Resolution of the Adjunct Superintendency of Prudential Supervision No. 011-2026-SMV/10 — SMV — PE

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV

Electronically signed document in the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

Adjunct Superintendency Resolution SMV
No. 011-2026-SMV/10

Lima, February 13, 2026

Summary: Mifondo Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A.C. is sanctioned with one (1) admonition for having committed one (1) serious infringement typified in Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation for failing to comply with the provisions of the collective fund administration contracts entered into with the associate, by not remitting to the associate payment receipts corresponding to the collective fund administration contract signed in accordance with applicable regulations.

Administered Entity: Mifondo Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A.C.
Subject: Administrative sanctioning procedure
File No.: 2025027161

The Adjunct Superintendent of Prudential Supervision

HAVING SEEN:

The administrative file No. 2025027161 and Report No. 1777-2025-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Superintendence of Prudential Compliance; as well as the defenses presented by Mifondo Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A.C.; and,

CONSIDERING:

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

Digitally Signed by:
GUTIERREZ
OCHOA Omar
Dario FAU
20131016396 soft
Date: 13/02/2026
14:09:31

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV

I. FACTS

On December 21, 2024, the COMPLAINANT1, signed with Mifondo Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A.C. (hereinafter, MIFONDO) the Collective Fund Administration Contract No. 002913 belonging to Group 004 of the "MiFondo-01" program, for the allocation of a purchase certificate for US$ 19,500.00 (Nineteen thousand five hundred and 00/100 US dollars) (hereinafter, CONTRACT);
By letter received on February 5, 2025, the COMPLAINANT filed a complaint with the Securities Market Superintendency (SMV) against MIFONDO2, in which it states, among other things, that MIFONDO never sent it the payment receipts for the payments made on December 21 and 24, 2024;
With Letter No. 1192-2025-SMV/10.3, notified on March 3, 2025 (hereinafter, LETTER), the complaint filed by the COMPLAINANT was forwarded to MIFONDO, so that it would submit the corresponding comments and it was requested, among other information, the following documentation and/or information:

"(...) h. Copy of the receipts issued by its represented party regarding the payments that the COMPLAINANT reports it made on December 21 and 24, 2024, as well as the copy of the remittance receipt for the same.
(...)
".

On March 12, 2025, MIFONDO sent its comments and part of the required information to the SMV via LETTER, however, MIFONDO only stated that it contracted the services of Lite Software & Consulting S.A.C. and that it complied with its obligation to issue electronic sales receipts to the COMPLAINANT;
With Letter No. 2862-2025-SMV/10.3 (hereinafter, LETTER 2), notified on May 18, 2025, the request for documentation was reiterated:

"(...)
Copy of the receipts issued by its represented party, regarding the payments that the complainant reports it made on December 21 and 24, 2024, as well as the copy of the remittance receipt for the same.
(...)
".

On May 22, 2025, MIFONDO sent its comments and part of the required information to the SMV via LETTER 2, however, it only sent the payment receipts, without any proof of receipt of the same;
Via Letter No. 3435-2025-SMV/10.3 notified on June 24, 2025 (hereinafter, LETTER OF CHARGES), an administrative sanctioning procedure was initiated against MIFONDO, charging it with the aspect related to the failure to send payment receipts contained in the complaint filed by the COMPLAINANT;

1 In the Annex attached to this resolution, the complete data of the natural persons to whom the designations used in this resolution belong are detailed, and likewise, if applicable, the email addresses.
2 File No. 2025004940

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV

On July 3, 2025, MIFONDO presented its defenses in response to the LETTER OF CHARGES;
The charges formulated have been the subject of evaluation by the General Superintendence of Prudential Compliance in Report No. 1777-2025-SMV/10.3, which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Adjunct Superintendency;
In observance of the Principle of Due Process contemplated both in Article IV, item 1, numeral 1.2 of the Preliminary Title, as well as in Article 248, numeral 2, of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO LPAG), via Letter No. 7055-2025-SMV/10, the administrative file to which this resolution refers was made available to MIFONDO for its review;

II. MATTERS TO BE DETERMINED

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

a. Whether MIFONDO incurred or not an infringement provided for in Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), for failing to remit to the associate all the payment receipts corresponding to its contract;

b. Whether it corresponds or not to impose a sanction on MIFONDO;

III. ANALYSIS

Of the applicable regulations
ON CONTRACTS

Regarding payment receipts, clause seventh numeral 7.5 of the CONTRACT establishes the following:

"SEVENTH CLAUSE: ON PAYMENTS
(...)
7.5. MIFONDO will issue the respective payment receipts in the name of the Associate, which will be sent to the address indicated by the Associate in the General Conditions of this Contract. Prior to what is stated, MIFONDO must validate the payment made in the Collector Accounts.
. (...)
";

Of the charges formulated
ON THE REMITTANCE OF PAYMENT RECEIPTS

In accordance with the regulations exposed, MIFONDO has, among others, the obligation to issue payment receipts in the name of the associate, which must be sent to the address indicated by the associate in the General Conditions of the Contract;
However, the COMPLAINANT specified in its letter of February 5, 2025, that it was not sent the payment receipts for the deposits made on December 21 and 24, 2024, for which purpose it attached two deposit receipts in favor of MIFONDO for the amount of US$ 500.00 and US$ 907.00, made on December 21 and 24, 2024, respectively;
Based on what was stated by the COMPLAINANT, via Letter No. 1192-2025-SMV/10.3, notified on March 3, 2025 and Letter No. 2862-2025-SMV/10.3, notified on May 18, 2025, MIFONDO was requested to remit the receipts issued to the COMPLAINANT as well as their remittance receipts;
In response, via letter dated May 22, 2025, MIFONDO informed that regarding the payment receipts it contracted the services of Lite Software & Consulting S.A.C. and that it complied with its obligation to issue electronic sales receipts to the COMPLAINANT; however; as of the date of issuance of the LETTER OF CHARGES, MIFONDO did not present the evidentiary means to prove compliance with the sending to the COMPLAINANT of the requested payment receipts;
Considering the above, MIFONDO would not have complied with observing what is provided by clause 7, numeral 7.5 of the CONTRACT insofar as it would not have complied with remitting the payment receipts to the COMPLAINANT to the address indicated by the latter in the General Conditions of the CONTRACT;
In this sense, it was charged to MIFONDO that it had committed one (01) infringement classified as serious, according to Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation, according to which it constitutes an infringement: "Not to comply with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract entered into with the associate";

Of the defenses

In attention to the LETTER OF CHARGES, MIFONDO in its defenses presented to the SMV on July 3, 2025, indicates that it verified the email that the COMPLAINANT registered in handwritten form in its personal data sheet to enter the program, however, due to a material error it was registered differently in the database of the electronic billing provider Lite Software Consulting S.A.C. (hereinafter, BILLING PROVIDER):

It should say: EMAIL1
It says: EMAIL2

MIFONDO states that through the BILLING PROVIDER it sent from the email info@sigerp.pe to EMAIL2 five payment receipts: B001-11587, B001-11588, B001-11589, B001-12559 and B001-12560 in January 2025, whose material error can be seen in the capture of the report of the BILLING PROVIDER that MIFONDO attaches to its defenses; in which it is observed that the referred payment receipts would have been sent to EMAIL2;
Regarding this, MIFONDO specifies that the occurrence of this material error in the COMPLAINANT's email address that was indicated at the time of sending the email does not imply the determination of liability automatically, since it did proceed to issue the payment receipts, sent the

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV

payment schedule to the COMPLAINANT after the reconciliation of payments was carried out and did not generate any economic detriment to the latter;

Likewise, MIFONDO indicates that the fact that the COMPLAINANT confirmed that it has had access and reviewed the reconciled amount in its payment schedule disproves the filing of the fine for the alleged commission of the infringement contained in Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
Additionally, MIFONDO refers that under the provisions of Article 31 of the Sanctions Regulation, it has remedied the infringement after the start of the present administrative sanctioning procedure, since it has sent the payment receipts via email to the COMPLAINANT, as evidenced by the email capture sent on July 1, 2025;
On the other hand, MIFONDO adds that it has no antecedents, nor is it a repeat offender for the commission of the alleged infringement. In the same sense, MIFONDO specifies that its will and intention to comply with the obligation to send the payment receipts existed, since it sent the payment receipts but this was not effective because the email was indicated with a material typing error;
MIFONDO continues with the precision that its actions did not generate a concrete economic detriment, nor has an illicit benefit been generated. Thus, in the present case MIFONDO refers that the error had a low probability of detection on its part, since this is seen with the report of the BILLING PROVIDER;
MIFONDO concludes by specifying that its actions did not generate gravity to the public interest insofar as the late sending of the payment receipts does not suppose a state of disinformation, based on the premise that the COMPLAINANT did know how its payments had been reconciled through the schedule; and, there has also been no intentionality on its part in the alleged infringing conduct;
Finally, MIFONDO cites the principle of efficacy contemplated in numeral 1.103 of Article IV of the Preliminary Title, Articles 1734 and 2275 of the TUO LPAG; Article 1966 of the Civil Procedural Code; and Article 707 of the Regulation.

3 1.10. Principle of efficacy.- The subjects of the administrative procedure must prevail the compliance with the purpose of the procedural act over those formalities whose realization does not impact its validity, do not determine important aspects in the final decision, do not diminish the guarantees of the procedure, nor cause indefensiveness to the administered. In all cases of application of this principle, the purpose of the act that is privileged over the non-essential formalities must adjust to the applicable regulatory framework and its validity will be a guarantee of the public purpose sought to be satisfied with the application of this principle. 4 Article 173.- Burden of proof
173.1 The burden of proof is governed by the principle of ex officio impulse established in this Law.
173.2 It corresponds to the administered to provide evidence by presenting documents and reports, proposing expert opinions, testimonies, inspections and other permitted diligences, or adducing allegations.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV

Evaluation of the defenses

According to the documents in the file, it is observed that MIFONDO did not comply with sending to the COMPLAINANT the receipts for the payments that this made for the amounts of US$ 500.00 and US$ 907.00, made on December 21 and 24, 2024 respectively, a situation that MIFONDO points out and attributes to a material error when indicating the email that the COMPLAINANT registered in the personal data sheet, that is, instead of sending the receipts to EMAIL1, they were sent by error to EMAIL2;
Regarding this, it must be indicated that the obligation to remit the payment receipts to the address indicated by the associate in the general conditions of the CONTRACT, contained in numeral 7.5 of the "Seventh Clause: On Payments", is of mandatory compliance on the part of MIFONDO, regardless of whether it contracted the BILLING PROVIDER for this purpose, since this obligation is inherent to MIFONDO and has as a corollary the right of the associates to receive the payment receipts as documentary support of the commercial operations that accredit the payment of the different concepts contained in the contract that they have signed;
As for MIFONDO's argument referring to the substitution of the delivery of the payment receipts with the remittance to the COMPLAINANT (via WhatsApp application and by email on January 13 and 31, 2025, respectively) of the updated payment schedule after the validations and reconciliation of the payments of December 21 and 24, 2024 were carried out, we must indicate that the information contained in the payment receipts and in the payment schedule is different;
In effect, the first constitutes a tax document that accredits the realization of a transaction, in this case, the payment for the provision of a service (where the paid concept, date of issuance, tax charged, etc. are detailed) while in the payment schedule this information is not detailed but information referring to the number of installments, payment dates, among others,

5 Article 227.- Resolution
227.1 The resolution of the appeal will estimate in whole or in part or dismiss the claims formulated in the same or declare its inadmissibility.
227.2 Once the existence of a cause of nullity is ascertained, the authority, in addition to the declaration of nullity, will resolve on the merits of the matter, if there are sufficient elements for it. When it is not possible to pronounce on the merits of the matter, the procedure will be ordered to be returned to the moment in which the vice occurred. 6 Burden of proof.-
Article 196.- Unless otherwise provided by law, the burden of proof corresponds to who affirms facts that configure their claim, or to who contradicts them alleging new facts.
7 Article 70.- Obligation to provide periodic information to Associates The Administrator has the obligation to provide information to its Associates about their account statements and the Calendar of Assemblies. When applicable, it will send information about the variation of prices of the goods under Programs of determined goods and other services they contract. The account statements must be sent at least in the periodicity in which the Assemblies are held. The Calendar of Assemblies must be sent with a minimum periodicity of three (03) months. The variation of prices of the goods under Programs of determined goods may be included in the account statement that the Administrator sends to the Associate. The Associate's account statement must contain as a minimum the information contained in Annex 8. The modality to be used to provide the aforementioned information must be agreed upon in the Contracts. Additionally, the Administrator may use different electronic communication means that allow the Associate to be able to take adequate and timely knowledge of the respective information. In the event that email is used, this means must guarantee non-repudiation and allow traceability of the communication.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV

therefore each document has the purpose of providing information for different ends, validly concluding that the delivery of one does not supplant the obligation of delivery of the other nor vice versa;

Notwithstanding the above, it must be indicated that in the capture of the report of the BILLING PROVIDER that MIFONDO attaches to its defenses, of the 5 receipts that the administrator states it issued, in said capture it is not observed that receipt B001-11587 has even been sent by error to EMAIL 2;
For the reasons stated, the defenses presented by MIFONDO did not disprove the charge formulated, so it is proven that it incurred in an infringement;
With respect to the other arguments presented on the criteria to be taken into account in order to determine the sanction to be imposed, it must be indicated that these will be evaluated in the section of "Evaluation of the Sanction to be Imposed";
Consequently, it is observed that MIFONDO has incurred in one (01) infringement classified as serious, according to Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infringement: "not to comply with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract entered into with the associate";

IV. EVALUATION OF THE SANCTION

In accordance with Article 7 of Decree Law No. 21907 on Collective Fund Companies and Article 25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION; in concordance with Article 248, numeral 38 of the TUO LPAG and Article 2579 of the aforementioned body of norms; the administrative sanctions that are imposed

8 "Article 248.- Principles of the administrative sanctioning power The sanctioning power of all entities is additionally governed by the following special principles:
(...)
3. Reasonableness.- The authorities must foresee that the commission of the sanctionable conduct does not result more advantageous for the infringer than complying with the infringed norms or assuming the sanction. However, the sanctions to be applied must be proportional to the infringement classified as an infringement, observing the following criteria that are indicated for the purposes of their graduation:
a) The illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infringement; b) The probability of detection of the infringement; c) The gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal good; d) The economic detriment caused; e) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infringement within a period of one (1) year from when the resolution that sanctioned the first infringement became final. f) The circumstances of the commission of the infringement; and g) The existence or non-existence of intentionality in the conduct of the infringer". 9 "Article 257°.- Exemptions and mitigating factors of liability for infringements 1.- The following constitute conditions exempting liability for infringements:

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV

[RegAlert note: the English text above is a translation of the first 24,000 characters of a 39,315-character original (61% of the document). The remainder was not translated. The complete original-language text is stored with this document.]