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. 021-2024-SMV/10

Lima, 26 April 2024

Summary: Grupo CORIL Sociedad Titulizadora S.A. is sanctioned with a fine of 1.5 UIT for having incurred in one (1) serious infraction classified in Annex I, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.33 of the Sanctions Regulation, for failing to comply with the provisions of article 3 of the Rules Applicable to complaints and claims against entities supervised by the Superintendency of the Market in Securities - SMV, approved by SMV Resolution No. 006-2012-SMV, by not addressing the claim of a bondholder within the term established by the regulations.

Administered
: Grupo CORIL Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.
Subject
:
Administrative sanctioning procedure
File No. : 2023032304.

The Deputy Superintendent of Prudential Supervision

VIEWS:

Administrative file No. 2023032304, Report No. 433-2024-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Intendancy of Prudential Compliance, as well as the discharges presented by Grupo CORIL Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.; and,

CONSIDERING:

1. According to 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 Market in Securities (SMV), therefore any reference to CONASEV in legal norms shall be understood as made to the SMV;

I. Facts

2. By letter dated 07 February 2021 the COMPLAINANT1 presents claim to Grupo CORIL Sociedad Titulizadora S.A. (hereinafter, CORIL ST), the same that according to what was indicated by the COMPLAINANT, was sent to the securitization company on 15 February 2021 through emails addressed to the email addresses: legalst@grupocoril.com and ssalinas@grupocoril.com. In view of the

[1] In Annex attached to this resolution the complete data of the natural persons to whom the denominations used in this resolution belong is detailed.

lack of attention to the claim, the complainant sends to the SMV an email on 01 March 2021, through which she requested that CORIL ST be required to respond to her claim letter;

3. By Official Letter No. 900-2021-SMV/10.3, notified on 5 March 2021, the request of the COMPLAINANT was transferred to CORIL ST, in which it was requested to send its comments regarding each point detailed in the letter sent to its represented by the COMPLAINANT and attach a copy of the corresponding response letter;

4. By letter received on 16 March 2021, CORIL ST answered part of what was requested by Official Letter No. 900-2021-SMV/10.3, however, it did not issue a pronouncement referring to the claim of the COMPLAINANT;

5. Through Official Letter No. 1598-2022-SMV/10.3, notified on 11 April 2022, CORIL ST was required to inform if it responded directly to the COMPLAINANT the aforementioned claim and if so, present a copy of the corresponding response;

6. On 19 April 2022, CORIL ST responded to Official Letter 1598-2022-SMV/10.3 and attached the corresponding annexes referring to the response provided to the COMPLAINANT;

7. With Official Letter No. 3506-2023-SMV/10.3 of 26 July 2023, hereinafter OFFICIAL LETTER OF CHARGES, a sanctioning procedure was initiated against CORIL ST for failing to comply with the provisions of article 3 of the Rules applicable to Complaints and Claims against entities supervised by the Superintendency of the Market in Securities – SMV, approved by SMV Resolution No. 006-2012-SMV/01 (hereinafter, RULES APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS);

8. By writing received on 10 August 2023, CORIL ST presented the corresponding discharges;

9. The charges formulated against CORIL ST and their evaluation have been subject to evaluation in Report No. 433-2024-SMV/10.3, which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Deputy Superintendency;

10. In observance of the Principle of Due Procedure contemplated both in Article IV, numeral 1.2, of the Preliminary Title and in article 246, subparagraph 2, of the Single Ordered Text of the Law of General Administrative Procedure, hereinafter TUO of the LPAG, through Official Letter No. 1372-2024- SMV/10, the administrative file referred to in Report No. 433-2024-SMV/10.3 was made available to CORIL ST for its review;

II. Issues to Determine

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

a. Whether or not CORIL ST incurred in infraction to the provisions of Annex I, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.33 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), for failing to comply with the provisions of article 3 of the RULES APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS;

b. Whether or not it corresponds to impose a sanction on CORIL ST for what is indicated in the previous subparagraph;

III. Analysis

OF THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

12. In this regard, article 3 of the RULES APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS, provides the following:

"Article 3.- Attention of claims by legal persons authorized by the SMV Without prejudice to compliance with the norms that determine the direct attention of claims that final consumers may formulate and the obligation to have a Book of Claims, within the framework of the provisions of articles 24 and 150 of the Consumer Protection and Defense Code, Law No. 29571, the legal persons to which the SMV has granted operating authorization are obliged to directly attend any claim by their clients about the services they provide, within a maximum term of thirty (30) calendar days from the date of presentation of the respective claim. This period may be extended for an equal period when the nature of the claim justifies it, a situation that is brought to the claimant's attention before the end of the initial period. If the claimant so requires, the response must be made in writing.

(…).”(Underlining added)

OF THE FACTS THAT OCCURRED

13. By email sent on 1 March 2021, the COMPLAINANT requested that the SMV require CORIL ST to respond to its claim letter of 7 February 2021 that was sent to CORIL ST by email of 15 February 2021 and that the COMPLAINANT claims to have sent to the email addresses: legalst@grupocoril.com and ssalinas@grupocoril.com;

14. It should be noted that in said claim letter the COMPLAINANT, in its capacity as bondholder, requested answers from CORIL ST regarding its management of the Trust Estate –Legislative Decree No. 861 –Title XI – Agricorp USA (hereinafter, TRUST ESTATE), regarding why the bondholders were not aware of the auction bases and the base amount; why CORIL ST agreed to assume the completion of the charges and encumbrances on the properties; why CORIL ST agreed to recognize rights to the persons who invaded the properties and what is the status of payment to such invaders; what is the work of the bondholders' representative before the Arbitral Tribunal; and why CORIL ST did not include in the call to the bondholders' meeting the encumbrance; among others;

15. In that regard, by Official Letter No. 900-2021-SMV/10.3, notified on 5 March 2021, the COMPLAINANT's request was forwarded to CORIL ST, in which it was requested:

“(…) send us your comments regarding each point detailed in the letter sent to your represented party by Mrs. Martha Alicia Moreno Flores2 by email of 15 February last (attached hereto), who has stated to us that to date she has not received a response from Grupo Coril Sociedad Titulizadora S.A.

[2] Bondholder of the “Trust Estate – Legislative Decree No. 861 - Title XI - Agricorp U.S.A.”

Likewise, if applicable, we would appreciate it if you send a copy of the corresponding response letter from your represented party; as well as any other additional information and/or documentation that you consider pertinent.”

16. By letter received on 16 March 2021, CORIL ST answered what was requested in the first paragraph of Official Letter No. 900-2021-SMV/10.3, however, it did not issue a pronouncement on what was required in the second paragraph of the same official letter;

17. By Official Letter No. 1598-2022-SMV/10.3, notified on 11 April 2022, CORIL ST was requested to do the following:

“(…) in relation to the letter submitted to this Superintendency on 16 March 2021, by which your represented party responds to Official Letter No. 900-2021-SMV/10.3 by which the email and letter of 1 March and 7 February 2021, respectively, were forwarded (which are attached hereto), from Mrs.… who asked questions regarding the administration of the Agricorp Estate.

In this regard, please inform whether Grupo Coril Sociedad Titulizadora S.A. responded directly to Mrs. … the aforementioned email and letter (sent by her to the email addresses legalst@grupocoril.com and ssalinas@grupocoril.com) and, if applicable, present a copy of the corresponding response from your represented party; as well as any other additional information and/or documentation that you consider pertinent.”

18. On 19 April 2022, CORIL ST responded to Official Letter 1598-2022-SMV/10.3 and attached the corresponding annexes referring to the response provided to the COMPLAINANT;

19. In this regard, it should be noted that according to the documentation submitted by CORIL ST, it is observed that the COMPLAINANT's claim letter sent to said company on 15 February 2021 was only answered, as CORIL ST indicates, on 19 April 2022 by letter GCST 844.04.2022 which was sent to the COMPLAINANT's email address (undated) by the Legal Head of CORIL ST;

20. At this point, it should be noted that, pursuant to article 3 of the RULES APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS, the period for resolving claims of CORIL ST's clients is thirty (30) calendar days from receipt thereof, and may be extended for an equal period if warranted, after communication to the claimant;

21. In that regard, the claim letter filed by the COMPLAINANT should have been resolved within thirty (30) calendar days from its receipt; however, the COMPLAINANT received a response from CORIL ST regarding its claim after a period that exceeded the established period, that is, on 19 April 2022 according to CORIL ST. It should be noted that as part of the STATEMENT OF CHARGES; the securitization company was requested to present the complete email showing the date of sending;

22. Considering the foregoing, it was imputed to CORIL ST that it would not have complied with observing the provisions of article 3 of the RULES APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS, that is, said securitization company would not have complied with the legal period established to provide a response to the claim filed by the COMPLAINANT;

OF THE DEFENSES SUBMITTED

23. CORIL ST states that on 15 February 2021 the COMPLAINANT's communication was received via electronic communication, for which reason a written response began to be prepared in coordination with the various areas of CORIL ST in order to provide a solid response to the bondholder; however, it was not until 05 March 2021 that CORIL ST became aware that the COMPLAINANT had decided to send its communication to the SMV in order to request a prompt response, for which reason it proceeded to respond directly to the SMV in Official Letter No. 900-2021- SMV/10.3 dated 04 March 2021;

24. On the part of CORIL ST, it is known that although it is true that it complied with responding to the SMV, it did not respond directly to the COMPLAINANT as requested by the regulatory body through Official Letter No. 900-2021-SMV/10.3: “(…) we would appreciate it if you would send a copy of the corresponding response letter from your represented company; as well as any other information and/or additional documentation that you consider pertinent (…)”, which leads CORIL ST to acknowledge the commission of the infraction subject to imputation, which occurred due to a human error in the interpretation of the official letter. On this, CORIL ST mentions that to date the actions to be taken have been improved, so that these circumstances do not occur again;

25. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CORIL ST indicates that it does not disclaim responsibility towards the bondholder, therefore, in order to provide compliance, through a letter dated 18 April 2022, a response was provided to the COMPLAINANT in order to clarify the points that were pending resolution and manifesting at all times the commitment to carry out the best efforts to complete the liquidation process of the TRUST ESTATE;

26. Additionally, CORIL ST specifies that the COMPLAINANT received, as payment and in a timely manner, the amount corresponding to it by reason of the purchase and sale of the properties of the TRUST ESTATE as can be observed in the copies of the bank transfer receipts attached as part of its defense;

27. CORIL ST considers that it has demonstrated that it carried out the best efforts so that the bondholders can collect part of their investment, as can be evidenced by the emails of 22 February and 23 August 2022 that it attaches as Annex 1 to its defense, sent to the COMPLAINANT;

28. In accordance with the facts set forth, and having expressly acknowledged the imputed infraction, CORIL ST requests that the arguments detailed below be considered, which were developed within the framework of the principle of reasonableness established in article 248 of the TUO LPAG;

29. In relation to its background, CORIL ST acknowledges that within the last (4) four years it has presented final sanctions by the SMV, but for situations and assumptions different from those set forth in the present proceeding. Likewise, it specifies that no recidivism is observed in the commission of the infraction; Likewise, regarding the circumstances, CORIL ST points out that it attended to what was requested in Official Letter No. 900-2021-SMV/10.3 within the established term, however, it did not comply with responding directly to the requirements formulated by the COMPLAINANT due to an internal human error in the channeling and attention of the requirements3, the response being effective on 18 April 2022. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CORIL ST details that at the level of its internal control bodies, the measures that allow them to mitigate this risk have been improved;

30. On the other hand, taking into consideration the actions of CORIL ST, the securitization company argues that it is possible to corroborate that the infraction committed has not caused repercussion in the market and/or generated any economic harm to the bondholders, since the AGRICORP bond is a security that is in a “state of insolvency” due to the litigious history that exists and that is known by the bondholders of the TRUST ESTATE;

31. Additionally, considering that the bondholders are well aware of the status of these bonds4, none of them has reported claims and/or requirements before CORIL ST regarding this fact or filed any complaint before the SMV for any similar circumstance, since CORIL ST fulfills its role as fiduciary administrator of a publicly offered estate, its actions being due to the principle of transparency and dissemination of any event related to the TRUST ESTATE to the market;

32. In that sense, and from the perspective of CORIL ST, the fact subject to imputation has not generated any economic harm to the COMPLAINANT as can be evidenced from Annex 1 of its defense, nor has it affected the securities market;

33. In addition to the foregoing, the company points out that in the present case it cannot be proven that the time gap between the date of response to the SMV in 2021 and the date of communication to the COMPLAINANT made by CORIL ST in 2022 would have generated any illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction, since the actions of CORIL ST are merely due to compliance with the mandate of the SMV to proceed with the liquidation of the TRUST ESTATE as established in the constitutive act, and it must act transparently both with the bondholders and with the market;

34. Regarding the probability of detection of the infraction, CORIL ST details that the regulator was able to detect the infraction as a result of Official Letter 1598-2022-SMV/10.3, through which it was required to inform whether CORIL ST responded directly to the COMPLAINANT the email and the letter sent on 15 February 2021;

35. On the other hand, CORIL ST acknowledges that the function of the SMV is to safeguard the interests of investors and the correct development and transparency of the market in general. Within this scheme, CORIL ST accepts that it did not comply with the obligation to attend to the requirement of the COMPLAINANT within the established term, however, said non-compliance has not had major repercussion in the market, which can be corroborated by the SMV;

36. Likewise, CORIL ST warns that – to date – the TRUST ESTATE is in the process of liquidation, which is why

[3] As can be recorded in File No. 2020035303 and the defenses to Official Letter No. 900-2021-SMV/10.3 dated 04 March 2021 and Official Letter No. 1598-2022-SMV/10.3 dated 08 April 2022.

[4] Each event informed to the market as a material fact.

at the time of submission of this defense, there are no potential investors who could acquire the AGRICORP bond;

37. Regarding the existence or not of intent in the conduct of the infringer, CORIL ST points out that during the time it has been operating in the market, it has performed diligently, providing its services as trustee in accordance with the regulation issued by the SMV; however, due to human error, it failed to respond within the deadline in the year 2021. In this regard, it acknowledges the present infringement that gave rise to the administrative sanctioning procedure;

38. Thus, CORIL ST, its representatives and its workers did not intend to undermine the interests of the COMPLAINANT, nor cause any type of harm to the other investors of the TRUST ESTATE or to the market in general;

39. Regarding the mitigating conditions, CORIL St reiterates that through its defenses it expressly acknowledges its responsibility for the imputed infringement, which, according to the arguments presented, originated from a non-intentionality to cause harm to the COMPLAINANT, to the investors and to the market in general; therefore, in order to prevent these circumstances from occurring again, it is improving the following:

a) Update the procedures for handling claims and/or requests in order to better manage the attention and coordination of the various requests that may arise.

b) Train personnel so that they can know what timely actions and/or coordinations they should take upon learning of a request and/or claim.

c) Adapt and update the manual of processes for the attention and follow-up of claims, complaints and/or requests.

d) Update the email of those responsible for receiving claims, complaints and/or requests submitted.

e) Generate alerts in the internal control system to remind the areas involved in each of the requests, claims and/or complaints in order to respond within the deadline;

40. CORIL ST also requests that it be considered that, in this case, since the first official letter received, it has demonstrated the intention to clarify the facts subject to infringement, so that it be taken into account as a mitigating condition of responsibility;

41. In this regard, the securitization company states that, in accordance with the provisions of article 248 of the TUO LPAG and the provisions of article 25, last paragraph, of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, the arguments presented be considered and, within the framework of the principle of reasonableness, requests the imposition of a sanction corresponding to a lower classification than that provided in the STATEMENT OF CHARGES;

EVALUATION OF THE DEFENSES

42. In accordance with the defenses presented, CORIL ST expressly acknowledges that due to a human error in the interpretation of Official Letter No. 900-2021-SMV/10.3, it failed to respond directly to the COMPLAINANT regarding its claim submitted on 15 February 2021;

43. On this matter, it has been proven in the file that by email of 15 February 2021, the COMPLAINANT sent CORIL ST a claim regarding its management as trustee of the TRUST ESTATE;

44. It is clear that the claim made by the COMPLAINANT was not resolved within thirty (30) calendar days from its receipt, that is, CORIL ST had until 17 March 2021 to send the respective response; however, according to the securitization company, the claim would have been answered by letter GCST 844.04.2022 dated 18 April 2022, which was sent by email;

45. It should be noted that in file 2020035303 through which the COMPLAINANT files the complaint, CORIL ST, in response to Official Letter 1598-2022-SMV/10.3, on 19 April 2022 attaches as part of its response a copy of an email addressed to the COMPLAINANT in which it states that it provides a response to its claim and attaches letter GCST 844.04.2022; however, in said copy the date of the email is not visible. In this regard, in the STATEMENT OF CHARGES the securitization company was requested to submit the complete email showing the date of sending; however, it failed to comply with the above. Notwithstanding the above, it must be considered that it is the securitization company itself that in its response to the aforementioned official letter states that the email is dated 19 April 2022;

46. On the other hand, it should be noted that this administrative procedure is linked to the failure by CORIL ST to timely address a claim filed by a bondholder of the TRUST ESTATE; and not to whether or not the securitization company complied with the payment obligations to the COMPLAINANT in its capacity as bondholder;

47. On the other hand, regarding CORIL ST's statement that its actions are merely due to compliance with the SMV's mandate to proceed with the liquidation of the TRUST ESTATE as established in the constitutive act, it should be noted that the appointment of CORIL ST as trustee of the TRUST ESTATE originates from the fact that by letter of 21 February 2018, it expressed its express interest in assuming the fiduciary ownership of the “Trust Estate – Legislative Decree No. 861 – Title XI – AGRICORP U.S.A.”, so that in accordance with the provisions of the fourth paragraph of article 33 of the Regulation of the Asset Securitization Processes, the SMV proceeded to appoint it as replacement trustee of the referred estate by Superintendent Resolution No. 040-2018-SMV/02, with the estate being registered in the RPMV on 05 December 2018; therefore, by virtue of this, CORIL ST must comply with all obligations corresponding to it in accordance with the regulations and taking into account the purpose of the trust estate, and not subsume its actions solely to liquidation activities as it attempts to allege in its defenses;

48. For the foregoing, CORIL ST failed to comply with Article 3 of the STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS, and therefore said securitization company incurred in one (1) infringement classified as serious, pursuant to Annex I, item 2, subsection 2.33 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which the following constitutes an infringement: “Failure to perform its functions or any of the other provisions contemplated in the regulations or what is stipulated or required by the SMV in the exercise of its functions, specifically with respect to Participants;”

49. With respect to the arguments developed regarding the sanction criteria alleged by the securitization company, as well as the mitigating factors of liability, it must be indicated that these aspects will be subject to evaluation at the time of determining the sanction to be imposed;

IV. Evaluation of the Sanction

50. In accordance with the provisions of the regulations, the determination of sanctions shall be carried out in accordance with Article 344 of the Single Ordered Text of the Securities Market Law, Legislative Decree N° 861, approved by Supreme Decree N° 020-2023-EF (hereinafter, TUO LMV) and Article 25° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, in accordance with Article 248, item 3, of the TUO LPAG5, and the mitigating factors and exemptions from liability regulated in Articles 26 and 27 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, in accordance with the provisions of Article 257° of the TUO LPAG;

51. In accordance with Article 344° of the LMV and Article 6° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, in accordance with Article 246°, item 3 of the TUO LPAG and Article 255° of the aforementioned regulatory body, the administrative sanctions imposed shall take into account the criteria set forth by the LMV, the SANCTIONS REGULATION and the TUO LPAG;

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

53. In that sense, in order to align the criteria of the TUO LPAG with those indicated in the TUO LMV and the SANCTIONS REGULATION, and so that these criteria are duly considered in order for their assessment to observe the principle of reasonableness and for the sanction to be imposed to conform to them, the following criteria are analyzed;

54. In relation 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 that have

[5] "Article 248°.- Principles of administrative sanctioning power (…) 3. Reasonableness.- Authorities must ensure that the commission of the sanctionable conduct is not 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 qualified as an infraction, observing the following criteria indicated for their gradation: a) The illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction; b) The probability of detection of the infraction; c) The severity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal right; d) The economic harm caused; e) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infraction within the term of one (1) year from when the resolution that sanctioned the first infraction became final. f) The circumstances of the commission of the infraction; and g) The existence or not of intentionality in the conduct of the offender”.

having become final within the four (04) years prior to the date of the commission of the infraction;

55. In this regard, from the review carried out in said period, it has been verified that CORIL ST records as a sanction antecedent the Resolution of the Deputy Superintendence SMV No. 035-2020-SMV/10 of 14 October 2020, CORIL ST was sanctioned with a fine of five (5) UIT equivalent to S/21 000.00 (Twenty-one thousand and 00/100 Soles) for having incurred in one (01) very serious infraction typified in Annex I, numeral 1, subsection 1.3 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION. It should be noted that said sanction became final on 5 November 2020 since CORIL ST did not file any challenge;

56. With reference to recidivism for the commission of the same infraction, the final sanction imposed by the SMV within the term of one (1) year prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned is taken into account. In that sense, it must be stated that considering what was indicated in relation to the sanction antecedents, CORIL ST does not record sanctions for the commission of the infraction contained in the present administrative sanctioning procedure, within the mentioned term, therefore the assumptions that constitute recidivism are not present;

57. Regarding the circumstances of the commission of the infraction, the imputed infraction originated from the filing of the claim by the COMPLAINANT against CORIL ST regarding its management as trustee of the TRUST ESTATE. Said claim was filed on 15 February 2021 and should have been answered at the latest by 17 March 2021; however, it would have been answered only on 19 April 2022; that is, 398 days late with respect to the deadline;

58. For its part, CORIL ST has indicated that due to a human error in the interpretation of Oficio N° 900-2021-SMV/10.3, it did not directly respond to the requests made by the DENUNCIANTE in its claim until 19 April 2022. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CORIL ST states that at the level of its internal control bodies, measures have been adopted to mitigate this risk;

59. With regard to the harm caused and the impact on the market, it should be noted that it has not been possible to evidence that the infringement incurred by CORIL ST has caused concrete economic harm to market participants, nor has it been possible to evidence that it has had an impact on the market;

60. Regarding the benefit resulting from the commission of the infringement, it should be specified that it has not been proven in this proceeding that CORIL ST obtained any benefit by incurring the imputed infringement;

61. In relation to the probability of detection of this infringement, it should be indicated that it was possible to detect it because the DENUNCIANTE itself informed this Superintendency of the filing of the claim before CORIL ST, which, after the respective follow-up, was observed not to have been addressed in a timely manner. Likewise, it should be indicated that this is not a situation in which the detection of the infringement could have been detected from only periodic information submitted to the SMV, nor is it an infringement whose origin is of an objective cause, so the probability of detection of the infringement was low;

62. As for the seriousness of the harm to the public interest and/or protected legal interest, it has not been possible to prove that CORIL ST's conduct in the commission of the infringement under analysis in this sanctioning proceeding has caused determinable harm to the public interest;

63. However, it should be taken into account that securitization companies have the obligation to act in strict compliance with the regulations applicable to them, such as the provisions established in the NORMAS APLICABLES A DENUNCIAS Y RECLAMOS, in protection of the Securities Market; the transgression of said regulations affects the legal interest related to market integrity, that is, of the Peruvian securities market and especially affects the confidence of investors or potential investors interested in carrying out a commercial relationship with securitization companies. Likewise, it should be considered that through its claim, the DENUNCIANTE requested information and a series of clarifications related to its investment; therefore, since said request was not addressed in a timely manner, the legal interest of investor protection has been affected;

64. Regarding the intentionality in the offender's conduct, it should be indicated that no intentionality has been evidenced in CORIL ST's conduct with respect to the infringement under analysis;

65. In addition to the foregoing, it is appropriate to analyze the exculpatory and mitigating circumstances of liability established in article 257 of the TUO DE LA LPAG, as well as the mitigating and exculpatory conditions of liability established in articles 26 and 27 of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES;

66. With regard to the voluntary declaration of the commission of the infringement, the offender's contribution to its clarification and the correction made after its requirement, established in article 257°, numeral 2, subparagraph a) of the TUO DE LA LPAG and in article 26°, literals a), b) and c) of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES, it should be noted that CORIL ST acknowledged its responsibility for the infringement incurred expressly and in writing, in a precise, concise, clear, and unconditional manner, without ambiguous or contradictory expressions, and has not hindered their clarification and has informed the measures adopted to avoid incurring the same infringement. Likewise, it is observed that the claims submitted by the denunciante were addressed after the transfer of the denuncia to the administrator and prior to the start of this administrative sanctioning proceeding;

67. On the other hand, in accordance with the provisions of article 257, numeral 1 of the TUO DE LA LPAG and article 27 of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES, it is not observed that in this case any of the assumptions constituting exculpatory conditions of liability have been configured;

68. It should be noted that CORIL ST has corrected the observed infringement after, through Oficio N° 1598-2022-SMV/10.3, it was requested to prove the response to the claim submitted by the DENUNCIANTE, sending to this Superintendency, by letter received on 19 April 2022, the respective response provided by email to the DENUNCIANTE of the same date;

69. Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that CORIL ST has incurred one (1) serious infringement; therefore, in accordance with the provisions of article 34° of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES, the serious infringement is punishable by a fine of no less than twenty-five (25) UIT and up to fifty (50) UIT or with the suspension of the authorization of operation for up to twenty (20) days; however, to the extent that CORIL ST has acknowledged the commission of the infringement, it is appropriate to apply the provisions of article 26°, literals a), numeral 2 of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES, so the fine for infringements must range between 12.5 UIT and 25 UIT; that is, 50% of the range established for serious infringements;

70. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in accordance with the sanction criteria analyzed in application of the Principle of Reasonableness set forth in article 248°, numeral 3 of the TUO DE LA 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 CORIL ST a sanction corresponding to a classification lower than that provided for serious infractions, in accordance with the provisions of article 25, last paragraph, of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;

71. In this regard, considering the analysis carried out, it is appropriate to impose on CORIL ST, with respect to the infraction incurred, a sanction applicable to minor infractions, in accordance with the provisions of article 35° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;

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

RESOLVES:

Article 1°.- Declare that Grupo Coril Sociedad Titulizadora S.A. has incurred in one (01) infraction of a serious nature classified in Annex I, numeral 2, subsection 2.33 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 and its amending norms, for failing to respond in a timely manner to the COMPLAINANT's claim of 15 February 2021 within the period provided by article 3° of the “Norms applicable to complaints and claims against entities supervised by the Superintendency of the Securities Market - SMV” approved by SMV Resolution No. 006-2012-SMV-01.

Article 2°.- Sanction Grupo Coril Sociedad Titulizadora S.A. with a fine of one point five (1.5) UIT, equivalent to S/ 6 600.00 (Six thousand six hundred and 00/100 Soles) for the commission of the infraction referred to in article 1° of this resolution.

Article 3°.- 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 4°.- 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, in observance of the provisions of numeral 1, article 7° of the Policy on dissemination of regulatory projects, general legal norms, early agenda and other administrative acts of the SMV, approved by SMV Resolution No. 014-2014-SMV/01 and its amendment, and by the provisions of article 14° of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01.

Article 5°.- Transcribe this resolution to Grupo Coril Sociedad Titulizadora S.A. and the COMPLAINANT.

Register, communicate and publish.

Signed by: GUTIERREZ OCHOA Omar Darío Reason:

Omar Gutiérrez Ochoa
Deputy Superintendent
Deputy Superintendency of Prudential Supervision