Superintendence Resolution No. 005-2025-SMV/10 — SMV — PE

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Document electronically signed digitally under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship Superintendence Resolution Adjunct SMV No. 005-2025-SMV/10 Lima, January 27, 2025 Summary: Pandero S.A. EAFC is sanctioned with three (03) warnings for having committed three (3) serious infractions typified in Annex XIII, numeral 2, clause 2.1; Annex I, numeral 2, clause 2.25 and Annex XIII, numeral 2, clause 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation: i) for not delivering to the potential associate the brochure for the associate prior to the signing of the contract; ii) for not complying with the conduct norms established in the Regulation; iii) as well as for not complying with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract celebrated with the associate regarding the delivery to the associate of their contract in physical form, respectively. Administered entities: Pandero S.A. EAFC Subject: Administrative sanctioning procedure File No.: 2024049139 The Adjunct Superintendent of Prudential Supervision SEEN:
The administrative file No. 2024049139, Report No. 1790-2024-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Intendancy of Prudential Compliance, as well as the defenses and arguments presented by Pandero S.A. EAFC; 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 Superintendence (SMV), therefore any reference to CONASEV in legal norms shall be understood as made to the SMV;

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Document electronically signed digitally under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
I. Facts
2. By writing received on December 13, 2023 1, the COMPLAINANT 2, associate of Group No. 6625 of the "Pandero C-6" Program, filed a complaint with the Securities Market Superintendence (SMV) against Pandero S.A. EAFC (hereinafter, PANDERO), through which it indicates that on December 07, 2020, they approached the expo motor at Plaza Norte seeking a car quote, and signed Collective Contract No. 6625-081, with the purpose of acquiring a purchase certificate for the sum of US$ 15,090.85 US dollars. The same, according to the statement, was awarded to them by lottery on July 21, 2021;
3. In this sense, it states that on July 27, 2021, they paid the price difference for the amount of US$ 2,309.00 US dollars, for the car model they chose and for which they signed the irrevocable order to purchase vehicle Automotor L000000079806. Likewise, it indicates that after this they were only credit-evaluated;
4. Subsequently, the COMPLAINANT states that on December 02, 2021, PANDERO sent them a notarial letter, arguing textually "You are causing a delay and economic damage, this causes our company to incur an expense that was not foreseen, which in case you do not proceed with the procedures intended to apply your purchase certificate, it will be charged directly to you, In this sense, by the present we request that within the term of (05) business days from the receipt of this notarial letter, you kindly contact our personnel in order to be able to complete and regularize the requested documentation and in this way continue with the procedure for the application of your purchase certificate and subsequent acquisition of the requested vehicle, service that is at your expense according to what is established in your contract, otherwise the award will be withdrawn and the penalty established in the irrevocable order to purchase motor vehicle will be applied, as well as the operational costs in which Pandero is incurring";
5. Under this context, the COMPLAINANT states that on December 04, 2021, they responded via email on all points treated in the notarial letter. Likewise, it indicates that they complied with presenting all the documentation for the credit evaluation, which was not sufficient since they required a second guarantor that they could not obtain;
6. The COMPLAINANT adds that they paid a difference of US$ 2,309.15 US dollars for the purchase of the vehicle, which they, upon annulling the award, should have communicated and returned the payment of the price difference of the chosen vehicle. In this sense, the COMPLAINANT states that as they did not answer, on March 10, 2022, they went with their lawyer to the facilities of PANDERO on Av. 2 de Mayo in San Isidro and there they only found out that they had annulled the award, according to the COMPLAINANT;
7. Likewise, it states that on March 26, 2022, they sent a notarial letter to the General Manager of PANDERO, through which, according to the statement, they requested that the signed contract be fulfilled, since by that date they had not

1 File No. 2023051436.
2 In the Annex attached to this resolution, the complete data of the natural persons to whom the denominations used in this resolution belong are detailed, and likewise, if applicable, the email addresses.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Document electronically signed digitally under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
13. With Letter No. 5848-2023-SMV/10.3 notified on December 27, 2023 (hereinafter, LETTER), the complaint filed by the COMPLAINANT was transferred to PANDERO, in order for them to send the corresponding comments and they were required, among other information, the following documentation and/or information:
"a. Copy of the receipts for the delivery to the COMPLAINANT of the Associate's Brochure, the Contract Model and the Tariff, prior to the signing of the Collective Fund Administration Contract. b. Copy of the Collective Fund Administration Contract signed between their representative and the COMPLAINANT (hereinafter, CONTRACT). (…)";
14. In response to the LETTER, on January 8, 2024, PANDERO sent their comments regarding the complaint, as well as part of the information required by the SMV. In this sense, PANDERO presented the following documentation that forms part of the file:
1. Copy of the Collective Fund Administration Contract model of Pandero S.A. EAFC for Pre-determined Brands - "Pandero C-6".
2. Copy of the Collective Fund Administration Contract of Pandero S.A. EAFC for Pre-determined Brands, which according to the contract was signed on December 07, 2020.
3. Copy of Digital Brochure of Relevant Information for Pre-determined Brands – C6 Pandero 4x4.
4. Copy of Proforma C6 – No. 734760 of December 02, 2020, in which the name of the SALES EXECUTIVE of Pandero is indicated.
5. Copy of Tariff of Additional Services.
6. Copy of Associate Meeting Minutes No. 8 of Contract No. 6625 of July 21, 2021.
7. Copy of email of December 14, 2020 sent by ventasapp@pandero.com.pe to the email of the COMPLAINANT, with the subject "Welcome to Pandero/Welcome Letter and schedule of assemblies".
8. Copy of email of December 07, 2020 sent by ventasapp@panderoventas.com to the email of the COMPLAINANT, with the subject "Welcome to Pandero".
9. Copy of email of December 02, 2020 sent by ventasapp@panderoventas.com to the email of the COMPLAINANT, with the subject "(...), you are one step away from achieving your goal with Pandero";
15. With writing presented on February 05, 2024, the COMPLAINANT requests the withdrawal of the complaint filed having reached an agreement with the administrator company;
16. With writing presented to the SMV on February 19, 2024, PANDERO stated that on January 24, 2024, the COMPLAINANT and the administrator company signed an Extrajudicial Transaction (hereinafter, EXTRAJUDICIAL TRANSACTION), in which it was agreed the return in favor of the COMPLAINANT of the full amount of the contributions made to PANDERO in their Contract 6625-081-16, as well as the

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Document electronically signed digitally under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship return of the amount corresponding to the interests that the associate had to pay for the loan for the payment of the price difference of the vehicle.
17. Through Letter No. 4973-2024-SMV/10.3 (hereinafter, LETTER 1), notified on November 5, 2024, PANDERO was required, among others, the following information:
" a) Bank records that certify that PANDERO paid the COMPLAINANT the amount of US$ 11,471.37, corresponding to the full amount of the contributions made by the COMPLAINANT, according to what was agreed in the convention signed by both parties on January 24, 2024.
(…) c) Copy of the document that certifies having communicated to the COMPLAINANT about their award and the requirements to finalize the delivery of the good and/or service, prior to the signing of the Irrevocable Order to Purchase, required through the LETTER.";
18. With writing presented on November 08, 2024, PANDERO responded to the requirement made through LETTER 1;
19. Through Letter No. 5421-2024-SMV/10.3 notified on November 29, 2024, (hereinafter, LETTER OF CHARGES), an administrative sanctioning procedure was initiated against PANDERO;
20. It should be indicated that, with Letter No. 5567-2024-SMV/10.3, notified on December 16, 2024, the acceptance of the withdrawal formulated by the COMPLAINANT was communicated;
21. On December 12, 2024, PANDERO presented the corresponding defenses;
22. The charges formulated against PANDERO, as well as the defenses raised by the aforementioned administrator company, have been the subject of evaluation in Report No. 1790-2024-SMV/10.3, which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Adjunct Superintendence;
23. In observance of the Principle of Due Process contemplated both in Article IV, numeral 1.2., of the Preliminary Title and in article 248°, clause 2, of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law, Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO OF THE LPAG), through Letter No. 005-2025-SMV/10, the administrative file to which this resolution refers was made available to PANDERO for review;
24. On January 09, 2025, PANDERO presented additional written arguments;
II. Issues to be determined
25. In the present administrative procedure, in the opinion of this Adjunct Superintendence of Prudential Supervision, it corresponds to determine the following:
a. If PANDERO incurred or not in an infraction provided for in Annex XIII, numeral 2, clause 2.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), for not having complied with delivering the brochure for the associate, the tariff and the model of the respective contract, previously to the signing of the contract by the associate. b. If PANDERO incurred or not in an infraction provided for in Annex I, numeral 2, clause 2.25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not having complied with the conduct norms according to what is established in the Regulation of the System of Collective Funds and their Administrator Companies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 020-2014-SMV/01 and its amendments.
c. If PANDERO incurred or not in an infraction provided for in Annex XIII, numeral 2, clause 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not having complied with the collective fund administration contract regarding the delivery to the associate of their contract in physical form.
a. If it corresponds or not to impose a sanction on PANDERO;
III. Analysis
3.1 Applicable Normative
3.1.1 NOT DELIVERING TO THE POTENTIAL ASSOCIATE THE BROCHURE FOR THE ASSOCIATE, THE TARIFF AND THE MODEL OF THE CONTRACT RESPECTIVE, PRIOR TO THE SIGNING OF THE CONTRACT
26. Article 66 of the Regulation of the System of Collective Funds and their Administrator Companies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 020-2014-SMV/01 and its amendments (hereinafter, REGULATION) provides the following:
"Article 66.- Information provided prior to the Contract The Administrator must deliver the Associate's Brochure, the Contract model and the tariff prior to the signing of the Contract by the Associate.";
27. Likewise, Annex 13 "Brochure for the Associate", of the REGULATION establishes the following:
"Annex 13
BROCHURE FOR THE ASSOCIATE
2. How is the Quality of Associate acquired?
The quality of ASSOCIATE is acquired with the signing of the CONTRACT by the ASSOCIATE and the ADMINISTRATOR. It must be highlighted that previously to the signing of the CONTRACT:
The interested party must:
1) Be duly informed with this brochure as well as with the detailed reading of the CONTRACT and the tariff. These documents must be delivered with a duly signed receipt.";

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Document electronically signed digitally under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
28. Also, Clause 13, numeral 13.4, literal a) of the Contract states the following:
"13.4 Constitute obligations of PANDERO:
a) Deliver to the Associate the Associate's Brochure, the Contract model and the tariff of services prior to the signing of the Contract by the Associate. (…)".
(…)";
3.1.2 NOT COMPLYING WITH THE CONDUCT NORMS
29. Article 48 of the REGULATION establishes the following:
"Article 48.- Conduct Norms
In the development of their activities, the Administrator, its directors, managers, officials, employees and sellers, must comply with the following general conduct norms:
(…) b) Priority of interests.- Privilege at all times the interests of the Collective Funds they administer and their Associates over their own interests, those of their affiliates, their personnel or third parties.
(…) e) Honesty, Care and Diligence.- Perform their activities with honesty, as well as with the care and diligence due in the best interest of the Collective Fund and its Associates, avoiding acts that could deteriorate their trust. f) Information to Associates.- Inform within the sales process of Contracts, about the benefits and risks that characterize Collective Funds. Likewise, all information that may be relevant for the adoption of their decisions to subscribe to the Contract or choose the good and/or service object of the Contract must be offered to the associates. All information to Associates must be clear, correct, precise, truthful, sufficient and timely. (…) h) Observance.- Comply with the norms that regulate the exercise of their activities, as well as with their own internal procedures established in the corresponding manuals. (…) The Administrator must implement the necessary procedures and controls for their due observance. (…)";
3.1.3 NOT COMPLYING WITH DELIVERING THE CONTRACT ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED FORM
30. Clause 13, numeral 13.4, literal f) of the Contract establishes that:
"13. OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría
35. In this regard, PANDERO stated that since the COMPLAINANT entered the collective fund system, PANDERO complied with providing absolutely all pertinent information regarding its collective fund system, as evidenced, according to the administrator company, in the "Speech of the Summary Contract" which they attach to their submission, as well as with the voice recording, whose link with the audio is attached to their submission, which according to PANDERO, evidences their conformity and with which the collective fund contract is deemed to have been celebrated;
36. In the aforementioned document titled "Speech of the Summary Contract," it is stated that the COMPLAINANT indicated acceptance and conformity with what is indicated in the contract, on December 2, 2020, at 12:56 hours;
37. Likewise, in the aforementioned document it is stated:
"You declare having received in your email the Proforma N° 734760 and the Tariff Schedule, as well as the Relevant Information Booklet and a non-value copy of the Collective Contract, which you have reviewed and found clear and compliant prior to signing the contract.
(...)
You accept all clauses of the collective contract, which you have found clear and compliant, which include your commitment to personal and frequent access to your Email Box, where you will find the Relevant Information Booklet, tariff schedule, and other terms sent to the email box, which have been duly informed prior to the subscription of the present contract and which Pandero makes available to you from this moment, sending you your login key by text message to your mobile phone and/or by email, (...) (...) ";
38. Also, according to what was stated by PANDERO, via the email salesapp@panderoventas.com of December 2, 2020, at 12:56 pm, with the subject "..., you are one step away from achieving your goal with Pandero", the administrator company would have delivered to the COMPLAINANT to her email, on that date and time, that is, according to what was stated by PANDERO, prior to her entry into the collective fund system, four (4) PDF files referring to i) Proforma N° 734760, ii) non-value contract iii) tariff schedule and iv) relevant information booklet, as can be appreciated from the copy of the email presented by PANDERO;
39. Additionally, in her defenses PANDERO stated that via email dated December 02, 2020, she sent to the COMPLAINANT's email her user and access key to the Mi Pandero portal, so that the COMPLAINANT could access to review all her documents, among which, according to PANDERO, are her Collective Fund Contract, the Relevant Information Booklet, the Associate's Booklet, etc.; however, in order to substantiate, this argument, PANDERO does not present an email from December 02, 2020, but instead presents a copy of an email from December 07, 2020 at 4:04 pm of 2020 from salesapp@panderoventas.com addressed to the COMPLAINANT's email, with the subject "Welcome to PANDERO";

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría
40. In that email, the delivery of user and password to the PANDERO Collective Fund system can be observed, but the delivery or availability of said documents is not observed;
41. In that context, it must be clarified in principle that although PANDERO has stated that the collective fund administration contract signed with the COMPLAINANT was on December 07, 2020 and presents a copy of said contract in which it is stated that said contract is signed on December 07, 2020, according to the documentation on file presented by PANDERO, Contract N° 6625-081-16 would have been celebrated on December 02, 2020, as is evidenced by the document titled "Speech of the Summary Contract", and the audio presented by PANDERO (hereinafter, SPEECH OF THE SUMMARY CONTRACT), which correspond to the only supports presented by PANDERO with which it accredits the manifestation of will of the COMPLAINANT, it must also be considered that the COMPLAINANT has acknowledged having celebrated the contract with PANDERO;
42. It must also be taken into account that, the Copy of Contract N° 6625-081-16, sent by PANDERO in response to the request made via the OFFICE, would not be signed on December 2, 2020 as stated in the SPEECH OF THE SUMMARY CONTRACT, but on December 7, 2020 3 ;
43. In that line, the PDF files referring to i) Proforma N° 734760, ii) non-value contract iii) tariff schedule and iv) relevant information booklet, were delivered to the COMPLAINANT after the celebration of the contract and therefore after the signing of the contract. Considering that the email with which the administrator company states it accredits the delivery of said documents to the COMPLAINANT corresponds to December 2, 2020 at 12:56 hours;
44. Regarding the Associate's Booklet (not included in the email of December 2, 2020), considering that the email with which PANDERO states it sent to the COMPLAINANT the user and access key to the Mi Pandero portal, so that the COMPLAINANT could access to review all her documents, including the Associate's Booklet, is dated December 07, 2020, it would be evidenced that the administrator company delivered to the COMPLAINANT the associate's booklet after the signing of the contract;
45. It must be clarified that although in the SPEECH OF THE SUMMARY CONTRACT it is referred that the COMPLAINANT would have received through her email the tariff schedule and a non-value copy of the contract prior to the signing of the contract, the email with which PANDERO states it accredits that it delivered to the COMPLAINANT said documents prior to the signing of the contract, corresponds to December 2, 2020 at 12:56 hours, that is, after the celebration of the contract and therefore after the signing of the contract, which according to the audio of the SPEECH

3 Article 141-A of the Civil Code establishes the following:
"Article 141-A.- Formality*
In cases where the law establishes that the manifestation of will must be made through some express formality or requires a signature, this may be generated or communicated through electronic, optical, or any other analogous means.
(...)
".

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría OF THE SUMMARY CONTRACT; the contract was celebrated on December 02 at 12:51 hours;
46. It must also be noted that, in the SPEECH OF THE SUMMARY CONTRACT it is mentioned that the COMPLAINANT will find in her Email Box the tariff schedule and other terms sent to it, which would have been informed prior to the signing of the contract and which would have been made available to the COMPLAINANT from the moment of the voice recording, sending her the login key. However, it must be indicated that the email through which PANDERO accredits delivering the user and key to the COMPLAINANT is dated December 07, 2020, that is, five (5) days after the celebration of the contract;
47. Therefore, PANDERO would not have complied with delivering to the COMPLAINANT the Associate's Booklet, the Contract model and tariff schedule prior to the signing of the contract by the COMPLAINANT. In this sense, it did not comply with what is established in Article 66 of the REGULATIONS, as well as Annex 13, paragraph 2 of said regulations and clause 13, paragraph 13.4, letter a) of the Contract;
48. Consequently, it was attributed to PANDERO that it would have incurred one (1) infringement classified as serious, according to Annex XIII, paragraph 2, item 2.1 of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS, according to which it constitutes an infringement: "Not delivering to potential associates the associate's booklet, the tariff schedule and the respective contract model, prior to the signing of the contract.";
3.2.2 FAIL TO COMPLY WITH CONDUCT NORMS
49. In the complaint, the COMPLAINANT states that on July 21, 2021 she was awarded by lottery. In this sense, she states that on July 27, 2021 she paid the price difference for the amount of US$ 2,309.00 US dollars, for the car model she chose and had her sign the irrevocable purchase order for Motor Vehicle L000000079806. Likewise, she indicates that only after that was she credit evaluated;
50. Subsequently, the COMPLAINANT states that on December 2, 2021, PANDERO sent her a notarial letter, arguing literally "You are causing a delay and economic damage, this causes our company to incur an expense that was not foreseen, which in case you do not proceed with the procedures destined to apply your purchase certificate, it will be charged directly to you,
In this sense, by the present we require you within the term of (05) business days from the receipt of the present notarial letter, to kindly contact our personnel in order to be able to complete and regularize the requested documentation and in this way continue with the procedure for the application of your purchase certificate and subsequent acquisition of the requested vehicle, service that is at your expense according to what is established in your contract, otherwise the award will be withdrawn and the penalty established in the irrevocable purchase order for motor vehicle will be applied, as well as the operational expenses in which Pandero is incurring.";
51. Under that context, the COMPLAINANT states that on December 04, 2021 she replied via email to PANDERO personnel, on all the points treated in the notarial letter. Likewise, she indicates that she complied with presenting all the documentation for the credit evaluation, which was not sufficient since they required a second guarantor that she could not obtain;

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría
52. The COMPLAINANT adds that, she paid a difference of US$ 2,309.15 US dollars for the purchase of the vehicle, which they, upon annulling the award, should have communicated and returned the payment of the price difference of the chosen vehicle;
53. Likewise, she states that on March 26, 2022 she sent a notarial letter to the General Manager of PANDERO, through which, according to what she states, she requested that the signed contract be fulfilled, since on that date they had not made effective the return of the price difference she paid, a request that was denied through a notarial letter, on April 22, 2022;
54. On the other hand, the COMPLAINANT states that, the penalty that establishes in the irrevocable purchase order for Motor Vehicle says literally "for any reason the associate decides not to receive the vehicle he is obliged to pay a penalty", in this sense, she states that, she is not rejecting the vehicle, but that the company PANDERO does not continue with the process of applying the purchase certificate;
55. Additionally, the COMPLAINANT states that on March 02, 2023 she called PANDERO and insisted on the return of the price difference of the vehicle, which they paid her on March 15, 2023, according to what was stated by the COMPLAINANT. For this reason, the COMPLAINANT indicates that she wanted to conciliate, but they only respond with a notarial letter and want her to continue incurring expenses;
56. In this regard, according to the documents on file, according to the Meeting Minutes of Associates N° 8 of Contract N° 6625 of July 21, 2021, presented by PANDERO, it is observed that the COMPLAINANT was awarded by the lottery modality. In this sense, via email of that same day sent by smtp_ginni@pandero.com.pe to the COMPLAINANT's email, with the subject: Congratulations you were awarded! Know your requirements, PANDERO sent to the COMPLAINANT the documentation requirements, corresponding to the associate and for the guarantor or surety, in which it was also stated that all documents delivered would be duly validated;
57. Likewise, on July 27, 2021 the COMPLAINANT signed the Irrevocable Purchase Order for Motor Vehicle N° L000000079806 (hereinafter, IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER), date on which according to the COMPLAINANT she also paid the differential of the price of the vehicle for the amount of US$ 2,309.15 US dollars, considering the chosen vehicle;
58. Subsequently, via email of August 5, 2021 sent by a PANDERO collaborator to the COMPLAINANT's email, with the subject: "Requirements for vehicle purchase procedure// (...)//6625-081-16", PANDERO required the COMPLAINANT to present the documentation for the vehicle purchase procedure, as well as the information to present regarding the guarantor;
59. Likewise, via Notarial Letter of December 02, 2021 (NOTARIAL LETTER OF DECEMBER 02, 2021), PANDERO communicated to the COMPLAINANT that "(...) Pandero has already acquired the unit previously mentioned, however to date (...), you have not complied with presenting a second guarantor, as well as with sending the documentation for the relevant evaluation, reason

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría for which we cannot continue with the process of applying the awarded purchase certificate.
(...)
In this sense, by the present we require (...) to be able to complete and regularize the requested documentation and in this way continue with the procedure for the application of your purchase certificate and subsequent acquisition of the requested vehicle, (...) otherwise the Award will be withdrawn and the penalty established in the Irrevocable Purchase Order for Motor Vehicle will be applied (...);
60. According to what was stated by PANDERO, in the aforementioned Notarial Letter, the IRREVOCABLE ORDER establishes that "5. In the improbable case that THE ASSOCIATE for any reason decides not to receive the vehicle he is obliged to pay a penalty equivalent to 6% of the total price of the value of the vehicle (...)";
61. Additionally, via Notarial Letter of April 22, 2022 (hereinafter, NOTARIAL LETTER OF APRIL 22, 2022), PANDERO communicates to the COMPLAINANT on February 03, 2022 that the award obtained on July 21, 2021 was withdrawn because she did not comply with the credit evaluation requirements;
62. Being so, it must be noted that prior to the request for signing the Irrevocable Purchase Order and the payment of the amount of US$ 2,309.15 US dollars made by the COMPLAINANT, PANDERO should have validated that the COMPLAINANT met the established requirements, as the administrator company itself pointed out in the email sent by PANDERO to the COMPLAINANT on July 21, 2021. Likewise, the request to the COMPLAINANT to indicate the vehicle she wished to acquire and the documentation she had to present for the vehicle purchase procedure was sent to the COMPLAINANT on August 05, 2021, that is, after the signing of the IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER;
63. It should be noted that, according to clause 8.1.3 of the Contract, PANDERO within the 20 days following the proposal for granting guarantees by the awarded Associate must communicate its acceptance or rejection. Likewise, according to clause 9, paragraph 9.3.1 of the Contract "The Associate, within thirty (30) days after being notified of his award, must communicate to PANDERO in writing the name of the Supplier and the specific characteristics of the vehicle to be acquired (...) which will be detailed in an Irrevocable Purchase Order for the Vehicle (...)";
64. In that line, PANDERO would not have acted with due care and diligence in the best interest of the COMPLAINANT, since PANDERO did not act responsibly by requiring the COMPLAINANT to sign the IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER before evaluating and confirming that the COMPLAINANT met all the requirements demanded for the delivery of the good, which caused that not only did they not deliver to the COMPLAINANT the chosen vehicle, but also that the COMPLAINANT delivered to PANDERO the amount of US$ 2,309.15 US dollars for the differential of the price of the chosen vehicle, which should not have been received by PANDERO, if the COMPLAINANT had not yet met the requirements demanded, according to what was stated by PANDERO in the NOTARIAL LETTER OF DECEMBER 02, 2021 and the NOTARIAL LETTER OF APRIL 22, 2022;

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría
65. Likewise, considering that, according to the NOTARIAL LETTER OF APRIL 22, 2022, the award obtained by the COMPLAINANT in the Assembly of July 21, 2021 was annulled on February 03, 2022, PANDERO should have returned to the COMPLAINANT the amount of US$ 2,309.15 US dollars at least on that date, even more so when this amount was claimed by the COMPLAINANT via Notarial Letter of March 30, 2022, stating that they rushed her to choose the vehicle and purchase order, with which she paid that amount, and then they sent her the formats to fill in the corresponding data for the credit evaluation. However, PANDERO returned said amount to the COMPLAINANT on March 15, 2023 according to what was stated by the COMPLAINANT, that is, after more than 1 year of the annulment of said award and more than 1 year and seven months after the payment was made;
66. Also, it must be indicated that considering that PANDERO with the NOTARIAL LETTER OF APRIL 22, 2022 responded to the Notarial Letter of March 30, 2022 presented by the COMPLAINANT, stating that the award obtained by the COMPLAINANT in the Assembly of July 21, 2021 was annulled on February 03, 2022, PANDERO should have complied with informing the COMPLAINANT of the annulment of the award on the date of the occurrence or a few days after it occurred as it is relevant information for the COMPLAINANT and not after more than two (2) months of the annulment and as a consequence of a request made by the COMPLAINANT, considering also that according to article 120 4 of the REGULATIONS the Administrator is obliged to inform the associate of the annulment of his award, as well as its causes;
67. In this sense, the previously stated facts constitute acts by PANDERO that can affect and deteriorate the trust of potential associates and therefore in the collective fund system. Additionally, the interests of the associate were not prioritized, regarding that she first had to pay the difference in the value of the vehicle, and subsequently she was informed that she did not meet all the requirements, as well as for the delay in the return of the differential she paid;
68. Also, it must be taken into account that, all information to Associates must be clear, correct, precise, truthful, sufficient and timely;
69. On the other hand, it must be noted that according to the NOTARIAL LETTER sent by PANDERO to the COMPLAINANT OF DECEMBER 02, 2021, in the IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER a penalty is established, in case the associate decides not to receive the chosen vehicle equivalent to 6% of the total price of the value of the vehicle. However, it is necessary to note that although said document is mentioned in the contract, it is not established in it, said case of penalty. It must be taken into account that according to article 97 5 of the REGULATIONS, any penalty to be

4 Article 120.- Annulment of the Award
(...)
The Administrator must inform the Associate of the annulment of his Award, its causes and, if applicable, the date of return of the auctioned amount."
5 "Article 97.- Penalties
Any penalty to be charged by the Administrator must be clearly established in the Contract, including the amount it will amount to. No penalty individually may exceed the amount equivalent to two (02) Capital Quotas."

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
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 charged by the Administrator must be clearly established in the contract. Therefore, this would evidence that PANDERO would not be complying with observing the regulations governing the exercise of its activities, such as the REGULATION;

Without prejudice to the above, it has been proven by PANDERO that the administrator company returned to the COMPLAINANT the contributions made in relation to its Contract 6625-081-16, as well as the interests that the associate had to pay for the loan acquired for the payment of the price difference of the vehicle, in accordance with what was stipulated in the EXTRAJUDICIAL TRANSACTION;
Therefore, PANDERO would not have complied with what is established in the conduct norms established in article 48 letters b), e), f) and h) of the REGULATION;
Consequently, it was attributed to PANDERO that it would have incurred in one (1) infringement classified as serious, according to Annex I, numeral 2, item 2.25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infringement: "Not to have, approve, implement, nor comply with or modify them without communicating them to the SMV, within the corresponding deadline, the conduct norms, the internal conduct norms, or code of conduct, in accordance with the regulations on the matter, or not to approve a control procedure for said norms";

3.2.3 FAIL TO DELIVER THE CONTRACT ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED FORM

According to the documentation presented with the complaint, the COMPLAINANT via email on December 4, 2021 addressed to PANDERO, stated that she accepted the contract by voice and that they did not deliver a physical contract for her to read and that it was only sent to her email after accepting the contract. Likewise, via Notarial Letter of March 30, 2022, the COMPLAINANT manifested to PANDERO that at the moment she accepted the contract via voice recording, they did not deliver any physical contract;
Regarding this, it must be indicated that PANDERO through its writing presented on January 8, 2024, presented a copy of an email sent to the COMPLAINANT on December 7, 2020 at 4:04 pm, with the subject "Welcome to Pandero", with the purpose of accrediting that it delivered to the COMPLAINANT her user and access key to the Mi Pandero portal, with the objective that the COMPLAINANT can access to review all her documents, within which, according to PANDERO, her Collective Funds Contract would be found;
It is worth adding that, through the Notarial Letter of April 22, 2022, in response to the notarial letter of the COMPLAINANT dated March 30, 2022, Pandero manifested to her the following: "(...), states that she would not have received a copy of her contract, however, we remind you that the credentials for entry to our platform 'Mi Pandero', where she found her Contract and other documentation referred to our Collective Funds System, were sent, in due course, to the email address you declared at the time of your entry: (...)";
In this sense, the charges letter derives from this that PANDERO would not have complied with delivering to the COMPLAINANT the signed contract of

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
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 in a physical manner in accordance with what is established in clause 13, numeral 13.4, letter f) of the Contract;

Therefore, it was attributed to PANDERO that it would have incurred in one (1) 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 celebrated with the associate";

3.3 Defenses

PANDERO states that the COMPLAINANT, an associate of Group No. 6625 of the "Pandero C-6" Program, filed a complaint for alleged infringements to the REGULATION, which, according to PANDERO, was subsequently archived after the signing of an extrajudicial transaction between PANDERO and the COMPLAINANT on January 24, 2024. However, according to what was manifested by PANDERO, the SMV initiated ex officio a new sanctioning procedure based on the same facts.

3.3.1 FAIL TO DELIVER TO THE POTENTIAL ASSOCIATE THE BROCHURE FOR THE ASSOCIATE, THE TARIFF AND THE MODEL OF THE RESPECTIVE CONTRACT, PRIOR TO THE SUBSCRIPTION OF THE CONTRACT

With respect to this charge, PANDERO states that on December 2, 2020, the COMPLAINANT signed Contract 6625-081-16, with the purpose of acquiring a Purchase Certificate for the sum of US$ 15,090.85 American Dollars, to be applied in the acquisition of a new vehicle;
Likewise, in the same sense as in the response presented on January 8, 2024, PANDERO states that since the COMPLAINANT's entry into the collective funds system, PANDERO complied with providing her absolutely all the pertinent information regarding her collective funds system, as evidenced, according to the administrator company, in the SPEECH OF THE SUMMARIZED CONTRACT, as well as with the voice recording, which according to PANDERO, evidences her conformity and with which the collective funds contract is considered celebrated;
Likewise, PANDERO states that in the final part of the contract clauses it details the following:
"VERY IMPORTANT:
Before signing this Contract, the Associate declares having been informed of the Brochure for the Associate, the clauses that make up this contract and the current Service Tariff, which have been sent to the Associate's electronic mailbox. Which she has read and found clear and in conformity in their entirety, for which she accepts that Pandero will not recognize those conditions or offers that are not provided for in these documents;
In the same way, the administrator company indicates that the COMPLAINANT ratified points 6 and 8 of the Relevant Information Brochure, which state the following:
"6. Once awarded, I must contract the satellite tracking service (GPS) duly authorized by Pandero S.A. EAFC and, according to my credit evaluation, present a guarantor or personal surety, as well as constitute the guarantees

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
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 that in the consideration of Pandero S.A. EAFC are necessary to ensure the integrity of the Collective Fund.
7. In case of choosing Pandero S.A. EAFC as the vehicle supplier, for its registration in the Public Records, I must provide Pandero with a copy of the banking payment means that certify the payment of the total monthly installments.
8. I have been informed of the clauses corresponding to the Pandero S.A. EAFC contract and the current service tariff. The same which have been sent to my electronic mailbox."

In view of the above, PANDERO argues that the COMPLAINANT had knowledge of each of the terms and conditions of the Contract, among them, the requirement of sureties, the corresponding penalties and deductions, as well as all the clauses of the Contract and documentation attached in her proforma, prior to her entry into PANDERO, according to what was argued by the administrator company. This, according to PANDERO, is evidenced by the email from salesapp@panderoventas.com of December 2, 2020 at 12:56 pm for COMPLAINANT1, which has the subject "..., you are one step away from achieving your goal with Pandero";
Likewise, PANDERO maintains that, with said email, four (4) PDF files were attached to the COMPLAINANT prior to her entry into the collective funds system referring to i) Proforma No. 734760, ii) contract without value iii) tariff and iv) relevant information brochure, according to the copy of the email presented by PANDERO;
In that context, PANDERO argues that it delivered to the COMPLAINANT, before the signing of the Contract, all the required documentation: Brochure for the Associate, Tariff and Contract Model. This is demonstrated, according to what was manifested by PANDERO, with the emails sent on December 2 and 7, 2020, which include said documents in digital format;
Additionally, PANDERO states that the COMPLAINANT confirmed having received and understood said documents through the recording of the SPEECH OF THE SUMMARIZED CONTRACT, in which it is expressly declared that all the information was delivered and understood before the subscription of the contract;
Likewise, the administrator company states that the COMPLAINANT gave her conformity to the SPEECH OF THE SUMMARIZED CONTRACT, where according to PANDERO, she declares accepting all the clauses of her contract, which she has found clear and in conformity. For which, in the same way as in her writing presented on January 8, 2024, she attaches a link with the corresponding audio;
In the same way, PANDERO maintains, it can be appreciated the commitment of the COMPLAINANT to access her electronic mailbox, where, according to the administrator company, documents such as her Collective Funds Contract and the Relevant Information Brochure are found, in which all the information regarding the terms and conditions of the Collective Funds System appears, among them the deductions and penalties to which the associates are subject in case they decide to opt for the resolution of their contract;
Likewise, PANDERO states that via email dated December 2, 2020, it sent to the COMPLAINANT's email her

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
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 user and access key to the Mi Pandero portal, with the objective that the COMPLAINANT can access to review all her documents within which, according to what was stated by PANDERO, her Collective Funds Contract, the Relevant Information Brochure, the Brochure for the associate, etc. are found. After said argument, the administrator company attaches the image of the email of December 7, 2020 at 4:04 pm from salesapp@panderoventas.com for COMPLAINANT1, with the subject "Welcome to Pandero". Likewise, it presents a copy of the email of said date and time, in which the sending of user and password to the PANDERO Collective Funds system can be observed;

In this way, PANDERO reiterates that Contract No. 6625-081-16 and other documentation, have been made available to the COMPLAINANT from the moment of her entry into the Collective Funds System, and whose commitment to review this and other documentation was assumed by the COMPLAINANT, through the conformity to the SPEECH OF THE SUMMARIZED CONTRACT;
PANDERO additionally states that the COMPLAINANT is currently in the condition of awarded by lottery since November 20, 2023 and that she has been contacted by her Service and Sales Officer;

3.3.2 FAIL TO COMPLY WITH CONDUCT NORMS

With respect to this charge, PANDERO maintains that it acted with transparency in communicating the requirements for the award of the certificate and the purchase of the vehicle. Likewise, it states that although there was a delay in the return of the amount of US$ 2,309.15 corresponding to the price differential of the vehicle, this was due to internal administrative procedures, which were resolved with the payment made on March 15, 2023. Additionally, the administrator company states that said payment included the corresponding interests, ensuring that the interests of the COMPLAINANT were not affected, with which she manifested her complete acceptance and conformity;
Regarding the penalty stipulated in the IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER, PANDERO states that this was included in said document and accepted by the COMPLAINANT at the time of its subscription, complying with the essential requirements of manifestation of will established in article 140 of the Civil Code. PANDERO adds that, this article establishes that every legal act requires a declaration of will free of vices, as well as a lawful cause and possible object. Additionally, in accordance with article 1362 of the same code, contracts must be executed in good faith and in accordance with what was agreed;
Likewise, PANDERO maintains that the penalty in question responds to a provision agreed upon at the time of the subscription of the IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER, where it is established that, in case of non-compliance by the associate, PANDERO may apply a penalty of 6% of the value of the good. This clause reflects a mutual commitment accepted within the framework of contractual negotiations and aligned with the transparency practices that PANDERO maintains in its operations;
In this sense, PANDERO maintains that the application of said penalty is within the legal framework and responds to the will manifested in an express and free manner by both parties. This, according to PANDERO,

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

3.3.3 FAIL TO DELIVER THE CONTRACT ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED FORM

Regarding this, PANDERO states that "The Collective Funds Regulation establishes in its clause 13.4 (f) that the Administrator must deliver to the associate the signed contract in physical format, unless he has authorized the use of electronic means.";
Likewise, PANDERO maintains that the COMPLAINANT opted to use the digital platform "Mi Pandero" to access her contract and other relevant documents, authorization that, according to what was stated by PANDERO, is documented in the recording of the SPEECH OF THE SUMMARIZED CONTRACT. However, PANDERO states that the contract was always available in physical format and could have been requested by the COMPLAINANT at any time, thus complying with what is established in the current regulations, according to what was argued by the administrator company;
Additionally, PANDERO argues that at the date of subscription of the Contract we were still in the Pandemic and many associates avoided moving or receiving documentation (such as the contract) in physical form, which, states PANDERO, must be valued in function of the world situation. For which, according to what was stated by PANDERO, electronic means, were of vital importance to preserve the health of the associates;

3.4 Evaluation of the defenses

With respect to what was manifested by PANDERO, regarding that the Complaint presented by the COMPLAINANT was archived after the signing of the EXTRAJUDICIAL TRANSACTION and that despite this, a new sanctioning procedure based on the same facts would have been initiated, it must be specified that through Office No. 5565-2024-SMV/10.3 notified on December 11, 2024, PANDERO was communicated that "(...) after the review of the information sent by the COMPLAINANT and the investigations carried out by this General Intendancy, as well as the comments and documentation presented by her representative, it has been determined, with respect to some of the extremes of the complaint, of what was done in the present file, the corresponding archive, by virtue of what is established in article 41°, numeral 5 of the Regulation of Organization and Functions of the Superintendency of the Securities Market - SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF and its modifications, as well as article 8° of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution SMV No. 035-2018-SMV/01.";
That is, in accordance with the regulations cited in the aforementioned office, the archive was communicated with respect to some extremes of the complaint due to not having verified with respect to said extremes of the complaint, the existence of sufficient indications for the initiation of an administrative sanctioning procedure, but not due to the EXTRAJUDICIAL TRANSACTION;
Likewise, it was communicated that "(...) for other facts related to the aforementioned complaint, the administrative sanctioning procedure followed in File No. 2024049139 has been initiated." That is, the present administrative sanctioning procedure was initiated on other extremes of the complaint and not on the same facts as PANDERO states;

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

It is worth remembering that it is the function of the SMV, among others, to supervise the compliance of the legislation of the collective funds system. Likewise, it is its attribution to impose sanctions on those who contravene the norms under its competence, in accordance with what is established in article 1, letter b) and article 3, numeral 9 of the Unified Text of the Organic Law of the SMV, approved by Legislative Decree No. 26126 and its modifications;
Additionally, it is worth specifying that in accordance with what is established in article 31° of the Regulation of Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF, "The Deputy Superintendent of Prudential Supervision is the body in charge of executing the competencies that the Securities Market Law, the Law on the Commodity Exchange, the Investment Funds Law, the laws on the Collective Funds System, the respective regulations or any other norm, assign to the SMV in matters of prudential supervision related to the following entities under its scope of supervision: (...) 8. The collective funds and their respective administrator societies";
For which, the signing of an extrajudicial transaction between the supervised and the complainant does not prevent the SMV from exercising its functions. This, without prejudice to that it can be valued in the evaluation of the administrative sanctioning procedure that is initiated;

3.4.1 FAIL TO DELIVER TO THE POTENTIAL ASSOCIATE THE BROCHURE FOR THE ASSOCIATE, THE TARIFF AND THE MODEL OF THE RESPECTIVE CONTRACT, PRIOR TO THE SUBSCRIPTION OF THE CONTRACT

In principle that according to the documentation on file presented by PANDERO, it must be indicated that Contract No. 6625-081-16 was celebrated on December 2, 2020, according to the SPEECH OF THE SUMMARIZED CONTRACT and according to the recognition of the COMPLAINANT of having celebrated the contract with PANDERO;
WITH RESPECT TO THIS, Pandero indicates that prior to the celebration of the contract, via email of December 2, 2020, it complied with delivering to the COMPLAINANT: i) Proforma No. 734760, ii) contract without value iii) tariff and iv) relevant information brochure;
Notwithstanding the above, and as will be indicated in the charges attribution, the administrator did not comply with sending to the COMPLAINANT, prior to the celebration of the contract, the "Brochure for the Associate" in accordance with what is established in article 66 and in Annex 13 "Brochure for the Associate" of the REGULATION, as well as in clause 13, numeral 13.4, letters a) of the Contract, PANDERO;
It must be noted that, according to the cited regulations, the "Brochure for the Associate", as indicated in the aforementioned Annex 13, has the purpose of explaining the most important aspects of a Collective Funds System and that it must be provided by the administrator company, or whoever represents it, to potential associates, as a prior requirement for the subscription of the Collective Fund Administration Contract or any related document. Thus, said brochure must contain information on what a collective funds system is, the way in which the quality of associate is acquired, how the right of award is acquired, among others; that is, the brochure is a document

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship
119. Likewise, regarding that the referred
return included the corresponding interests, ensuring that the interests of the COMPLAINANT were not affected, it must be specified that PANDERO returned to the COMPLAINANT the payment of the price difference of the vehicle, after the complaint made by her, on March 15, 2023 and the amount for the concept of interests that would correspond to the price difference of the vehicle was included in the EXTRAJUDICIAL TRANSACTION, that is, after more than ten (10) months of the return being made and subsequently to the transfer of the complaint filed by the COMPLAINANT;
120. Therefore, the inclusion of the referred interests
could not ensure that the interests of the COMPLAINANT were not affected, given that for this it was not only necessary to file a complaint against PANDERO, but also the interests of an associate of the collective fund system, as in the present case, cannot be reduced to the return with interests regarding a payment that should not have been made, since it should not have been required by the administrator company, according to the facts previously exposed;
121. In that line, it must also be indicated that,
PANDERO did not comply with informing the COMPLAINANT clearly and timely of the annulment of the award on the date of the occurrence or within days of occurring as it is relevant information for the COMPLAINANT and not after more than two (2) months and as a consequence of a request made by the COMPLAINANT, additionally considering that according to article 120 of the REGULATION the Administrator is obligated to inform the associate of the annulment of his award, as well as its causes;
122. In that sense, the facts previously exposed
evidence that PANDERO did not act with the due care and diligence in the best interest of the COMPLAINANT, constituting acts by PANDERO, that not only can affect and deteriorate the trust of the COMPLAINANT in the system of collective funds, but also of the potential associates in the referred system. Likewise, from the referred facts it is also evident that not all the information provided to the COMPLAINANT was clear, sufficient and timely, nor were the interests of the associate prioritized, since first the payment of the difference in the value of the vehicle was required and then she was informed that she did not meet all the requirements, as well as by the considerable delay in the return of the difference that she paid at the request of PANDERO;
123. On the other hand, regarding the penalty
established in the IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER, PANDERO states that said penalty was included in the referred document and accepted by the COMPLAINANT at the moment of its signature, complying with the essential requirements of manifestation of will established in article 140 of the Civil Code, therefore, according to PANDERO, this responds to a provision agreed upon at the time of the signature of the IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER and reflects a mutual commitment accepted in the framework of the contractual negotiations, and aligned with the transparency practices that PANDERO maintains in its operations. It adds that, according to article 1362 of the referred code, contracts must be executed in good faith and according to what was agreed;
124. Regarding this, it must be stated that according
to article 19 of the REGULATION the authorization of a Program implies the approval of the contract model to be used in the respective Program, that is, the only contracts that are used in the various programs administered and in which

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship the rights and obligations of the administrator company and of the associates are regulated, according to article 21 of said regulation, must be approved by the SMV, condition that the IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER does not have, therefore it could not regulate additional obligations to those established in the approved contract;
125. With regard to what was stated, it must be specified
additionally that clause 9, item 9.3.1 of the Contract states that “The Associate, within thirty (30) days after having been notified of his award, must communicate to PANDERO in writing the name of the Provider and the specific characteristics of the vehicle to acquire, from one of the brands provided for in the General Conditions of the Contract (…) which will be detailed in an Irrevocable Purchase Order of the Vehicle (…). In case that the awarded Associate has not communicated to PANDERO the choice of the vehicle within the established period, the award will be annulled, unless otherwise provided by law.” That is, according to the contract, the purpose of the mentioned document is that the characteristics of the vehicle to be chosen are detailed in it according to the conditions of the contract, without this constituting a new contract;
126. Likewise, although the COMPLAINANT signed the
IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER, this was as a consequence of the requirement made by PANDERO and not within a framework of negotiations, given that the COMPLAINANT had already signed Contract No. 6625-081-16 and upon being awarded according to the same, the characteristics of the vehicle to be acquired had to be detailed in the IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER, given that if not communicated according to also to the referred contract, this would lead to the annulment of the award. In such a way that the COMPLAINANT was not in a situation to negotiate whether to sign or not the IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER;
127. Additionally, it must be noted that the
establishment of a penalty in the IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER and the signature of the same by the COMPLAINANT, is not aligned with transparency practices as PANDERO claims, given that the COMPLAINANT could only have knowledge of this information after PANDERO required her to sign the IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER and not before. Moreover, the COMPLAINANT could not have knowledge or be informed about said penalty, from a reading of the contract signed since this is not regulated in it. Despite that according to articles 19, 21, 95 and 97 6 of the REGULATION the rights and obligations of the parties must be regulated in the contract to be approved by the SMV, which must contain as a minimum, among others, the penalties that are agreed upon in accordance with what is established in the REGULATION, that is, any penalty to be charged by the Administrator must be clearly established in the contract;
128. In such sense, although this penalty was not
applied in the present case, the establishment of said penalty is not within the applicable legal framework and although the COMPLAINANT signed the IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER

6 “Article 97.- Penalties
Any penalty to be charged by the Administrator must be clearly established in the Contract, including the amount it will amount to. No penalty individually may exceed the amount equivalent to two (02) Capital Quotas.”

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER, this does not necessarily respond to the will manifested freely by the COMPLAINANT, as PANDERO claims, given that she was not in a situation to negotiate whether to sign or not the IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER, according to what was stated above. This implies that the protection of the rights of the associates was not respected;
129. In this way, this evidences that PANDERO did not
comply with observing the regulations that govern the exercise of its activities, such as the REGULATION, given that said penalty has not been established in the contract; therefore the administrator did not comply with what is established in the conduct norms established in article 48 letters b), e), f) and h) of the REGULATION;
130. Consequently, it is concluded that PANDERO has not
disproved the charge imputed; and, therefore, it has been established that it incurred in a (1) infraction classified as serious, according to Annex I, item 2, subsection 2.25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION.
3.4.3 NOT COMPLY WITH DELIVERING THE CONTRACT ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED FORM
131. Regarding this, with regard to what PANDERO manifested
regarding that “The Collective Funds Regulation establishes in its clause
13.4 (f) that the Administrator must deliver to the associate the signed contract in physical format, unless he has authorized the use of electronic means.” It must be specified that the text of clause 13, item 13.4, letter f) of the contract is the following:
“Deliver to the Associate at his expense, all the documentation that establishes the Regulation (…). However, in the case that the Associate has indicated his email address as the preferred means of communication in item 1.20, PANDERO may send all information and documentation by email, the Associate being deemed notified, who authorizes PANDERO by this contract to be notified by email. Except for this contract which will be delivered in physical form. (Underline added);
132. From the clause in question it is derived that
PANDERO is obligated to deliver the signed contract in physical form, therefore it does not comply with its obligation by sending the referred contract through another means;
133. In that line, it must be mentioned that in the SPEECH OF THE SUMMARIZED CONTRACT no options are established on which the COMPLAINANT could have opted to use the digital platform “Mi Pandero” to access her contract, as PANDERO claims, even more so when in the SPEECH OF THE SUMMARIZED CONTRACT there is no express mention of the digital platform “Mi Pandero” nor express mention of access to her contract;
134. Likewise, with regard to what PANDERO argued,
regarding that the contract was always available in physical format and could have been requested by the COMPLAINANT at any time, thus complying with what is provided in the current regulations, it should be noted that the obligation of PANDERO according to clause 13, item 13.4, letter f) of the contract is to deliver to the associate, in this case to the COMPLAINANT, the contract in physical form and not only that it is available in physical format;
135. Likewise, it is necessary to indicate that the
compliance with the obligation to deliver the contract in physical form by PANDERO cannot depend on the request or not of the COMPLAINANT, without prejudice to pointing out that additionally to the email of December 4, 2021, via Notarial Letter of March 30, 2022, the COMPLAINANT manifested to PANDERO that at the moment when she accepted the contract via voice recording, she was not delivered any physical contract. However, the COMPLAINANT received as a response that “(…), states that she had not received a copy of her contract, however, we remind you that the credentials for your entry to our platform “Mi Pandero”, where she found her Contract and other documentation referred to our Collective Fund System, were sent, in due time, to the email address you declared at the time of your entry: (…)”;
136. That is, despite the complaints made by the
COMPLAINANT, PANDERO did not comply with delivering to the COMPLAINANT her contract in physical form;
137. On the other hand, with regard to what PANDERO stated
regarding that the situation of Pandemic that was maintained at the date of signature of the Contract should be valued and for which many associates avoided moving or receiving documentation in physical form, it must be stated that according to the facts of the complaint, the Pandemic situation was not an impediment for the COMPLAINANT to move to a PANDERO sales center seeking car quotes and receiving certain information in direct contact with PANDERO personnel nor an impediment for PANDERO to capture clients in direct contact with them, so it could not be sustained that the pandemic situation would be an impediment for the COMPLAINANT to receive the Contract in physical form. Even more considering that the COMPLAINANT complained that she was not delivered the Contract in physical form;
138. In such sense, it has been evidenced that PANDERO did not
comply with delivering to the COMPLAINANT the signed contract in physical form as established in clause 13, item 13.4, letter f) of the Contract;
139. Therefore, it is concluded that PANDERO has not
disproved the charge imputed; and, consequently, it has been established that it incurred in a (1) infraction classified as serious, according to Annex XIII, item 2, subsection 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
140. It should be indicated that in its additional written allegations, PANDERO reiterates the arguments presented as part of its defenses, aspects that were previously evaluated.
141. Additionally it refers that article 230 of the
LPAG establishes that administrative sanctions must be proportional to the gravity of the infraction and the damage caused, therefore it indicates that in the present case it should be considered that it proceeded with the return of the differential amount with interests. Likewise, PANDERO refers that what is stated aligns with the principle of reasonableness described by the Constitutional Tribunal in File No. 2192-2004- AA/TC, in whose resolution that establishes the essential principles of the right sanctioning administrative, emphasizing the need to respect the principle of proportionality. In its content, it is provided that every sanction must be reasonable and in accordance with the gravity of the infraction committed, guaranteeing an equilibrium between the public interest and the rights of the administered;

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship

It should be indicated that these aspects referred to the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, among others, will be evaluated as part of the sanction evaluation;

IV. Evaluation of the Sanction

According to Article 7 of Decree Law No. 21907 on Collective Fund Companies and Article 25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION; in concordance with Article 248, numeral 3 of the TUO OF THE LPAG and Article 257 of the aforementioned normative body; the administrative sanctions imposed must take into account the criteria established by Decree Law No. 21907, the SANCTIONS REGULATION and the TUO OF THE LPAG;
Within this framework, the evaluation of the sanction must consider: a) Antecedents of the offender; b) Recidivism; c) Circumstances of the commission of the infraction; d) Economic damage caused and its repercussion on the market; e) Illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction; f) Probability of detection of the infraction; g) Severity of the damage to public interest and/or protected legal good; h) Existence or not of intent in the offender's conduct;
In this sense, in order to harmonize the criteria of the TUO OF THE LPAG with those indicated in Decree Law No. 21907 and in the SANCTIONS REGULATION, and for these criteria to be considered adequately so that their valuation observes the principle of reasonableness and the sanction to be imposed adapts to them, the following criteria are analyzed;

7
"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 in more advantage 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 qualified as an infraction, observing the following criteria indicated for their graduation:
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 public interest and/or protected legal good; d) The economic damage caused; e) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infraction within a period of one (1) year from when the resolution sanctioning the first infraction became final. f) The circumstances of the commission of the infraction; and g) The existence or not of intent in the offender's conduct".

8
"Article 257°.- Exemptions and mitigating conditions of responsibility for infractions 1.- The following constitute conditions exempting responsibility for infractions:
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 this affects the aptitude to understand the infraction. d) Mandatory order of competent authority, issued in the exercise of its functions. e) Error induced by the Administration or by confusing or illegal administrative provision. f) Voluntary remediation by the possible sanctioned party of the act or omission imputed as constitutive of administrative infraction, prior to the notification of the charges referred to in paragraph 3) of article 255. 2.- The following constitute mitigating conditions of responsibility for infractions:
a) If an administrative sanctioning procedure has been initiated and the offender expressly and in writing recognizes their responsibility.
In cases where the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced to an amount not less than half of its value. b) Others established by special norm".

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

Regarding the antecedents of the offender, in accordance with what is provided by Article 25, literal a) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, antecedents constitute the final sanctions imposed by the SMV within a period of four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned. The aforementioned article specifies that the commission of the same infraction in the year prior to the infraction to be sanctioned is not considered an antecedent.
In this sense, from the review carried out in said period, it has been verified that PANDERO registers the following final sanctions:

No. Resolution Resolved Finality Antecedent
() i
Resolution of
Adjunct Superintendent
SMV No.
021-2017-SMV/10 9
PANDERO was sanctioned with a fine of one (01) UIT for having incurred one (01) infraction of a serious nature typified in Annex XIV, numeral 2, paragraph 2.21 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 055-2001-EF/94.10 and its modifying norms, for not complying with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract celebrated with the associate, by not communicating to the associate the date of the holding of the inaugural assembly as established in the contract. 04/05/2017 a. and c. ii Resolution of Adjunct Superintendent SMV No. 025-2016- SMV/10 10 PANDERO was sanctioned with a fine of 11,904 UIT, equivalent to S/. 44,044.80 (Forty-four thousand forty-four and 80/100 New Soles), for having incurred five (05) infractions of a minor nature typified in Annex XIV, numeral 3, paragraph 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 055-2001-EF/94.10 and its modifying norms, for having presented periodic information outside the deadline established by current regulations. This resolution was subject to a reconsideration appeal and through Superintendent Resolution No. 064-2017-SMV/10 of August 11, 2017, the reconsideration appeal filed by PANDERO against Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 025-2016-SMV/10 was declared unfounded. 11/08/2017 a. and c. iii Resolution of Adjunct Superintendent SMV No. 003-2020- SMV/10 11 PANDERO was sanctioned with seven (07) UIT for having incurred (01) infraction of a serious nature typified in Annex XIV, numeral 2, paragraph 2.22 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 055-2001-EF/94.10 and its modifying norms, in force at the date the facts occurred, for not complying with the conditions established in the regulations for the convocation or celebration of assemblies, this by not having convened the inaugural assembly of a group with the minimum advance required by regulations. This resolution was subject to an appeal and through Superintendent Resolution No. 085-2021-SMV/10 of August 25, 2021, the appeal filed by PANDERO against Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 003-2020-SMV/10 was declared unfounded. 25/08/21 b. () Literals of the consideration 24.

9 Notified on April 10, 2017.
10 Notified on July 8, 2016.
11 Notified on January 31, 2020.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

Regarding recidivism for the commission of the same infraction, that final sanction imposed by the SMV within a period of 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 PANDERO does not present sanctions within the aforementioned period, for the commission of the same infraction subject of analysis, in the present administrative sanctioning procedure, so recidivism is not configured;
Regarding the circumstances of the commission of the infractions, it must be mentioned that PANDERO, in its capacity as a company supervised by the SMV, knows the norms that regulate the collective fund system and, in that sense, the norms that establish that the administrator company must comply with delivering the Associate's Booklet to the potential associate prior to the signing of the contract by the associate. Nevertheless, in the present case PANDERO did not comply with said norms;
Likewise, PANDERO has knowledge that in the development of its activities the administrator company must comply with the conduct norms established in the REGULATION; however, the facts exposed in the evaluation of the second charge evidence that PANDERO did not act with the due care and diligence in the best interest of the COMPLAINANT, constituting acts by PANDERO that not only can affect and deteriorate the confidence of the COMPLAINANT in the collective fund system, but also of potential associates in said system;
Additionally, from the aforementioned facts it is also evident that not all information provided to the COMPLAINANT was clear, sufficient and timely, nor were the interests of the associate prioritized, since first the payment of the difference in the value of the vehicle was required and then it was informed that she did not meet all the requirements, as well as by the considerable delay in the return of the differential paid at the request of PANDERO;
In the same way, PANDERO did not comply with observing the norms that regulate the exercise of its activities, as a conduct norm, by not establishing in the contract, as established in the REGULATION, the penalty that was included in the IRREVOCABLE PURCHASE ORDER;
It should be indicated that the situation mentioned implied that the complainant did not have access to her funds amounting to US$ 2,309.15 from February 3, 2022 to March 15, 2023, nor did she have to assume the payment of interest, which were only compensated as part of the EXTRAJUDICIAL TRANSACTION;
Thus, it is also worth reiterating that PANDERO has the obligation to comply with the contract signed with its associates, which establishes the rights and obligations of the associates and the administrator company and whose model is authorized by the SMV, at the request of the administrator company, nevertheless PANDERO did not comply with delivering the contract to the COMPLAINANT in physical form as established in said Contract;
Without prejudice to what was stated above, it must be taken into account that PANDERO and the COMPLAINANT signed the EXTRAJUDICIAL TRANSACTION, in which it was agreed to return to the COMPLAINANT the full

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

amount of the contributions made to PANDERO in her Contract 6625-081-16, as well as the return of the amount corresponding to the interest that the associate had to pay for the loan for the payment of the difference in the price of the vehicle. Which, according to the documentation sent by PANDERO, would have been returned to the COMPLAINANT on February 15, 2024;

Regarding the economic damage caused and the repercussion on the market, it has not been evidenced that the infractions in which PANDERO has incurred have had repercussion on the collective fund system nor produced a concrete quantifiable damage in the latter; however, these facts affect the confidence of associates or potential associates in the collective fund system and in particular, based on the non-compliances in which PANDERO has incurred, the confidence of the COMPLAINANT in the collective fund system was affected;
In particular, it should be specified that from the facts it is evident that damage has indeed been caused to the COMPLAINANT, who could not dispose of the return of the payment she made for the price differential on July 27, 2021, amounting to US$ 2,309.15; therefore, said amount and from February 3, 2022 to March 15, 2023, it was in the possession of PANDERO irregularly and illegally for more than a year, with the use and profitability of said amount at her discretion, to the detriment of the COMPLAINANT who could not use and enjoy the money that corresponded to her according to law. It should be noted that the COMPLAINANT could have perceived a benefit or given the corresponding utility based on her needs, had she had her money in time to allocate it to other purposes. Likewise, it must be indicated that the payment of said differential implied that the COMPLAINANT had to assume the payment of interest, so through the EXTRAJUDICIAL TRANSACTION of January 24, 2024, PANDERO agreed to return them to the COMPLAINANT;
In this sense, what was affirmed by the administrator in her additional written allegations of January 9, 2025 regarding the fact that the return of the amount with the corresponding interest and the formalization of a signed agreement supposedly imply that there was no damage to the associate, does not adjust to the reality of the facts. Furthermore, it must reiterate what was stated previously regarding that the interest of an associate of the collective fund system, as in the present case, cannot be reduced to the return with interest regarding a payment that should not have been made, since it should not have been required by the administrator company;
Regarding the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infractions, it must be pointed out that it has not been proven that PANDERO has obtained a benefit that is directly related to the infractions subject of analysis in the present sanctioning procedure;
Regarding the probability of detection of the infractions, it must be indicated that the facts constitutive of infractions committed by PANDERO were evidenced when verifying the compliance with the applicable regulations for the development of its functions, based on the facts exposed by the COMPLAINANT in the complaint filed against PANDERO; therefore, the probability of detection of the infraction was low;
As for the severity of the damage to public interest and/or protected legal good, it has not been possible to prove that the conduct of PANDERO in

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

the commission of the infractions subject of analysis in the present administrative sanctioning procedure, have caused determinable damage to public interest;

Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that according to what is established in Article 66 and in Annex 13 "Associate's Booklet" of the REGULATION, as well as in clause 13, numeral 13.4, literals a) of the Contract, PANDERO has the obligation to deliver the Associate's Booklet prior to the signing of the Contract by the Associate, which it did not comply with delivering to the COMPLAINANT prior to the subscription of the Contract. It should be noted that the information contained in said documentation constitutes relevant information that every potential associate must have in order to adopt their subscription decisions for the Contract and/or choice of the object of the contract;
Likewise, PANDERO, in the exercise of its activities related to the present case, did not comply with the conduct norms indicated above, established in Article 48 of the REGULATION. Thus, it did not comply with the provisions established in the contract signed by not delivering the contract in physical form to the COMPLAINANT;
In this way, taking into account that collective fund administrator companies have the obligation to act in strict compliance with the regulations applicable to them, including the provisions established in the collective fund administration contracts they sign with associates, in safeguarding the collective fund system; the contrary affects the legal good referred to the integrity of the market, that is, of the collective fund system and in that sense affects the confidence of associates or potential associates in the system;
Regarding this, it must be specified that no intent has been verified in the conduct of PANADERO regarding the infractions subject of analysis;
In addition to the above, it corresponds to analyze the exemptions and mitigating conditions of responsibility established in Article 257 of the TUO OF THE LPAG, as well as the mitigating and exempting conditions of responsibility established in Articles 26 and 27 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
Regarding this, with respect to the voluntary declaration of the commission of the infraction, the contribution of the offender to its clarification and the remediation carried out after its requirement, established in Article 257, numeral 2, paragraph a) and b) of the TUO of the LPAG and in Article 26, literals a), b) and c) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, it must be noted that PANDERO has not recognized its responsibility for the infractions incurred, nevertheless it has contributed to the clarification of the same;
Likewise, what is established in Article 26, literal c) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION is not applicable in the present sanctioning procedure;
On the other hand, in accordance with what is determined in Article 27 12 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, in concordance with Article 257,

12 "Article 27.- EXEMPTIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR INFRACTIONS" The following constitute conditions exempting responsibility for infractions:

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

numeral 1 of the TUO LPAG, it is not observed that in the present case any of the circumstances that constitute conditions exempting responsibility regarding the analyzed infractions have been configured;

From the above, it is concluded that PANDERO has incurred three (3) infractions of a serious nature. In this sense, a sanction corresponding to the infractions qualified as serious must be imposed on PANDERO according to Article 38° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, which establishes that the serious infraction is sanctionable with a fine greater than twenty-five (25) and up to fifty (50) Tax Units (UIT) or with the prohibition of the formation of new groups;
However, taking into account the analyzed sanction criteria, and in application of the Principle of Reasonableness contemplated in Article 248°, numeral 3 of the TUO OF THE LPAG, which states that the sanctions to be applied must be proportional to the non-compliance qualified as an infraction, it must be considered that it has not been possible to prove that the analyzed infractions have produced repercussion on the market or have caused determinable damage to public interest, that PANDERO is not a recidivist regarding the evaluated infractions and that the COMPLAINANT presented the withdrawal of the complaint, after the EXTRAJUDICIAL TRANSACTION through which it was not only agreed to return to the COMPLAINANT the full amount of the contributions made to PANDERO in her Contract 6625-081-16, but also the return of the amount corresponding to the interest that the associate had to pay for the loan for the payment of the difference in the price of the vehicle; therefore, in accordance with what is provided in the last paragraph of Article 25° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, this Adjunct Superintendence considers that it corresponds to impose on PANDERO a sanction of fine applicable to minor infractions, according to what is provided in Article 39° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;

Being in accordance with what is provided by Articles 32°, numeral 16, of the Organization and Functions Regulation of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF and its amendments.

RESOLVES:

Article 1º.- Declare that Pandero S.A. EAFC has incurred one (1) infraction qualified as serious as established in Annex XIII, numeral 2, paragraph 2.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having complied with delivering the associate's booklet prior to the signing of the contract by the associate.

Article 2º.- Declare that Pandero S.A. EAFC has
incurred one (1) infraction qualified as serious as established in Annex

a) Force majeure, fortuitous event or another exceptional situation that, in the opinion of the SMV, is comparable to fortuitous event or force majeure duly proven. b) Acting in compliance with a legal duty or the legitimate exercise of a right of defense. c) Mental incapacity duly proven by the competent authority, provided that this affects the aptitude to understand the infraction. d) Mandatory order of competent authority, issued in the exercise of its functions. e) Error induced by the Administration or by confusing or illegal administrative provision. f) Voluntary remediation by the possible sanctioned party of the act or omission imputed as constitutive of administrative infraction, prior to the notification of the charges referred to in paragraph 3) of article 253 of the LPAG and always that no communication demanding the fulfillment of the obligation had been sent".

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship I, numeral 2, clause 2.25 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for failing to comply with conduct norms as established in the Regulation of Collective Funds and their Administrating Companies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 020-2014-SMV/01 and its amendments.
Article 3rd.- Declare that Pandero S.A. EAFC has committed one (1) infringement classified as serious as established in Annex XIII, numeral 2, clause 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for failing to comply with the fund administration contract regarding the delivery to the associate of their contract in physical form.
Article 4th.- Sanction Pandero S.A. EAFC with three (03) formal reprimands for the commission of the infringements referred to in articles 1st, 2nd and 3rd of this resolution.
Article 5th.- This resolution does not exhaust the administrative route, unless it is consented to, and may be challenged before the Deputy Superintendent of Prudential Supervision by filing a reconsideration or appeal request before the same, within the term of fifteen (15) business days counted from the day following its notification.
Article 6th.- In the event that this resolution is not subject to challenge through a reconsideration or appeal request within the term of fifteen (15) business days of being notified and becomes final, it must be published on the Institutional Website of the SMV on the Single Digital Platform of the Peruvian State (www.gob.pe/smv), in observance of what is established in numeral 1, article 7th of the Policy on dissemination of normative 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 what is established in article 14th of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01.
Article 7th.- Transmit this resolution to Pandero S.A. EAFC.
Register, communicate and publish.
Omar Gutiérrez Ochoa
Deputy Superintendent
Deputy Superintendent of Prudential Supervision

Lineage