PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance
SMV
Superintendency of the Market of 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"

SMV Deputy Superintendency Resolution

No. 029-2024-SMV/10

Lima, 10 June 2024

Summary: Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C, formerly a Collective Funds Management Company, is sanctioned with a fine of 25.1 UIT for having incurred three (03) infractions: i) one (01) of a very serious nature typified in Annex XIII, numeral 1, subparagraph 1.1., ii) one (01) of a serious nature typified in Annex XIII, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.13; and, iii) one (01) of a serious nature typified in Annex I, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, for having disposed of the resources of the collective fund for purposes other than those legally provided, for not having complied with delivering to the associate the awarded asset; and for having failed to deliver required information and/or documentation, respectively.

Administrated parties
:
Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C, formerly a Collective Funds Management Company.
Subject
:
Administrative sanctioning procedure
File No. : 2024016207

The Deputy Superintendent of Prudential Supervision

VIEWS:

Administrative file No. 2024016207, Report No. 630-2024-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Intendancy of Prudential Compliance, and the defenses presented by Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C, formerly a Collective Funds Management Company1 ; and,

CONSIDERING:

[1] By Superintendency Resolution No. 093-2023-SMV/02 dated 06 November 2023, it was resolved to revoke the operating authorization of Plan Rentable SAC as a Collective Funds Management Company. By Superintendency Resolution No. 012-2024-SMV/02 of 02 February 2024, the reconsideration appeal filed by Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. against Superintendency Resolution No. 093-2023-SMV/02 was declared unfounded,

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

I. Facts

2. On 30 April 2019, the COMPLAINANT2 entered into with Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. Former Collective Funds Management Company (hereinafter, PLAN RENTABLE) the Collective Funds Management Contract No. 6004-127-01, corresponding to the “Special Program Plan 60”, Group No. 6004, for the award of a purchase certificate of US$ 20,000.00 (Twenty thousand and 00/100 US dollars) (hereinafter, CONTRACT) 3 .

3. By document received on 10 January 2024, the COMPLAINANT filed a complaint before the Superintendency of the Securities Market (SMV) against PLAN RENTABLE4 , in which it states that the CONTRACT was awarded the purchase certificate, through the draw modality in assembly. Likewise, the COMPLAINANT maintains that despite being awarded, PLAN RENTABLE did not comply with delivering the purchase certificate to it. Instead, the COMPLAINANT points out, on 15 April 2020, the management company recorded a disbursement with delivery, with the number of the awarded CONTRACT, for the sum of US$ 18 218.40 (eighteen thousand two hundred eighteen with 40/100 US dollars). According to the COMPLAINANT, said disbursement was never informed to it, with the purpose that PLAN RENTABLE illicitly take advantage of said disbursement.

4. The COMPLAINANT attached as part of its complaint, a) copy of DNI of the legal representative of the COMPLAINANT, b) copy of the current account statements as of 26 June 2023, corresponding to Contracts No. 6004-170-01, No. 6004-152-01, No. 6004-149-01, No. 6004-063-02, No. 6004-019-02, it should be noted that the account statements previously cited are not linked to the CONTRACT.

5. By Official Letter No. 229-2024-SMV/10.3, notified on 18 January 2024 (hereinafter, OFFICIAL LETTER), the complaint filed by the COMPLAINANT was transferred to PLAN RENTABLE, so that it may submit the corresponding comments and it was requested, among other information, the following documentation and/or information:

“(…)

b. Indicate the current situation of the CONTRACT signed between your represented and the COMPLAINANT. In case said CONTRACT is in the status of resolved, indicate the causes and date of resolution of said contracts, considering that the associate would have the status of awarded associate.

c. Copy of the Award Record corresponding to the assembly in which the COMPLAINANT was favored with the award by draw or auction.

d. Copy of the document that accredits having communicated to the COMPLAINANT the result obtained in the assembly referred to in the previous literal, as well as the requirements to proceed with the delivery of the purchase certificate, subject of the contract.

[2] In the attached Annex the complete data of the natural persons to whom the denominations used in this resolution belong is detailed, and similarly, the address of the email addresses.

[3] It should be noted that the contract model was approved by Resolution of the General Intendancy of Supervision of Entities No. 146-2017-SMV/10.2 of 16 October 2017.

[4] File No. 2024001163.

e. Prove that the awarded purchase certificate was delivered to the COMPLAINANT, corresponding to the CONTRACT.

f. Copy of the account statements corresponding to the CONTRACT.

(…)

h. Report, if applicable, whether to date your represented has reached any conciliation and/or transaction with the Complainant.

i. Any other information and/or documentation that you consider pertinent to the case and that allows clarifying the denounced facts (…)”.

6. On 7 and 8 February 2024, PLAN RENTABLE sent to the SMV its comments and part of the information requested through the OFFICIAL LETTER. In that regard, PLAN RENTABLE submitted the following documentation, which forms part of the file: a) Copy of the CONTRACT, b) Copy of the Collective Fund Management Contracts No. 6004-063-02, 6004-149-02, 6004-152-01, 6004-170-01; c) Copy of the delivery receipt of the Contract Model, the Schedule and the Associate's Booklet corresponding to the CONTRACT; d) Copy of the Delivery Receipt of the Contract Model, the Schedule and the Booklet for the Associate corresponding to the Collective Fund Management Contracts No. 6004-063-02, No. 6004-149-02, No. 6004-152-01 and No. 6004-170-01; e) Copy of the Delivery Receipt of the Contract, Welcome Letter, Payment Card, CONTRACT Due Date Schedule; f) Copy of the Delivery Receipt of the Contract, Welcome Letter, Payment Card, Due Date Schedule of the Collective Fund Management Contracts No. 6004-063-02, 6004-149-02, 6004-152-01, 6004-170-01.

7. By Official Letter No. 983-2024-SMV/10.3 (hereinafter, OFFICIAL LETTER 1) notified on 12 March 2024, PLAN RENTABLE was reiterated the request for information related to the complaint filed by the COMPLAINANT, in relation to the CONTRACT; among others, the comments on the reported facts, as well as additional information related to the evidence corresponding to the disbursement of the amount awarded in favor of the COMPLAINANT, for the acquisition of the asset.

8. It should be noted that, to date, PLAN RENTABLE has not responded to OFFICIAL LETTER 1.

9. As a result of the foregoing and pursuant to the provisions of the Single Ordered Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law, Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO DE LA LPAG), by Official Letter No. 1480-2024-SMV/10.3 (hereinafter, OFFICIAL LETTER OF CHARGES), notified on 15 April 2024, an administrative sanctioning procedure was initiated against PLAN RENTABLE, imputing charges for non-compliance with the regulations of the Collective Fund System;

10. By brief submitted on 23 April 2024, PLAN RENTABLE submitted its defenses to the charges imputed by the OFFICIAL LETTER OF CHARGES.

11. The charges formulated against PLAN RENTABLE, as well as the defenses submitted by said company, have been subject to evaluation in Report No. 630-2024-SMV/10.3, which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Deputy Superintendency;

12. In observance of the Principle of Due Process contemplated both in Article IV, numeral 1.2., of the Preliminary Title and in Article 248, paragraph 2, of the TUO DE LA LPAG, by Official Letter No. 2088-2024-SMV/10, the administrative file to which this resolution refers was made available to PLAN RENTABLE for its review;

II. Issues to Determine

13. In this administrative procedure, in the opinion of this Deputy Superintendency of Prudential Supervision, it is appropriate to determine the following:

a. Whether PLAN RENTABLE incurred or not in an infraction set forth in Annex XIII, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.13 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), for failing to deliver the awarded asset.

b. Whether PLAN RENTABLE incurred or not in an infraction set forth in Annex XIII, numeral 1, subparagraph 1.1 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for having used the resources of the collective fund for purposes other than those legally provided.

c. Whether PLAN RENTABLE incurred or not in an infraction set forth in Annex I, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.1 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for failing to deliver documentation and/or information required.

d. Whether or not it is appropriate to impose a sanction on PLAN RENTABLE;

III. Analysis

3.1 Applicable regulations

A. ON THE NON-DELIVERY OF THE ASSET AND/OR PROVISION OF THE SERVICE AFTER THE AWARD

14. Regarding the CONTRACT, Article 21 of the Regulation of the Collective Fund System and its Management Companies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 020-2014-SMV-01 and its amendments (hereinafter, REGULATION) provides:

“Article 21.- Contract The Contract is of a private nature and has a collective character, regulates the relations between the Associates and the Management Company, and in it the rights and obligations of both parties are established; its content is governed by the provisions of Article 95 of the Regulation. (…)”. (Underline added);

15. In relation to the award, Article 108 of the REGULATION establishes the following:

“Article 108.- Awards The award is the mechanism through which the Associate accesses the right to obtain an asset and/or service or a purchase certificate that will be used for the acquisition of an asset and/or service. The awards are given at each Assembly and are of the following types:

a) Award by draw;

(…) The Associates who are awarded must comply with the provisions of Articles 117 and 119 of the Regulation and with the payment of the remaining Quotas.”

16. Additionally, Article 119 of the Regulation indicates the following:

“Article 119 Guarantees for the delivery of the asset and/or service The Management Company must verify, prior to the delivery of the asset and/or provision of the service, that (i) the Associate constitutes sufficient real and/or personal guarantees in accordance with the guarantee policy established in the Program; (ii) that it is up to date with its payments; and, (iii) that it has complied with the other contractual and regulatory requirements. The guarantees presented by the Associate must cover at least the balance of the debt owed to the Collective Fund. (…) If the Awarded Associate has complied with the obligations set forth in the contract and the Administrator does not proceed to make the payment on account or cancellation of the good and/or service, for reasons attributable to it, with its resources, it must pay in favor of the Associate a sum not less than one-thirtieth of the respective current Capital Quota, for each day of delay incurred, counted from the day following the term established in the Contract.”

17. In relation to the delivery of the certificate or delivery of the good and/or service, numeral 4.0 of the CONTRACT establishes the following:

“4.0 Communication of award and initiation of delivery procedure: PLAN RENTABLE within the three (03) business days following the award assembly, shall communicate to the associates who have been awarded the results obtained therein, indicating the documents and procedures necessary to finalize the delivery of the purchase certificate; furthermore, Plan Rentable must verify prior to the delivery of the good and/or provision of the service that:

a. The associate constitutes sufficient real and/or personal guarantees in accordance with the guarantee policy established in the program.

b. That they are up to date with their payments; and

c. That they have fulfilled other contractual and regulatory requirements The guarantees presented by the associate must cover at least the balance of the debt owed to the collective fund.

The awarded associate, within thirty (30) days after being notified of their award, must communicate to Plan Rentable the choice of the good and/or service selected, including the name of the supplier and the characteristics of the good and/or services to be acquired; in the case of real estate, the associate must communicate the choice of the property within sixty days after their award; if the established deadlines are not met, the award shall be annulled. Likewise, the associate must present a proposal for the granting of guarantees with the corresponding documentation for evaluation by Plan Rentable. (…) If the awarded associate has complied with the obligations set forth in the contract and Plan Rentable does not proceed to make the payment on account or cancellation of the good and/or service, for reasons attributable to it, with its resources, it must pay in favor of the associate a sum not less than one-thirtieth of the respective current capital quota, for each day of delay incurred, counted from the day following the completion of the twenty (20) business days after the guarantee proposal made by the associate.

Plan Rentable is obligated to pay the supplier of the good and/or service the amount stated in the purchase certificate according to the modality chosen by the associate and described in clauses 3.11 and 3.13, and provided that it has complied to its satisfaction with the procedure established therein. If there is no communication from the associate and that is described in clauses 3.11 and 3.13, and provided that it has complied to its satisfaction with the procedure established therein. If there is no communication from the associate or if the procedure established in clauses 3.11 and 3.13 has not been successfully completed, Plan Rentable shall annul the award.

It being understood that the term the associate has to comply with the constitution of the required guarantees is three (03) months.”(Underline added)

18. In accordance with the foregoing, article 121 of the Regulation states the following:

“Article 121.- Acquisition of the good and/or service for delivery to the awarded Associate

The Administrator may only make payment to suppliers for the good and/or service subject of the Contract, after the requirements established in the Contract and the Regulation have been formally fulfilled by the Awarded Associate.

(…)

All payments must be duly documented and receipts must be issued in the name of the Associate.”

19. Additionally, clause 7.3 of the CONTRACT establishes:

“7.3 THE ASSOCIATE HAS THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS:

a) Receive the purchase certificate, once awarded and having granted the corresponding guarantees and fulfilled the established contractual requirements.

(…)”

B. ON THE IRREGULAR DISBURSEMENT OF THE RESOURCES OF THE COLLECTIVE FUND CORRESPONDING TO THE AMOUNT OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE SUBJECT OF THE AWARDED CONTRACT.

20. In this regard, it should be noted that article 10 of Decree Law No. 22014 as amended by Law No. 27659 (hereinafter, LAW), establishes the following:

“Article 10.- The Collective Fund is an autonomous patrimony formed by the periodic monetary contributions, called capital quotas, made by the associates of a group in order to acquire a good and/or a service. Such funds, as well as the goods obtained through their application, do not constitute patrimony of the Company Administrating Collective Funds.

(…)

The Collective Fund is intangible, understood as such the exclusive use that must be given to the resources collected by the group, for the acquisition of the goods and/or services indicated in the contract and/or the return of contributions to the associates, when applicable.” (…) (Underline added).

21. Likewise, article 89 of the REGULATION establishes:

“Article 89.- Collective Fund The resources and assets of the Collective Fund are intangible, they cannot be subject to any judicial measure or lien. They are destined exclusively for the acquisition of the goods and/or payment of services provided by the supplier, which are indicated in the Contract and for the return of contributions to the Associates, when applicable. (Underline added)”

C. ON THE DOCUMENTATION AND/OR INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM PLAN RENTABLE IN RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT FILED

22. Article 54 of the REGULATION establishes:

“Article 54.- Supervision and Control The Administrator must provide the SMV officials with the documentation, books, records, or other information required during inspections and other supervision and control actions. Consequently, the Administrator is prohibited from carrying out any action that may hinder, delay or impede the supervision and control actions of the SMV”;

3.2 Charges

A. ON THE NON-DELIVERY OF THE GOOD AND/OR PROVISION OF THE SERVICE AFTER THE AWARD

23. According to what is indicated in the complaint, the COMPLAINANT states that the CONTRACT was awarded through the lottery modality and that despite being awarded, PLAN RENTABLE did not comply with delivering the purchase certificate;

24. In this regard, through the OFFICIAL LETTER, PLAN RENTABLE was requested to make the respective comments and defense arguments, as well as, among others, to prove having communicated to the COMPLAINANT the result obtained in the award assembly, the requirements to proceed with the delivery of the purchase certificate, as well as to prove the delivery to the COMPLAINANT of the awarded purchase certificate. However, to date, PLAN RENTABLE has not responded to these requests;

25. Additionally, in response to the OFFICIAL LETTER, PLAN RENTABLE stated the following:

“(…) we must point out that we are in conversations with the associate in order to finalize a solution to their generated inconvenience, but we must also point out that we currently have the license revoked and we will initiate the liquidation of the groups in order to be able to deliver the money of the resolved contracts.” (Underline added).

26. It should be added that through OFFICIAL LETTER 1, PLAN RENTABLE was reiterated the information requested through the OFFICIAL LETTER; however, as of the date of this Resolution, it has not been answered by PLAN RENTABLE;

27. Now, it must be specified that according to article 108 of the REGULATION and the CONTRACT5, through the award the associate,

[5] “Glossary

accesses the right to obtain a purchase certificate for the acquisition of a good and/or service. In this sense, according to what is indicated by the COMPLAINANT, PLAN RENTABLE would not have applied the awarded purchase certificate for the acquisition of the good and/or service that would have been chosen by the COMPLAINANT;

28. It must be indicated that from the review of the information sent by PLAN RENTABLE to the SMV, through the “Award File (ADJ)”, registered in the SMV collective funds information systems 6 and consulted for the period from 1 January 2018 to 4 April 2024, it was verified in relation to the CONTRACT, that the award date was in the assembly of 03 May 2019 under the lottery modality;

29. In this context, taking into account that in relation to the CONTRACT the COMPLAINANT had the status of awarded associate, the process established in the CONTRACT should be carried out to finalize the delivery of the good and/or service, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 4 of the CONTRACT and article 108 of the REGULATION and once the procedure was completed and the requirements met, PLAN RENTABLE was obliged to finalize said delivery, in accordance with the provisions also in numeral 4 of the CONTRACT and articles 119 and 121 of the REGULATION;

30. In this order of ideas, PLAN RENTABLE has not pronounced on the matter, despite the complaint being transferred to it and documents related to it being requested. On the contrary, in its response, PLAN RENTABLE stated that (…) we must point out that we are in conversations with the associate in order to finalize a solution to their generated inconvenience, (…);

31. That is, from the response of PLAN RENTABLE it follows that the delivery of the good and/or service to the COMPLAINANT would not have been finalized due to causes attributable to PLAN RENTABLE, given that in the complaint it is expressly stated that PLAN RENTABLE would not have complied with delivering the Purchase Certificate;

32. In addition to this, it must be taken into account that prior to its complaint, on 12 December 2023 the COMPLAINANT went to the SMV Investor Ombudsman (hereinafter, INVESTOR OMBUDSMAN) indicating, among others, that it would have been awarded by the CONTRACT and that PLAN RENTABLE did not deliver the vehicle, so the INVESTOR OMBUDSMAN initiated a dialogue space that was not answered by PLAN RENTABLE. Subsequently, on 22 December 2023 the COMPLAINANT attempted to file a complaint through the INVESTOR OMBUDSMAN indicating among others, that PLAN RENTABLE had not delivered its purchase certificate for the CONTRACT;

33. However, on 29 December 2023, the COMPLAINANT presented before the INVESTOR OMBUDSMAN a withdrawal letter in which it informed that it reached an agreement with PLAN RENTABLE, who, according to the COMPLAINANT, committed to deliver the Certificate of

[1] Award: Mechanism through which with the intervention of a public notary, the associate accesses the right to obtain a good and/or service. (…)”

[…] (…)

[8] Purchase Certificate: Document that represents the right of the associate to the application of the amount consigned in it for the acquisition of a good.”

[6] According to what is indicated in the “Manual of Technical Specifications for the remission to the SMV of information of the companies administering collective funds” approved by Superintendent Resolution No. 102-2016-SMV/02.

Purchase awarded by the CONTRACT for US$ 20,000.00, on 5 January 2024; also indicating that in the event that PLAN RENTABLE does not comply with said agreement it would go to the SMV attaching its complaint to assert its request;

34. Notwithstanding this, it should be noted that although in the Associates' Guarantee File (GAR) and in the Goods or Services Delivery File (ENT), registered in the SMV's collective funds information systems and consulted for the period from 1 January 2018 to 4 April 2024, PLAN RENTABLE informed the SMV that on 29 October 2019 the associate made delivery to PLAN RENTABLE of the duly constituted guarantee (GAR File) and that from May 2019 to October 2019 the status of the CONTRACT was "awarded", from November 2019 to October 2020, it was "Advance payment to supplier"; and that from November 2020 to September 2023, the status was "Good delivered to associate", specifying 2 November 2020 as the date of delivery to the associate (ENT File); as indicated above, in its response to the complaint PLAN RENTABLE did not confirm the associate's status as awarded with goods or services delivered as presented in the ENT file, nor did it submit the evidentiary means to prove it;

35. Likewise, in the information sent by PLAN RENTABLE to the General Superintendence of Entity Supervision (IGSE) on 12 December 2023, with data as of 6 November 20237, the CONTRACT has the status of valid, awarded; but with the status of the good – in which it should have indicated whether the associate has the good delivered or pending delivery – "blank"; that is, PLAN RENTABLE did not state that the good was delivered to the COMPLAINANT, which, together with PLAN RENTABLE's response, would indicate that such delivery would not have been completed;

36. Consequently, PLAN RENTABLE was charged with allegedly failing to comply with the provisions of article 119 of the REGULATION, as well as with numerals 4 and 7.3, literal a) of the CONTRACT, by not having complied with the delivery of goods and/or services in relation to the CONTRACT. Therefore, PLAN RENTABLE would have incurred one (1) infraction classified as serious, in accordance with Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.13 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infraction: "Failure to comply with the delivery of the awarded goods, within the term established in the contract, to the associates who have complied with constituting the required guarantees and other requirements established in the Regulation and in the contract";

B. ON THE IRREGULAR DISBURSEMENT OF RESOURCES FROM THE COLLECTIVE FUND CORRESPONDING TO THE AMOUNT OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE SUBJECT TO THE COMPLAINANT'S AWARDED CONTRACT.

37. The COMPLAINANT stated that on 15 April 2020, PLAN RENTABLE recorded a disbursement with delivery, with the CONTRACT number, for the sum of US$ 18,218.40 (eighteen thousand two hundred eighteen with 40/100 US dollars). According to the COMPLAINANT, said disbursement was never informed to him, so that PLAN RENTABLE could unlawfully take advantage of said disbursement;

38. It should be noted that by means of the OFFICIAL LETTER, PLAN RENTABLE was requested to make its comments and defense arguments, among others, regarding

[7] Response to the request made by means of Official Letter No. 5420-2023-SMV/10.2 – Annex 1, related to the liquidation of the groups that Plan Rentable had been administering.

to what was indicated by the COMPLAINANT; and in response to the OFFICIAL LETTER, PLAN RENTABLE indicated the following:

(…) we must point out that we are in conversations with the associate in order to reach a solution to the inconvenience generated (…)

39. On the other hand, through OFFICIAL LETTER 1, PLAN RENTABLE was reiterated the requirements made through the OFFICIAL LETTER, as well as, if applicable, the supporting documents corresponding to the disbursement of the amount awarded in favor of the COMPLAINANT for the acquisition of the good or service. However, to date PLAN RENTABLE has not responded to the aforementioned official letter;

40. In this regard, it must be taken into account that the complaint in which the aforementioned facts are indicated was forwarded to PLAN RENTABLE and in response to said forwarding, PLAN RENTABLE acknowledged that it had generated inconveniences for the COMPLAINANT, which would in principle imply that said reported facts would have been carried out;

41. Likewise, it must be taken into account that on 22 December 2023, prior to the complaint filed, the COMPLAINANT attempted to file a complaint through the INVESTOR OMBUDSMAN indicating, among others, that regarding its awarded contract, PLAN RENTABLE registered a disbursement in favor of a person other than the holder for US$ 18,218.40 (Eighteen thousand two hundred eighteen with 40/100 US dollars) on 15 April 2020. However, on 29 December 2023, it submitted to the INVESTOR OMBUDSMAN a withdrawal letter in which it informed that it had reached an agreement with PLAN RENTABLE, who, according to the COMPLAINANT, undertook to deliver the Purchase Certificate awarded by the CONTRACT for US$ 20,000 (Twenty thousand with/100 US dollars) on 5 January 2024; stating that if PLAN RENTABLE fails to comply with said agreement, it would go to the SMV attaching its complaint to assert its claim;

42. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it should be added that from the information sent by PLAN RENTABLE to the SMV, which contains the Associates Guarantee File (GAR) and the Delivery of Goods or Services File (ENT), it is observed that PLAN RENTABLE reported that the COMPLAINANT did establish a real guarantee in favor of PLAN RENTABLE, on the awarded good or service (GAR File), as well as the payments to the supplier that as of 31 January 2020 amounted to US$ 13,781.60, as of 31 March 2020 to US$ 1,781.60, and as of 31 October 2020 to US$ 20,000.00, amounts that correspond to the value of the certificate that was awarded and to the value of the good or service to be acquired;

43. Likewise, on 2 November 2020 PLAN RENTABLE reported that it made the delivery of the good or service to the COMPLAINANT (ENT File). However, PLAN RENTABLE in its response to the complaint did not confirm the COMPLAINANT's situation as an adjudicated party with the good or service delivered, nor did it present the requested payment receipts that it would have made in favor of the COMPLAINANT for the acquisition of the supposedly delivered good. On the contrary, subsequently, in the information sent to IGSE on 12 December 2023, PLAN RENTABLE reported that the CONTRACT has the status of valid, and with the situation of the good - in which it should have indicated whether the associate has the good delivered or pending delivery - "blank";

44. Consequently, it follows in principle that PLAN RENTABLE would have made a disbursement for the amount corresponding to the purchase certificate subject of the CONTRACT, which ultimately was not directed in favor of the COMPLAINANT, considering that this is the information sent by PLAN RENTABLE itself;

45. This, together with the foregoing, that is, the response of PLAN RENTABLE, as well as the facts alleged by the COMPLAINANT, would indicate that the use of the disbursement for the amount corresponding to the purchase certificate subject of the awarded CONTRACT would not have followed its ordinary course and therefore the resources of the collective fund would have been used for purposes other than those corresponding in accordance with the applicable regulations;

46. From the foregoing, considering that the resources of the collective fund must be used exclusively for the acquisition of the goods and/or services indicated in the Contract and/or return of contributions to associates, when applicable, PLAN RENTABLE would not have complied with the provisions of article 10 of Decreto Ley N° 22014 and article 89 of the REGLAMENTO, by not allocating the resources of the collective fund it administers for the purposes indicated in the CONTRACT and the REGLAMENTO;

47. Therefore, PLAN RENTABLE would have incurred one (1) infraction classified as very serious, in accordance with Annex XIII, numeral 1, subsection 1.1 of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES, according to which it constitutes an infraction: "To dispose of the resources of the fund and give it a use different from the one legally corresponding";

C. ON THE DOCUMENTATION AND/OR INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM PLAN RENTABLE IN RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT FILED

48. Within the framework of the preliminary inquiries carried out in response to the complaint filed by the COMPLAINANT, through the OFICIO, notified to PLAN RENTABLE on 18 January 2024, PLAN RENTABLE was required to send information for the evaluation of said complaint, within a period of seven (7) business days counted from the day following the notification of the OFICIO. However, once the granted period ended, PLAN RENTABLE submitted only information regarding literal a) of the OFICIO, referring to the copy of the CONTRACT;

49. Subsequently, through OFICIO 1, notified on 12 March 2024, PLAN RENTABLE was reiterated the request for missing information related to the complaint filed by the COMPLAINANT; as well as additional information, related to the receipts corresponding to the disbursement of the amount awarded in favor of the COMPLAINANT, for the acquisition of the good. For which, a period of five (5) business days counted from the day following the notification of OFICIO 1 was granted, which expired on 19 March 2024. However, to date PLAN RENTABLE has not complied with presenting the required information;

50. In this regard, it should be noted that according to article 54 of the REGLAMENTO, the administering companies are obliged to provide to the officials of the SMV the information required during inspections and other supervision and control actions, such as preliminary inquiries in response to the filing of a complaint before the SMV;

51. Therefore, PLAN RENTABLE would not have complied with observing the provisions of article 54 of the REGLAMENTO, since it did not comply with presenting the required information, as previously indicated, despite the fact that said documentation and/or information was requested on more than one occasion by the SMV;

52. It should be added that the failure to deliver information by PLAN RENTABLE has prevented having more information about the investigated facts, thus hindering the fulfillment of the functions attributed to the SMV as regulator of the collective funds system;

53. In that sense, PLAN RENTABLE was charged with having incurred one (1) infraction classified as serious, in accordance with Annex I, numeral 2, subsection 2.1 of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES, according to which it constitutes an infraction: "Not presenting, denying or delaying the delivery of books, documents and other information required by the SMV during inspections or preliminary inquiries or any other oversight activity, not granting the facilities that the SMV requests in the execution of the supervision and control actions it orders; as well as presenting documentation, with the purpose of delaying the procedure, or not making available to the SMV the documentation to which they are obliged or in any other way obstructing the supervision and control actions";

3.3 Defenses

54. PLAN RENTABLE states that it acknowledges the commission of the imputed facts, that they are true and valid, that it submits to what is determined in that regard and assumes its responsibility. It indicates that the facts subject to the charge were the result of past managements, and that the new administration only assumed assets and liabilities, but did not participate in it;

3.4 Evaluation of the defenses

55. In this regard, it should be noted that the acknowledgment of administrative responsibility by PLAN RENTABLE to the imputed charges was made expressly and in writing submitted to the SMV on 23 April 2024;

56. This acknowledgment of responsibility is in accordance with article 26, literal a) of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES. Therefore, said acknowledgment will be taken into consideration at the time of evaluating the sanction to be imposed;

57. It is necessary to point out that PLAN RENTABLE, at the date of the commission of the facts, had operating authorization granted by the SMV, being aware of the regulations under which the collective funds system operates, as well as the rights and obligations established in the contracts it administers;

A. ON THE NON-DELIVERY OF THE GOOD AND/OR PROVISION OF THE SERVICE AFTER THE AWARD

58. With regard to this charge, the COMPLAINANT stated that, despite being awarded, PLAN RENTABLE did not comply with delivering the purchase certificate to him. In that sense, according to what was stated by the COMPLAINANT, PLAN RENTABLE would not have applied the awarded purchase certificate for the acquisition of the good that would have been chosen by the COMPLAINANT, that is, PLAN RENTABLE would not have delivered the awarded good to him;

59. In this regard, it should be noted that the CONTRACT was awarded in the assembly of 03 May 20198 , under the lottery modality. Therefore, the COMPLAINANT had the status of awarded associate; and thus, PLAN RENTABLE was obliged to deliver the good and/or provide the service object of the CONTRACT to the COMPLAINANT, after the respective procedure was completed and the corresponding requirements were met, in accordance with the provisions of the REGLAMENTO and the CONTRACT;

60. In this sense, through the OFICIO, PLAN RENTABLE was requested to present its comments regarding what was stated by the COMPLAINANT, as well as documentation related to the complaint. However, PLAN RENTABLE did not present the required documentation, except for the copy of the CONTRACT, and indicated that “(…) we must point out that we are in conversations with the associate in order to reach a solution to the inconvenience generated (…).” Likewise, PLAN RENTABLE did not respond to OFICIO 1, through which, among others, the requirements made through the OFICIO were reiterated;

61. Additionally, it should be noted that, according to what was stated in the writing of 23 April 2023, PLAN RENTABLE expressly accepted as true and valid the facts imputed as charges, so that it has acknowledged that the delivery of the good to the COMPLAINANT, corresponding to the CONTRACT, was not completed, for causes attributable to PLAN RENTABLE;

62. Therefore, according to the foregoing and the provisions of the REGLAMENTO and the CONTRACT, it has been proven that PLAN RENTABLE did not comply with delivering the good to the COMPLAINANT, with regard to the CONTRACT, since the COMPLAINANT had acquired the right after the award, causing the COMPLAINANT to be unable to apply his purchase certificate for the acquisition of the good of his choice;

63. Consequently, PLAN RENTABLE incurred one (1) infraction classified as serious, in accordance with Annex XIII, numeral 2, subsection 2.13 of the REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES;

B. ON THE IRREGULAR DISBURSEMENT OF RESOURCES FROM THE COLLECTIVE FUND CORRESPONDING TO THE AMOUNT OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE OBJECT OF THE AWARDED CONTRACT OF THE COMPLAINANT.

64. Regarding this charge, it should be noted that the COMPLAINANT indicated that on 15 April 2020, PLAN RENTABLE registered a disbursement with delivery with the number of the CONTRACT, for the sum of US$ 18 218.40 (Eighteen thousand two hundred eighteen and 40/100 American dollars), in order for PLAN RENTABLE to illicitly take advantage of said disbursement;

65. In this sense, PLAN RENTABLE was requested, through the OFICIO, among others, for comments and defense arguments regarding what was denounced by the COMPLAINANT, giving as a response that “(…) we must point out that we are in conversations with the associate in order to reach a solution to the inconvenience generated (…).” In that context, through OFICIO 1, the requirements made through the OFICIO were reiterated to PLAN RENTABLE, as well as,

[8] According to the Award File (ADJ) information submitted by PLAN RENTABLE to the SMV. According to what is stated in the “Manual de Especificaciones Técnicas para la remisión a la SMV de información de las empresas administradoras de fondos colectivos” approved by Superintendente Resolution No. 102-2016-SMV/02.

if applicable, the proofs corresponding to the disbursement of the amount awarded in favor of the COMPLAINANT for the acquisition of the good or service. However, it did not provide a response to OFICIO 1;

66. Likewise, in the information submitted by PLAN RENTABLE to the SMV, through the GAR File and the ENT File, it was observed that PLAN RENTABLE reported that the COMPLAINANT came to constitute a real guarantee in favor of PLAN RENTABLE on the awarded good, and even reported that as of 31 October 2020 THEY CAME to pay the supplier the amount of US$ 20,000.00, corresponding to the value of the awarded purchase certificate;

67. Also, on 2 November 2020, through the ENT File, PLAN RENTABLE reported that it made the delivery of the good or service to the COMPLAINANT. However, subsequently, on 12 December 2023, it informed the IGSE that the CONTRACT has the status of valid and with the situation of the good - in which it should have indicated whether the associate has the good delivered or pending delivery - “blank”;

68. Now, it is necessary to state that, in accordance with what was stated in the writing of 23 April 2023, PLAN RENTABLE acknowledged as true and valid the facts imputed as charges, so it has acknowledged that PLAN RENTABLE made a disbursement for an amount corresponding to the awarded purchase certificate, and that it was not in favor of the COMPLAINANT. Likewise, with this, it acknowledged that the use of the amount corresponding to said disbursement did not follow its legal course and therefore PLAN RENTABLE disposed of the resources of the collective fund for purposes other than those corresponding in accordance with the applicable regulations;

69. Consequently, in accordance with the foregoing, it has been established that PLAN RENTABLE made a disbursement in the sum of US$ 18 218.40 (Eighteen thousand two hundred eighteen and 40/100 US dollars), corresponding to the purchase certificate subject of the awarded CONTRACT, which was not in favor of the COMPLAINANT, and in that sense PLAN RENTABLE used the resources of the collective fund for purposes other than those corresponding in accordance with the LAW and the REGULATION;

70. Therefore, PLAN RENTABLE incurred one (1) infraction classified as very serious, in accordance with Annex XIII, numeral 1, subparagraph 1.1 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;

C. ON THE DOCUMENTATION AND/OR INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM PLAN RENTABLE IN RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT FILED

71. Regarding this charge, it should be noted that by means of the OFFICIAL LETTER, notified on 18 January 2024, PLAN RENTABLE was requested to submit information for the evaluation of the complaint. However, once the granted period ended, PLAN RENTABLE submitted only partial information, referring to the copy of the CONTRACT;

72. Subsequently, by means of OFFICIAL LETTER 1, notified on 12 March 2024; and whose granted period expired on 19 March 2024, PLAN RENTABLE was reminded of the request for information not submitted and additional information was also requested. However, PLAN RENTABLE did not respond to this request and therefore did not comply with submitting the requested information, among others, the current status of the CONTRACT; a copy of the document proving that the COMPLAINANT was informed of the result obtained in the assembly in which the COMPLAINANT was favored with the award by drawing lots, as well as the requirements to proceed with the delivery of the good and/or provision of the service, subject of the CONTRACT; and a copy of the account statements corresponding to the CONTRACT;

73. Based on the foregoing, it has been established that PLAN RENTABLE did not comply with observing the provisions of article 54 of the REGULATION, since it did not comply with submitting the requested information, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, despite being requested on more than one occasion;

74. Consequently, PLAN RENTABLE incurred one (1) infraction classified as serious, in accordance with Annex I, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.1 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;

IV. Evaluation of the sanction

75. In accordance with article 7 of Decreto Ley N° 21907 on Collective Fund Enterprises, modified by Ley N° 276599 and article 25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION; in accordance with article 248, numeral 3 10 of the Single Ordered Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law, Ley N°27444, approved by Decreto Supremo N°004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO DE LA LPAG) and article 257 of the aforementioned normative body; the administrative sanctions to be imposed must take into account the criteria set forth by Decreto Ley N° 21907, the SANCTIONS REGULATION and the TUO DE LA LPAG;

76. Within that framework, the evaluation of the sanction must consider: a) Offender's background; b) Recidivism11; 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 harm to the public interest and/or protected legal interest; h) Existence or not of intentionality in the offender's conduct;

77. In that sense, in order to reconcile the criteria of the TUO DE LA LPAG with those indicated in Decreto Ley N° 21907 and in the SANCTIONS REGULATION, and for these criteria to be considered

[9] By means of Ley N° 27659, article 7° of Decreto Ley N° 21907 was modified, providing that collective fund management companies that contravene the provisions of said decree or the regulatory norms issued by the SMV shall be sanctioned taking into consideration the offender's background, the circumstances of the commission of the infraction, the harm caused and its impact on the market.

[10] "Article 248.- Principles of administrative sanctioning power The sanctioning power of all entities is additionally governed by the following special principles: (…) 3. Reasonableness.- Authorities must foresee that the commission of the sanctionable conduct does not prove more advantageous for the offender than complying with the infringed norms or assuming the sanction. However, the sanctions to be applied must be proportional to the non-compliance classified 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 harm to the public interest and/or protected legal interest; d) The economic harm caused; e) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infraction within the period 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 offender's conduct".

[11] The sanction criteria referring to Recidivism and the Probability of detection of the infraction were introduced by article 2° of Decreto Legislativo N° 1272 which modified, among others, article 230°; numeral 3 of Ley N° 27444, General Administrative Procedure Law.

adequately so that their assessment observes the principle of reasonableness and the sanction to be imposed adapts to these, the following criteria are analyzed;

78. Regarding the background, it should be noted that in accordance with article 25, literal a) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, final sanctions imposed by the SMV within the period of four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned constitute background, and the commission of the same infraction in the year prior to the infraction to be sanctioned is not considered background;

79. In this regard, from the review carried out in said period, it has been verified that PLAN RENTABLE records the following sanction antecedents:

ANTECEDENTS FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND CHARGES
No.	RESOLUTION	RESOLVED	FINALITY
1	RSASP No. 105-2017	PLAN RENTABLE S.A.C. EAFC is sanctioned with five (05) warnings and a fine of 6 UIT, for having incurred seven (07) minor infractions typified in Annex XIV, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulations, for failing to submit periodic information within the term established in the applicable regulations.	23/11/2017
ANTECEDENTS FOR THE THIRD CHARGE
No.	RESOLUTION	RESOLVED	FINALITY
1	RSASP No. 017-2021	PLAN RENTABLE Perú S.A.C. EAFC is sanctioned with four (04) warnings and a fine of 15.80 UIT for having incurred eleven (11) minor infractions typified in Annex XIV, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1 of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS and in three (3) minor infractions typified in Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1, of the NEW SANCTIONS REGULATIONS, for having FAILED TO COMPLY with submitting periodic information within the term established by the applicable regulations	19/12/2023
2	RSASP No. 054-2021	PLAN RENTABLE PERÚ S.A.C. EAFC is sanctioned with six (06) warnings and a fine of 21.42 UIT for having incurred eleven (11) minor infractions typified in Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1, of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS, for failing to submit periodic information within the term established by the applicable regulations, corresponding to interim financial information, audited, management reports, and annual report.	19/12/2023

3	RSASP No. 048-2019	Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos is sanctioned with 40 UIT for having incurred two (02) very serious infractions typified in Annex XIV, numeral 1, subparagraphs 1.1 and 1.7 and in one (01) serious infraction typified in Annex XIV, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.28 of the Sanctions Regulations, for having made improper use of the collective fund's resources by using the associates' money for purposes other than those permitted, for failing to remedy within the granted term the equity deficit and for failing to have prior authorization to carry out a transfer of shares, respectively.	19/12/2023
4	RSASP No. 005-2024	PLAN RENTABLE Perú S.A.C. former Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos is sanctioned with 27 UIT for having incurred eight (08) infractions: two (02) of a very serious nature typified in Annex I, numeral 1, subparagraphs 1.15 and 1.16; in four (4) serious typified in Annex I, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.2 and 2.26 and Annex XIII, numeral 2, subparagraph 2.3; and in two (02) minor typified in Annex I, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.6 and Annex XIII, numeral 3, subparagraph 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulations, this i) for directly maintaining persons who have some impediment in accordance with the regulations; ii) for not having the minimum net equity established; iii) for not preparing, in accordance with the rules that regulate their preparation, the information to which they are obligated by the regulations; iv) for not updating their guarantees, v) for not complying with the Chart of Accounts of the Collective Fund (2); vi) for not presenting to the SMV, on the date of the agreement or the day after it is taken, a copy of the minutes and article of the bylaws referring to the modification of the company's share capital; and, vii) for not communicating those facts that entail a modification of the data in the registry file of the companies administering collective funds, respectively.	13/03/2024

80. 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 PLAN RENTABLE presents one (1) recidivism with respect to the third charge, which refers to not presenting the required information. It should be noted that said information was requested on more than one occasion by the SMV. Regarding the other charges, PLAN RENTABLE does not present recidivism. In this regard, from the review carried out in said period, the infraction taken into account for recidivism is the following:

RECIDIVISM OF THE THIRD CHARGE

1	RSASP No. 001-2022	Plan Rentable S.A.C. Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos is sanctioned with a fine of 4 UIT, for having incurred two serious infractions: one (01) typified in subparagraph 2.4 and another in subparagraph 2.1 of numeral 2 of Annex XIV of the Sanctions Regulations; for not keeping the accounting of the collective funds separately from the accounting of the company administering collective funds, and not preparing the financial statements in observance of the International Financial Reporting Standards; and not complying with providing information required to the SMV, respectively.	31/08/2023

81. With regard to the circumstances of the commission of the infractions, in its defenses PLAN RENTABLE stated that on the dates on which the denounced facts occurred, another general manager was the one who committed the errors, and that upon becoming aware, they called attention to what happened; and that they did not participate in it, but are correcting the errors committed. However, PLAN RENTABLE did not explain how the facts occurred with respect to the commission of the infractions;

82. In this regard, it should be mentioned that PLAN RENTABLE, at the date of the commission of the facts, had operating authorization granted by the SMV to carry out activities as a collective fund management company, so considering said condition, it knew and knows the rules that regulate the collective fund system and in that sense, the rules that oblige it to proceed with the delivery of the awarded goods and/or provision of services in accordance with the provisions of the REGLAMENTO and the terms established in the CONTRATO;

83. It should be noted that PLAN RENTABLE has the obligation to comply with the CONTRATO signed with the associate, which establishes the rights and obligations of both parties, whose model is authorized by the SMV, at the request of the administered party;

84. It should also be noted that PLAN RENTABLE knew and knows the rules that oblige it to use the resources of the funds it administers exclusively for the purposes established by the LAW and the REGULATION, as well as the obligation to comply with delivering the information and/or documentation required in the inquiries carried out by the SMV;

85. Notwithstanding the foregoing, PLAN RENTABLE committed three (3) violations, since it has been proven that it failed to deliver the awarded item in relation to the CONTRACT, disposed of the resources of the funds it administers for purposes other than those legally established, and failed to deliver the information required by the SMV;

86. Regarding the economic damage caused and the impact on the market, in the present case, it is evident that damage has been caused to the COMPLAINANT, since PLAN RENTABLE did not deliver the awarded item to the COMPLAINANT, causing the COMPLAINANT, being unable to have the item of their choice for which they entered into the CONTRACT; therefore, the lack of such availability did not allow the COMPLAINANT to make decisions regarding the use and destination of the item, thereby incurring an opportunity cost;

87. Likewise, PLAN RENTABLE acknowledged that it disposed of the resources of the collective fund under its administration to give them a use other than the legally corresponding one, so such action also caused direct damage to the COMPLAINANT as well as to confidence in the Collective Funds system in general, since these funds must be used exclusively, among other things, for the acquisition of items and/or payment of services provided by the supplier, which should have occurred in this case in favor of the COMPLAINANT's award;

88. This use of the funds for purposes other than those established could evidence a deficit in the collective fund, which could cause financial losses affecting the operability of the administered collective fund;

89. Additionally, by not having clarified the destination of the aforementioned disbursement, PLAN RENTABLE may have caused damage to the other members;

90. Regarding the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the violations, it must be noted that, taking into account that PLAN RENTABLE acknowledged that it disposed of the resources of the collective fund under its administration to give them a use other than the legally established one, given that it acknowledged that a disbursement was made for an amount corresponding to the CONTRACT that was not in favor of the COMPLAINANT, which was not used for the acquisition of the awarded item, resulting in the item, subject matter of the CONTRACT, not being delivered to them. This indicates that PLAN RENTABLE obtained an illicit benefit in its favor by committing said violations;

91. Regarding the probability of detection of the violations, it must be indicated that the facts constituting the violations committed by PLAN RENTABLE were evidenced when carrying out the respective inquiries and evaluating compliance with the applicable regulations in the performance of its functions, based on the facts set forth by the COMPLAINANT in the complaint filed against PLAN RENTABLE; therefore, the probability of detection of the violation was low;

92. Regarding the severity of the damage to the public interest and/or the protected legal interest, in the present case it has not been possible to prove that PLAN RENTABLE's conduct in committing the violations subject to analysis in this sanctioning proceeding caused determinable damage to the public interest;

93. Notwithstanding, it must be noted that pursuant to the provisions of the REGULATION, as well as the CONTRACT, administering companies have the obligation to deliver the item and/or provide the service awarded, of the member's choice, subject matter of the Collective Fund Administration Contract;

94. Similarly, pursuant to the provisions of the REGULATION, in accordance with what is established in the LAW, administering companies may only use the resources of the collective fund they administer for the acquisition of items and/or payment of services provided by the supplier, which are indicated in the Collective Fund Administration Contract, and for the return of contributions to the members, when applicable. Likewise, pursuant to Article 54 of the REGULATION, they have the obligation to forward all information and/or documentation required by the SMV;

95. Thus, taking into account that collective fund administering companies have the obligation to act in strict compliance with the regulations applicable to them, such as the provisions established in the REGULATION, in the CONTRACT and other applicable regulations for the safeguarding of the collective funds system, by transgressing said regulations, they affect the legal interest referred to the integrity of the market, that is, of the collective funds system; and in that sense, they affect the confidence of the members or potential members of the collective funds system. Likewise, the failure to forward the required information affects the supervision and control activities of the SMV, causing the legal interest referred to the protection of members and participants of the collective funds system to be violated;

96. Regarding the existence or not of intentionality in the offender's conduct, it must be noted with respect to the violation referring to the disposal of the resources of the collective fund and giving them a use other than the legally corresponding one, that taking into account that PLAN RENTABLE in its defense has acknowledged as true and valid the facts imputed as charges, this would demonstrate PLAN RENTABLE's intentionality in committing said violation;

97. In this sense, considering that PLAN RENTABLE failed to deliver the awarded asset, subject matter of the CONTRACT, to the COMPLAINANT, inasmuch as the disbursement of the amount corresponding to the purchase certificate of the CONTRACT was not destined in favor of the COMPLAINANT, but rather PLAN RENTABLE disposed of it for different purposes, this would demonstrate intentionality in the infringement referred to as failure to deliver the awarded asset;

98. In addition to the foregoing, for the first and second infringement, it must be taken into account that PLAN RENTABLE in the ENT File –which presents for each associate the delivery status of an awarded asset or service- informed the SMV that for the period from November 2019 to October 2020 the delivery status to the COMPLAINANT was “Advance payment to the supplier” with payments that as of 31 October 2020 amounted to US$ 20,000.00, an amount that corresponds to the value of the certificate that was awarded and to the value of the asset or service to be acquired. Likewise, from November 2020 to September 2023 they reported the status of: “Asset delivered to the associate”, specifying as delivery date 2 November 2020, which would also demonstrate the intentionality of PLAN RENTABLE in the commission of said infringements;

99. Likewise, regarding the infringement referred to as failure to deliver documentation and/or information requested from PLAN RENTABLE in connection with the complaint filed, it must be pointed out that PLAN RENTABLE, despite having been reiterated the request for pending information and/or documentation, failed to comply with said request in accordance with the detail of the charge imputed, which would demonstrate the intentionality of PLAN RENTABLE in the commission of the aforementioned infringement;

100. In addition to the above, it is appropriate to analyze the exculpatory and mitigating circumstances of liability established in article 25712

[12] “Article 257°.- Exculpatory and mitigating circumstances of liability for infringements 1.- The following constitute conditions exempting liability for infringements: a) Force majeure or fortuitous event duly proven. b) Acting in compliance with a legal duty or the legitimate exercise of the right of defense. c) Mental incapacity duly proven by the competent authority, provided that 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 rectification by the potential 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 paragraph 3) of article 255. 2.- The following constitute conditions mitigating liability for infringements: a) If, once a sanctioning administrative procedure has been initiated, the infringer expressly and in writing acknowledges their liability.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance SMV Superintendency of the Securities Market "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" Page 21 of 24 Electronic document digitally signed within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Signatures and Digital Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml of the TUO OF THE LPAG as well as the mitigating and exculpatory conditions of liability established in articles 26 and 27 of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS; 101. In relation to the voluntary declaration of the commission of the infraction and the contribution of the offender to its clarification, established in article 257, numeral 2, subsection a) and b) of the TUO of the LPAG and in article 26, literals a) and b) of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS, it must be noted that PLAN RENTABLE has acknowledged its responsibility for the infractions incurred expressly and in writing, within the term granted for the presentation of defenses, in a precise, concise, clear, express and unconditional manner, without ambiguous or contradictory expressions; 102. On the other hand, it is considered that PLAN RENTABLE has not contributed to the clarification of the infraction referring to the non-delivery of the asset and/or provision of the service after the award and to the disposal of the resources of the collective fund and giving them a use different from the one legally corresponding, given that although it acknowledged as true and valid the facts imputed as charges, it has not indicated since when the current administration of PLAN RENTABLE became aware of said facts, what actions were taken upon becoming aware of them, the reason why upon becoming aware the delivery of the asset to the COMPLAINANT was not carried out, as well as, it did not present the documents in which the disbursement of the amount corresponding to the purchase certificate, subject matter of the CONTRACT, is recorded. Likewise, it has not clarified the fact of why it did not comply with submitting the information required by the SMV; 103. For its part, it must be indicated that none of the infractions have been remedied after their requirement or the initiation of the administrative sanctioning procedure, nor prior to the initiation of the liquidation process of the collective fund currently under its charge; 104. On the other hand, it is not observed that in the present case any of the assumptions that constitute exempting conditions of liability indicated in article 27 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION have been configured; 105. From the foregoing, it is concluded that PLAN RENTABLE has incurred in two (2) infractions classified as serious in Annex XIII, numeral 2, subsection 2.13 and Annex I, numeral 2, subsection 2.1 and one (1)
infraction classified as very serious in Annex XIII, numeral 1, subsection 1.1 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION; 106. In accordance with article 29 13 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, when several conducts qualify as more than one infraction, the sanction corresponding to the most serious infraction is imposed; 107. Therefore, it corresponds to impose on PLAN RENTABLE a sanction corresponding to the infractions classified as very serious in accordance with article 37 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, so it would correspond to apply a fine greater than fifty (50) UIT up to one hundred (100) UIT. However, to the extent that 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 norm". 13 Article 29.- CONCURRENCE OF INFRACTIONS When the same conduct qualifies as more than one infraction, the sanction provided for the most serious infraction is applied. Likewise, when several conducts qualify as more than one infraction, the sanction corresponding to the most serious infraction is imposed.

PLAN RENTABLE has acknowledged the commission of the three (3) infractions, detailed above, it corresponds to apply the provisions of article 26, literal a) numeral 1, therefore, the fine for said infractions must fluctuate between 25 UIT and 50 UIT; that is, 50% of the range established for very serious infractions;

108. However, considering what was stated in the analyzed sanction criteria, and in application of the Principle of Reasonableness contemplated in article 248, numeral 3 of the TUO OF THE LPAG, this Deputy Superintendence does not find mitigating elements of the infractions committed, other than the acknowledgment of the infraction after having notified the letter of charges, so it is possible to impose on PLAN RENTABLE a sanction corresponding to the lower classification than that provided in accordance with the provisions of the last paragraph of article 25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;

109. 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 and its amendments;

RESOLVES:

Article 1.- Declare that Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C former Administrating Company of Collective Funds has incurred in one (1) infraction classified as very serious as established in Annex XIII, numeral 1, subsection 1.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for having disposed of the resources of the collective fund for purposes other than those legally provided.

Article 2.- Declare that Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C former Administrating Company of Collective Funds has incurred in one (1) infraction classified as serious as established in Annex XIII, numeral 2, subsection 2.13 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having complied with delivering to the associate the awarded asset.

Article 3.- Declare that Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C former Administrating Company of Collective Funds has incurred in one (1) infraction classified as serious as established in Annex I, numeral 2, subsection 2.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having complied with delivering documentation and/or information required.

Article 4.- Sanction Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C former Administrating Company of Collective Funds with a fine of 25.1UIT in force at the time of effective payment of the fine for the commission of the infractions referred to in articles 1, 2 and 3 of this resolution.

Article 5.- This resolution does not exhaust the administrative route, unless it is consented, and may be challenged before the Deputy Superintendence of Prudential Supervision through the filing of a reconsideration or appeal resource presented before it, 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 subject to challenge through a reconsideration or appeal resource within fifteen (15) business days of notification and becomes final, it must be published on the Institutional Page of the SMV 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 7.- Transcribe this resolution to Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C former Administrating Company of Collective Funds and to the COMPLAINANT.

Register, communicate and publish.

Omar Gutiérrez Ochoa
Deputy Superintendent
Deputy Superintendence of Prudential Supervision