manual of Operating Procedures (MPO) of the brokerage firm, which according to CREDICORP SAB it has made as a result of the occurrence of the events that occurred, it must be noted that this does not exempt the stock brokerage firm from liability for the breach of the provisions of the LMV and the RAI;

90. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that CREDICORP SAB transmitted sell orders for financial instruments in the local market for execution, instructed by two (2) clients, without having previously verified the existence of the financial instruments owned by said clients, necessary to comply with the settlement of the transactions;

91. By virtue of the foregoing, CREDICORP SAB has not rebutted the charges imputed and, consequently, has breached the provisions of article 195, literal f) of the LMV and article 55 of the RAI; therefore, it has incurred one (1) infraction classified as serious, in accordance with Annex X, numeral 2, subsection 2.4 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infraction: “To process orders, or register or execute transactions without verifying the existence of the resources or the securities or financial instruments necessary to settle them”;

92. As regards the acknowledgment of the facts, it should be noted that this will be analyzed in the section on the evaluation of the sanction to be imposed;

THIRD CHARGE: BREACH OF INFORMATION SUBMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS

OF THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

93. Numeral 2.7 of the MANUAL OF SPECIFICATIONS establishes the following:

“2.7. Allocations Daily information of the allocation of transactions effected, to the orders received from its clients. The transaction date must be the same for all records on a given day, except for allocations corresponding to forward transactions included in stock loan transactions. Transactions allocated to mutual fund management companies authorized by the SMV (SAFM), to private pension fund management companies authorized by the Superintendency of Banking, Insurance and AFP (AFP) or to foreign intermediaries authorized by a foreign supervisory body similar to the SMV that correspond to final holders must be recorded and submitted in the File of Reallocations to Final Holders. All allocations must be considered, including those corresponding to corrected or annulled records. (…)” Underlining added

OF THE FACTS THAT OCCURRED

94. It should be mentioned that in accordance with the provisions of the MANUAL OF SPECIFICATIONS, brokerage agents are obliged to submit to the SMV daily information on the allocation of transactions effected. For which all allocations must be considered, including those corresponding to corrected or annulled records;

95. However, CREDICORP SAB did not inform the SMV of the original allocations for the modified transactions, detailed in the following table, through the daily structured files, even though the MANUAL OF SPECIFICATIONS explicitly indicates that the agent must submit all allocations, including those that had been annulled;

96. Therefore, CREDICORP SAB was charged with having breached the provisions of numeral 2.7 of the MANUAL OF SPECIFICATIONS; therefore, it would have incurred one (1) infraction classified as minor, in accordance with Annex I, numeral 3, subsection 3.6 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION; according to which it constitutes an infraction: “To present outside the deadline, or not present, the documentation or information, other than that indicated in the preceding numeral 3.1, that they are obliged to provide by the regulations or by requirement of the SMV or not to submit it in accordance with the technical specifications, when applicable, or to submit it incompletely.”;

OF THE DEFENSES SUBMITTED

97. With regard to the transactions detailed in the OFFICIAL LETTER OF CHARGES, CREDICORP SAB states that it has carried out a review of the information sent to the SMV. In this regard, it states that it complied with sending both the original allocations and those that were corrected or annulled, as detailed in the following table:

98. Likewise, CREDICORP SAB states that the information presented in the previous table can be evidenced in the structured files sent through MVnet;

99. Additionally, with respect to the charge imputed, they indicate that “we comply with indicating that, having reviewed the facts subject of the Official Letter, we expressly acknowledge the facts imputed described in the third charge of the Official Letter”;

100. Likewise, CREDICORP SAB states that the aforementioned infraction was due to an operational error at the time of recording the information for submission, a situation that, as of the date, the brokerage firm states, has been remedied;

EVALUATION OF THE DEFENSES

101. With regard to the allegation by CREDICORP SAB that it complied with sending both the original allocations and those that were corrected or annulled, it must be noted that according to the MANUAL DE ESPECIFICACIONES, numeral 2.7, allocations constitute daily information on the allocation of operations carried out for orders received from its clients, and when sending such information, all allocations must be considered, including those corresponding to corrected or annulled records;

102. Therefore, in the same numeral 2.7, the fields that must be described are detailed, such as field No. 11 on the allocation status, in which it is indicated that records of allocated operations that have been annulled must be sent, indicating said status. For each allocation record that has been corrected, both it, with the status Flag "CO", and the valid allocation record with the Flag "VA" shall be sent;

103. In that context, the information available to the SMV, sent by CREDICORP SAB, should reflect the history of the allocations of operations carried out that have been corrected or annulled, made by CREDICORP SAB and related to the operations detailed in the preceding table. However, from the review carried out, CREDICORP SAB only reported the valid allocations;

104. Thus, for example, with regard to operation No. 45, carried out on 29 October 2019, from the information sent by CREDICORP SAB through structured files, only one allocation record is visible in the name of María Elvira Bustamante Olivares, which has the record status "Valid", since she is the client to whom the operation was reassigned. However, with regard to said operation, the allocation made in the name of CREDICORP CAPITAL LTD should have been reported with status "annulled", since it was the original client;

105. In this regard, as of the date of this resolution, the records of the SMV do not reflect the information corresponding to the annulled allocations related to the operations detailed in the preceding table. That is, the allocations to the original clients, which were annulled, are not observed. Therefore, it is noted that said information was not sent and in that sense has not been remedied as CREDICORP SAB states in its defenses;

106. Now, with regard to the claim by CREDICORP SAB that the infraction referred to in this charge was due to an operational error at the time of recording the information for sending, which, it must be specified, has not been evidenced by the stock brokerage firm in this sanctioning procedure, it must be indicated that the brokerage firm is responsible for maintaining its systems adequately and for diligently complying with its obligations in accordance with the provisions of the regulations applicable to it;

107. Consequently, considering the foregoing, CREDICORP SAB did not inform the SMV of the original allocations for the modified operations, detailed in the preceding table, through the daily structured files, even though the MANUAL DE ESPECIFICACIONES clearly indicates that the brokerage firm must send all allocations, including those that have been annulled;

108. Therefore, CREDICORP SAB has breached the provisions of numeral 2.7 of the MANUAL DE ESPECIFICACIONES; thus, it has incurred one (1) infraction classified as minor, according to Annex I, numeral 3, subsection 3.6 of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES; according to which it constitutes an infraction: "Submit outside the deadline, or fail to submit, the documentation or information, other than that indicated in the preceding numeral 3.1, that they are obliged to provide by regulation or by requirement of the SMV, or fail to send it in accordance with the technical specifications, when applicable, or send it incompletely.";

109. As for the acknowledgment of the facts, it should be noted that this will be analyzed in the section on the evaluation of the sanction to be imposed;

IV. EVALUATION OF THE SANCTION

110. In accordance with article 344 of the Single Ordered Text of the Securities Market Law, Legislative Decree 861 and its amendments, approved by Supreme Decree No. 020-2023-EF (hereinafter, LMV) and article 258 of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES; in accordance with article 248, numeral 3, of the TUO DE LA LPAG9, article 25710 of the aforementioned regulatory body

[8] "Article 25.- SANCTION CRITERIA Administrative sanctions that are imposed must take into account the following criteria: a) Prior record, for final sanctions imposed by the SMV within the period of four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned. The commission of the same infraction in the year prior to the infraction to be sanctioned is not considered a prior record. b) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infraction, takes into account that final sanction imposed by the SMV within the period of one (1) year prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned. c) Circumstances of the commission of the infraction. d) Economic harm caused and its impact on the market. e) Illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction. f) Probability of detection of the infraction. g) Severity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal interest. h) Existence or not of intent in the conduct of the offender. When, from the evaluation of the aforementioned criteria, it is observed that there is no proportionality between the sanction to be imposed and the facts imputed, by exception and through a reasoned resolution, a sanction corresponding to a lower classification than that provided may be imposed."

[9] “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 prove more advantageous for the offender 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 indicated for the purposes of their gradation: a) The illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infringement; b) The probability of detection of the infringement; c) The severity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal interest; d) The economic harm caused; e) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infringement within the term of one (1) year from the date on which 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 offender”.

[10] “Article 257.- Exemptions and mitigating circumstances of liability for infringements

and articles 26 and 27 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION; the administrative sanctions that are imposed must take into account the criteria set forth by the LMV, the SANCTIONS REGULATION and the TUO OF THE LPAG;

111. Within this framework, the evaluation of the sanction must consider: a) the offender's record; b) recidivism11; c) the circumstances of the commission of the infringement; d) the harm caused and the repercussion on the market; e) the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infringement; f) probability of detection of the infringement; g) severity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal interest; h) the existence or not of intent in the conduct of the offender; and i) The voluntary declaration of the commission of the infringement and the offender's contribution to its clarification;

112. With regard to the offender's record, in accordance with the provisions of article 25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, the offender's record consists of the sanctions imposed by the SMV and that have become final during the four (04) years prior to the commission of the infringement to be sanctioned;

113. In this regard, from the review carried out in said period, it has been verified that CREDICORP SAB records the following sanction history:

a) By means of Deputy Superintendency Resolution SMV No. 030-2017-SMV/1012, CREDICORP SAB was sanctioned with a warning for having incurred one (01) infringement of a serious nature classified in Annex X, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.14 of the Sanctions Regulation; and one (01) infringement of a minor nature classified in Annex X, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.14 of the Sanctions Regulation; for not having verified that a client's account statement does not show, for each transaction carried out, the information referring to the identification of the corresponding document, nor the monetary balance at the end of each date; and for not communicating the relevant fact referring to the execution of a contract with Bank of America and Merrill Lynch within the term established by the regulations, respectively. Likewise, it is declared that it has not incurred the very serious infringement classified in Annex I, numeral 1, subparagraph 1.4 of the Sanctions Regulation. Which was not subject to any challenge, and therefore became final on 12 June 2017.

1.- The following constitute conditions exempting liability for infringements:

a) Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure 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 it affects the aptitude to understand the infringement.

d) The mandatory order of a competent authority, issued in the exercise of its functions.

e) The error induced by the Administration or by a confusing or illegal administrative provision.

f) The voluntary correction by the possible sanctioned party of the act or omission imputed as constituting an administrative infringement, prior to the notification of the imputation of charges referred to in subparagraph 3) of article 253.

2.- The following constitute conditions mitigating liability for infringements:

a) If, once an administrative sanctioning procedure has been initiated, the offender acknowledges its responsibility expressly and in writing. In cases where the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced to an amount not less than half of its amount.

b) Others established by special rule”.

[11] The sanction criteria referring to Recidivism and the Probability of detection of the infringement were introduced by article 2 of Legislative Decree No. 1272, which amended, among others, article 230; numeral 3 of the LPAG.

[12] Notified on 19 May 2017.

b) By means of Deputy Superintendency Resolution SMV No. 087-2017-SMV/1013, CREDICORP SAB was sanctioned with a fine of two (02) UIT amounting to S/ 7 700,00 (Seven thousand seven hundred and 00/100 Soles) for having incurred thirteen (13) infringements of a minor nature classified in Annex X, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.14 of the Sanctions Regulation, for not having complied with communicating thirteen (13) relevant facts within the term established in the applicable regulations. Which was not subject to any challenge, and therefore became final on 11 October 2017.

c) By means of Superintendencia Adjunta SMV Resolution No. 116-2017-SMV/1014, CREDICORP SAB was sanctioned with a fine of six (06) UIT equivalent to S/ 22 800.00 (twenty-two thousand eight hundred and 00/100 soles) for having incurred in two (02) infractions of a serious nature typified in Annex X, numeral 2, subsection 2.14 of the Sanctions Regulation by registering orders outside the period established by the applicable regulations and not including in the respective Account Statements the information corresponding to the monetary balance at the end of each date. Which was not subject to any challenge, so it became final on 11 January 2018.

d) By Superintendencia Adjunta SMV Resolution No. 001-2019-SMV/1015, CREDICORP SAB was sanctioned with a fine amounting to 4 UIT equivalent to S/ 15 800,00 (Fifteen thousand eight hundred and 00/100 Soles) for having incurred in nine (09) infractions of a minor nature typified in Annex X, numeral 3, subsection 3.14 of the Sanctions Regulation, for not having complied with communicating nine (09) relevant facts within the period established in the applicable regulations and one (01) infraction of a serious nature, typified in Annex XIX, numeral 2, subsection 2.12 of the Sanctions Regulation, for not submitting the Semi-Annual Report of the Compliance Officer within the period established in the Norms for the Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism. Which was not subject to any challenge, so it became final on 14 February 2019.

114. With regard to recidivism for the commission of the same infraction, the final sanction imposed by the SMV within one (1) year prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned is taken into account. Within this framework, it must be stated that CREDICORP SAB does not record sanctions for the commission of the same infractions subject to analysis in this administrative sanctioning procedure, within the aforementioned period, so the assumptions that constitute recidivism are not present;

115. As for the circumstances of the commission of the infraction, it must be noted in relation to the circumstances of the commission of the first infraction, that the cases observed correspond to sale operations that were not assumed by the original principals, since they were reassigned by CREDICORP SAB to third-party clients who previously had the securities in their portfolio in order to assume the sale position and settlement of the operation with the delivery of these securities, with whom CREDICORP SAB would have previously coordinated, according to what was stated by the stock brokerage firm itself in its brief submitted to the SMV on 20 May 2022;

[13] Notified on 19 September 2017.

[14] Notified on 16 December 2017.

[15] Notified on 24 January 2019.

116. Such reassignments, according to what was argued by CREDICORP SAB, would have been made due to operational errors in the processes of registration and transmission of orders, errors at the time the stock brokerage firm had to assume as principal so as not to affect the settlement of the operation, nor the third counterparty, as well as the non-compliance of a principal in one of the sale operations;

117. It should be added that none of the reassignments detailed above has its origin in an operational error in the process of assigning operations. Therefore, the operations should have been reassigned in the name of CREDICORP SAB, in order to assume the settlement of the operations without involving third-party clients, and if applicable, apply the provisions of article 49 of the OPERATIONS REGULATION, which details the mechanisms established in situations of non-compliance;

118. With regard to the circumstances of the commission of the second infraction, CREDICORP SAB, it should be noted that, although CREDICORP SAB alleges an error in its systems, which has not been evidenced, the verification of the securities that should allow compliance with the sale operation was not carried out by the agent company prior to the transmission of the order, since it is the responsibility of the stock brokerage firm to transmit the orders instructed by its clients to the market in accordance with the provisions of the applicable regulations;

119. In that sense, CREDICORP SAB transmitted the sale order instructed by Mr. AGÜERO to the BVL, without having previously verified the existence of the 89 372 AENZAC1 shares. That is, it did not verify these securities beforehand, so that they would allow compliance with the settlement of said sale operation, since as of 1 September 2021, the day prior to the registration of the order, Mr. AGÜERO only owned 43 363 AENZAC1, an amount less than the 89 372 AENZAC1 sold on the BVL on behalf of said principal;

120. Likewise, with regard to the transmission of the sale order of 83 293 SIDERC1 shares, it should be noted that, as indicated in the events of the present charge, as a consequence of the reduction of share capital of SIDERPERU, agreed at the general shareholders' meeting of 13 January 2020, said company reported as a relevant fact on that date, that the capital reduction factor was 0.27689137. Likewise, by relevant fact of 11 August 2020, it communicated that its board of directors agreed to set 31 August 2020 as the record date to determine the holders of the shares issued by the company for the return of contributions for amortization of shares. Which constituted public information as of those dates;

121. In this regard, although, according to CREDICORP SAB, said information was only evidenced in its systems on 01 September 2020, which has not been evidenced by the brokerage firm, the verification of the securities that should allow compliance with the sale operation was not carried out by the brokerage firm prior to the transmission of the order, also considering that the information for its verification was public;

122. In this sense, CREDICORP SAB transmitted the sale order of 83 293 SIDERC1 to the BVL, instructed by Mr. GALDO, without having previously verified the existence of said securities that allow compliance with the settlement of the operations, given that as of 1 September 2020, the day of settlement of said operations, Mr. GALDO only had 60 230 SIDERC1, an amount less than the 83 293 SIDERC1 sold on the BVL on behalf of this client;

123. Regarding the circumstances of the commission of the third infraction, in accordance with the provisions of the MANUAL DE ESPECIFICACIONES, intermediation agents are obliged to send to the SMV daily information on the allocation of operations carried out. For which it must consider all allocations, including those corresponding to corrected or annulled records;

124. However, CREDICORP SAB did not inform the SMV of the original allocations related to the annulled or modified operations, detailed above, through the daily structured files, despite the fact that the MANUAL DE ESPECIFICACIONES indicates that the agent must send all allocations, including those that have been annulled. Likewise, as part of its defenses, the brokerage firm stated that it had complied with sending the observed information; however, this does not conform to the reality of the facts;

125. Likewise, it should be mentioned that CREDICORP SAB, in its capacity as a company supervised by the SMV, is aware of the rules that regulate the securities market and, in that sense, the provisions contained in the RAI regarding the assumptions of reassignments of holders and regarding the prior verification of the existence of the financial instruments necessary to comply with the settlement of operations, as well as the scope of the provisions of the MANUAL DE ESPECIFICACIONES, as well as its mandatory compliance;

126. Regarding the harm caused and the impact on the market, it should be noted that in the present case, it has not been evidenced that the infractions incurred by CREDICORP SAB have produced a concrete quantifiable harm in the market, that is, it has not been determined that one or more investors have been concretely affected or caused economic damage, therefore it has also not been evidenced that there has been an impact on the market;

127. Regarding the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction, it should be noted that it has not been proven that CREDICORP SAB obtained an illicit benefit as a result of having incurred the infractions subject of analysis in this administrative proceeding;

128. Regarding the probability of detection of the infractions, it should be indicated that in the present case the infractions incurred by CREDICORP SAB were evidenced as a result of the review of information that was requested from the intermediary contrasted with the information on operations that it sends daily; without said information as support, it would not have been possible to identify the reassignments and facts subject to charges, therefore it is considered that the probability of detection of the infractions was low;

129. In the present case, it has not been possible to prove that the actions of CREDICORP SAB in the commission of the infractions analyzed in this sanctioning proceeding have caused harm to the public interest;

130. However, regarding the first charge, referring to the allocation of operations without observing the provisions of the regulations, it should be indicated that, in accordance with the regulations cited above, it contemplates the correction or annulment of allocations but not their modification or reassignment, except for cases related to reassignment to final holders in accordance with article 56 of the RAI. Likewise, it is important to specify that the Agent, in this case CREDICORP SAB, in its role as intermediary, is the one who must assume all positions that have not been instructed by its clients or even those that have been disowned or unfulfilled. Therefore, by not observing the provisions of the applicable regulations, this affects the trust that investors may have in the brokerage firms in the diligent development of their activities in the securities market;

131. Additionally, it should be taken into account that it is the obligation of entities authorized to participate in the securities market, such as brokerage firms, to comply with the provisions of the applicable regulations, such as, among others, those established in the LMV, the RAI and the MANUAL DE ESPECIFICACIONES; actions contrary to this affect the integrity of the market and create distrust in it;

132. Regarding the second charge, referring to executing operations without verifying the existence of the financial instruments or securities to which they pertain, CREDICORP SAB put at risk the protected legal interest referring to the integrity of the market, since it carried out operations without having previously verified the existence of the financial instruments owned by the clients, necessary to comply with the settlement of operations, as established by the LMV and the RAI;

133. Likewise, it should be noted that one aspect to consider regarding the decision to invest through a particular brokerage firm is the evaluation of the risks associated with its internal management and compliance with regulations; therefore, when an intermediary presents various errors in its systems, as CREDICORP SAB pointed out, or fails to comply with the provisions of the regulation, the investor's ability to determine their real degree of exposure to the risk they assume by channeling their operations through a brokerage agent is affected; consequently, the legal interest of investor protection is additionally affected;

134. It should be noted that the intermediation process, of which the execution and allocation of operations is a part, constitutes a fundamental basis for the development of the securities market, so that the unrestricted observance of the regulatory framework and principles governing said process allows the objective of investor protection to be met and the integrity of the market not to be affected; however, in the present case, the actions of CREDICORP SAB meant that the aforementioned legal interests were affected, so the type of infractions committed limits the securities markets from fulfilling their objectives of being fair, transparent and efficient markets; when an investor carries out an operation in the securities market, they assume that their counterparty has the funds or securities required to cover the operation and when an operation is allocated to them, they assume that said allocation is the result of the application of rules that apply equally to all investors; when an intermediary acts to the contrary, it affects confidence in the market, its functioning, and therefore, the aforementioned legal interests;

135. On the other hand, in relation to the infraction indicated in the third charge, regarding the failure to submit information in accordance with the regulations, it should be noted that the non-submission of information, in the present case, in accordance with the provisions of the MANUAL DE ESPECIFICACIONES, affects the confidence that investors may have in the brokerage firms in the diligent development of their operations in the securities market; likewise, as a result of said situation, the minimum caution that brokerage firms must comply with in order not to put at risk, through their actions, not only the interests of their clients but also those of the firm itself, is neglected. Likewise, said action limits the actions that the regulatory entity carries out for the purpose of supervising the activities carried out by intermediation agents;

136. It should be noted that the MANUAL DE ESPECIFICACIONES establishes the form, means and other technical specifications that the intermediation agent must comply with regarding the preparation and presentation of its information to the Superintendency of the Securities Market in order to generate greater transparency and confidence in the general public; and in that sense it allows, among other aspects, the process of automatic file transfer, such as the daily information of all the allocations of operations carried out by the brokerage firm, including those corresponding to corrected or annulled records. Therefore, by not presenting said information, generated as a result of its own intermediation activities, in accordance with the provisions of the MANUAL DE ESPECIFICACIONES, it also affects the integrity and transparency of the market;

137. In relation to the existence or not of intentionality in the conduct of the offender, it has not been evidenced that CREDICORP SAB acted with intentionality in the commission of the infractions under analysis in the present administrative sanctioning procedure;

138. In addition to the foregoing, it is appropriate to analyze the exempting and mitigating conditions of responsibility established in article 257° of the TUO LPAG16 and in articles 27 and 26 of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES, respectively;

139. In this regard, it should be noted that in the present procedure no exempting condition of responsibility has been accredited in the case of the imputed infractions;

140. In relation to the mitigating circumstances of responsibility, regarding the acknowledgment of the infraction, it should be specified that, in relation to the first and second charge, CREDICORP SAB has stated in its defenses that “with respect to the present imputed charge, we comply with indicating that, having reviewed the facts subject of the Oficio, we expressly acknowledge the imputed facts described in numerals a., b. and c. above”;

141. Likewise, regarding the third charge, it has stated that “we comply with indicating that, having reviewed the facts subject of the Oficio, we expressly acknowledge the imputed facts described in the third charge of the Oficio”;

142. In this sense, it should be noted that with respect to the first and second infraction, CREDICORP SAB does not dispute the facts, that is, it does not present defenses properly speaking, accepting the occurrence of the facts and stating that it was an operational error and likewise expresses in its defense brief, in a duly highlighted, underlined and bold manner, that it expressly acknowledges the imputed facts. Therefore, this satisfies the mitigating condition, since a precise, concise, clear, express and unconditional declaration is observed, and without ambiguous or contradictory expressions, of an acknowledgment of responsibility for the commission of the administrative infractions incurred by the brokerage firm, subject of the present sanctioning procedure, aforementioned;

143. However, with respect to the third infraction, although CREDICORP SAB states that, having reviewed the facts that are the subject of the OFICIO DE CARGOS, it expressly acknowledges the imputed facts; prior to said mention, in its written defense it disputes the facts, that is, it presents defenses and even goes so far as to affirm that it has sent the questioned information to the SMV,

[16] “Article 257.- Exemptions and mitigating circumstances of liability for infractions 1.- The following constitute conditions exempting liability for infractions: a) Duly proven fortuitous event or force majeure. 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 it affects the aptitude to understand the infraction. d) The mandatory order of a competent authority, issued in the exercise of its functions. e) The error induced by the Administration or by a confusing or illegal administrative provision. f) The voluntary correction by the possible sanctioned party of the act or omission imputed as constituting an administrative infraction, prior to the notification of the imputation of charges referred to in subsection 3) of article 235. 2.- The following constitute conditions mitigating liability for infractions: a) If, once an administrative sanctioning procedure has been initiated, the offender acknowledges its responsibility expressly and in writing. In cases where the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced to an amount not less than half of its amount. b) Others established by special rule.”

corresponding to the original allocations referring to the sale operations carried out by CREDICORP SAB, which does not conform to the reality of the facts. Therefore, it does not comply with fully expressing its acknowledgment in accordance with the regulations cited above, its statement being combined with its questioning, an expression that is unclear, conditioned, ambiguous and contradictory, so it is not possible to consider that there has been an acknowledgment of liability for the third imputed infraction, and therefore its application as a mitigating circumstance in this administrative sanctioning procedure is not appropriate;

144. As regards the clarification of the facts constituting the imputed infractions, it should be noted that CREDICORP SAB has contributed to the clarification of the infractions;

145. With regard to the mitigating circumstance of liability, referring to the correction made after its requirement or the initiation of the administrative sanctioning procedure, it should be noted that, as mentioned above, as of the date of the REPORT, the information corresponding to the annulled allocations related to the observed operations was not reflected in the SMV systems. That is, the allocations to the original principals, which were annulled, are not observed. Therefore, it is noted that said information was not sent and in that sense has not been corrected as CREDICORP SAB states in its defenses;

146. For the foregoing, it has been demonstrated that CREDICORP SAB incurred three (3) infractions, one (1) very serious, one (1) serious and one (1) minor, with respect to which, in application of article 2917 of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES, a sanction corresponding to the infractions classified as very serious must be imposed on CREDICORP SAB;

147. In accordance with the provisions of article 33 of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES, the very serious infraction is punishable by a fine of not less than fifty (50) and up to seven hundred (700) Tax Units (UIT), with suspension of the authorization to operate for a period of not less than ten (10) days and up to forty-five (45) days, or with the revocation of the authorization to operate. However, to the extent that CREDICORP SAB has acknowledged the commission of the first and second infractions; and has contributed to their clarification; the provisions of article 26°18, literals a), numeral 1 and b) should be applied

[17] “Article 29.- CONCURRENCE OF INFRACTIONS (…) Likewise, when several conducts qualify as more than one infraction, the sanction corresponding to the most serious infraction is imposed.”

[18] “Article 26.- MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF LIABILITY The following constitute conditions mitigating liability for infractions: a) Acknowledgment of liability by the offender expressly and in writing, once the administrative sanctioning procedure has been initiated. When the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced, taking into account the following: 1. If the acknowledgment of the infraction is presented within the period granted for the presentation of defenses, the reduction amount shall be fifty percent (50%). (…) The acknowledgment of liability with respect to an infraction must be made precisely, concisely, clearly, expressly and unconditionally, and must not contain ambiguous or contradictory expressions; otherwise, it shall not be understood as an acknowledgment. If defenses are presented, despite having made an acknowledgment of liability, it shall be understood as a non-acknowledgment, and the authority shall proceed to evaluate the defenses”. b) Contribution of the offender to the clarification of the infraction. (…).

of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES, so the fine for said infraction must range between 25 UIT and 350 UIT; that is, 50% of the range established for very serious infractions;

148. Nevertheless, considering what has been stated in the sanction criteria analyzed, and in application of the Principle of Reasonableness set forth in article 248, numeral 3 of the TUO LPAG, which states that sanctions must be proportional to the non-compliance classified as an infraction, this Deputy Superintendency considers that it is possible to impose on CREDICORP SAB a sanction corresponding to the classification lower than that provided for in accordance with the last paragraph of article 25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS;

In accordance with the provisions of article 32, numeral 16 of the Regulations on Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF.

RESOLVES:

Article 1.- Declare that Credicorp Capital Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. has incurred the infraction of a very serious nature classified in Annex X, numeral 1, subparagraph 1.11 of the Sanctions Regulations, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 and its amendments, for making allocations of operations without observing the provisions of the corresponding regulations, which constitutes non-compliance with article 56 of the Regulations for Intermediation Agents, approved by SMV Resolution No. 034-2015-SMV/01 and its amendments.

Article 2.- Declare that Credicorp Capital Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. has incurred the serious infraction classified in Annex X, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.4 of the Sanctions Regulations, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 and its amendments, by executing operations without previously verifying the existence of the financial instruments necessary for the settlement of the operations, which constitutes non-compliance with article 195, literal f) of the Securities Market Law and article 55 of the Regulations for Intermediation Agents, approved by SMV Resolution No. 034-2015-SMV/01 and its amendments.

Article 3.- Declare that Credicorp Capital Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. has incurred the minor infraction classified in Annex I, numeral 1, subparagraph 3.6 of the Sanctions Regulations, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 and its amendments, by failing to send the information corresponding to the original allocations regarding the operations that were annulled, which constitutes non-compliance with numeral 2.7 of the Manual of Technical Specifications for the Submission to the SMV of Information from Intermediation Agents, approved by Superintendency Resolution No. 026-2012-SMV/01 and its amendments

Article 4.- Sanction Credicorp capital Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. with a fine of 9 UIT, equivalent to S/ 37,800.00 (Thirty-seven thousand eight hundred and 00/100 Soles), for the provisions of articles 1 to 3 of this resolution.

Article 5.- This resolution does not exhaust the administrative remedy, unless it is consented to, and may be challenged before the Deputy Superintendency of Prudential Supervision by filing a motion for reconsideration or appeal before the same, within a period of fifteen (15) business days counted from the day following its notification.

Article 6.- In the event that this resolution is not challenged by means of a motion for reconsideration or appeal within fifteen (15) business days of notification and becomes final, it must be published on the SMV institutional page on the Single Digital Platform of the Peruvian State for Citizen Orientation, in observance of the provisions of numeral 1, article 7 of the Policy on Advertising of Regulatory Projects, General Rules and other Administrative Acts of the SMV, approved by Superintendency Resolution No. 014-2014-SMV/01 and by the provisions of article 10 A of the Sanctions Regulations, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 055-2001-EF/94.10 and its amending rules.

Article 7.- Transcribe this resolution to Credicorp Capital Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A., to the Lima Stock Exchange S.A. and to Cavali S.A. ICLV.

Register, communicate and publish.

Signed by: GUTIERREZ OCHOA Omar Darío Reason:

Omar Gutiérrez Ochoa
Deputy Superintendent
Deputy Superintendency of Prudential Supervision