Superintendence Resolution No. 009-2026-SMV/10 — SMV — PE

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendence of the Securities Market
"Decade of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men" "Year of Hope and the Strengthening of Democracy" Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and modifications. The integrity of the document and the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV
No. 009-2026-SMV/10
Lima, January 30, 2026

Summary: Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A. is sanctioned with a reprimand for having committed five (05) serious infractions: three (3) classified in Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation, for failing to comply with the contractual provisions regarding sending the general conditions of the contract, for failing to prove that it received the bid proposal form, and for failing to send all payment receipts; one (1) classified in Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.17 of the Sanctions Regulation, for failing to communicate the convocation to the first three (3) assemblies in which the associate was required to participate; and one (1) classified in Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, for failing to deliver the documents required by the regulation prior to the signing of the contract.

Administered by: Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A.
Subject: Administrative sanctioning procedure
File No.: 2025021578

The Adjunct Superintendent of Prudential Supervision

HAVING SEEN:
Administrative file No. 2025021578, and Report No. 1867-2025-SMV/10.3 issued by the General Intendancy of Prudential Compliance; as well as the defenses presented by Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A. 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 Superintendence of the Securities Market (SMV), so that any reference to CONASEV in legal norms shall be understood as referring to the SMV;

Digitally Signed by:
GUTIERREZ
OCHOA Omar
Dario FAU
20131016396 soft
Date: 30/01/2026
14:00:17

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

I. BACKGROUND
2. Through Letter No. 2752-2025-SMV/10.3 notified on May 13, 2025 (hereinafter, LETTER OF CHARGES), an administrative sanctioning procedure was initiated against Autoplan Empresa Administradora de Fondos Colectivos S.A. (hereinafter, AUTOPLAN EAFC), charging it with certain facts related to the complaint of the COMPLAINANT1;
3. On June 20, 2025, AUTOPLAN EAFC presented its defenses regarding what was communicated via the LETTER OF CHARGES;
4. The charges formulated against AUTOPLAN EAFC, and their evaluation, have been the subject of analysis in Report No. 1867-2025-SMV/10.3, which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Adjunct Superintendence;
5. In observance of the Principle of Due Process contemplated in Article IV, numeral 1.2, of the Preliminary Title and in Article 248, item 2, of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO LPAG), through Letter No. 7380-2025-SMV/10, the administrative file to which this resolution refers was made available to AUTOPLAN EAFC for its review;

II. MATTERS TO BE DETERMINED
6. In the present administrative procedure, in the opinion of this Adjunct Superintendence, it corresponds to determine the following:
a. Whether AUTOPLAN EAFC committed or did not commit an infringement of the provisions of Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), for failing to send the general conditions of the contract to the associate. b. Whether AUTOPLAN EAFC committed or did not commit an infringement of the provisions of Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for failing to prove that it received the bid proposal form from the associate.
c. Whether AUTOPLAN EAFC committed or did not commit an infringement of the provisions of Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for failing to send all payment receipts to the associate.
d. Whether AUTOPLAN EAFC committed or did not commit an infringement of the provisions of Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.17 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for failing to communicate the convocation to the first three (3) assemblies in which the associate was required to participate. e. Whether AUTOPLAN EAFC committed or did not commit an infringement of the provisions of Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.1 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for failing to deliver the documents required by the regulation prior to the signing of the contract. f. Whether it corresponds or does not correspond to impose sanctions on AUTOPLAN EAFC;

III. ANALYSIS
FIRST CHARGE: REGARDING THE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS

1 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, their email addresses.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

A. REGARDING THE SENDING OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT OF THE REGULATION
7. With regard to the obligation of AUTOPLAN EAFC to send the general conditions of the contract to the associate, clause third, numeral 3.2 and clause fifth, numeral 5.2, subsection 5.2.1, of the collective fund administration contract –purchase certificate modality, of the "Autoplan-002" program2, with contract No. 044082 (hereinafter, CONTRACT) state the following:

"THIRD CLAUSE: OBJECT
(...)
3.2 The General Conditions of the Contract shall contain, among others, the data of the Associate and the Group, as well as the duration of the latter and of the Contract. Likewise, the value of the Purchase Certificate, the details of the awards, the amount of the installments to be paid, their due date, and other information required by the SMV shall be recorded.
(...)
FIFTH CLAUSE: ENTRY OF THE ASSOCIATE, DURATION AND TERMINATION OF THE GROUP (...)
5.2 ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSOCIATE
5.2.1 Once the registration of the applicant is approved, he will enter the Group as an Associate, whereupon AUTOPLAN will send him the General Conditions of the Contract duly signed, which shall contain the Associate code with the identification of the Program to which he belongs, the Group, the position in the Group and its sequence within the position.
(...)
";

OF THE FACTS
8. According to the regulation exposed, the administrator company has the obligation to send the General Conditions of the Contract, which forms an integral part of the CONTRACT, and where among other data, the group number and vacancy of the CONTRACT signed are recorded;
9. Regarding this, the COMPLAINANT complained that AUTOPLAN EAFC did not inform her in due time of the number of the group to which she belonged and the vacancy she occupied within the group. It should be noted that as stated in clause third, numeral 3.2 and clause fifth numeral 5.2, subsection 5.2.1 of the CONTRACT, the formal document containing, among others, the number of the group and the vacancy of the associate, are part of the General Conditions of the Contract;
10. Therefore, through Letter No. 2325-2024-SMV/10.3, notified on May 29, 2024 (hereinafter, LETTER), the SMV requested AUTOPLAN EAFC to present its comments and arguments of defense; as well as any information and/or documentation it considers pertinent and that allows clarifying the facts complained of; however, as of the date of the letter of charges, AUTOPLAN EAFC had not complied with presenting any means of proof that accredits that it sent to the complainant the general conditions of the Contract, where the group and number of vacancy are recorded, among other data of the CONTRACT of the Complainant;
11. Considering the above, it is observed that AUTOPLAN EAFC would not have complied with observing what is provided by clause third, numeral 3.2 and clause fifth, numeral 5.2 subsection 5.2.1 of the CONTRACT, since AUTOPLAN EAFC would not have complied with sending the General Conditions of the CONTRACT to the associate;
12. Therefore, it was charged to AUTOPLAN EAFC that it would have committed one (1) infraction classified as serious, according to Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infraction: "Not complying with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract celebrated with the associate";

DEFENSE PRESENTED
13. It should be specified that, although AUTOPLAN EAFC has presented its defenses, it has not commented on the present charge imputed;

EVALUATION OF THE DEFENSE
14. On this point, it is observed that AUTOPLAN EAFC did not comply with sending the General Conditions of the CONTRACT to the COMPLAINANT, since it did not present any means of proof that accredits that it sent to the complainant said General Conditions where the group and number of vacancy of the CONTRACT of the COMPLAINANT are recorded. Therefore, the administrator company did not comply with observing what is provided by clause third, numeral 3.2 and clause fifth, numeral 5.2 subsection 5.2.1 of the CONTRACT;

B. REGARDING THE PRESENTATION OF THE BID PROPOSAL FORM OF THE REGULATION
15. Clause first and eighth, numeral 8.5 of the CONTRACT establish the following:

"Clause first definitions
Bid proposal form: Document that is filled out by the associate to present his Bid in the monthly assembly (...)
(...)
Clause eighth: Of the assemblies and the award modalities (...)
8.5 Awards by bid: The proposals will be presented, through the Bid Proposal Form, which will be provided by Autoplan and must be correctly filled out and signed, otherwise it will lack value and be annulled... (...)
";

OF THE FACTS
16. Regarding this, in her complaint letter, the COMPLAINANT indicates that on February 2, 2023, AUTOPLAN EAFC sent her an email, in which they informed her that the administrator company had received her bid request proposal, when according to the COMPLAINANT she never presented any proposal, neither physical nor virtual, that is why she demands that AUTOPLAN EAFC show the bid presentation form, through which the supposed proposal was made. Furthermore, the complainant indicates that the seller who attended her (hereinafter, SELLER) was the one who presented the bid proposal on her behalf, when the COMPLAINANT never authorized it, adding that said operation is of a strictly personal nature;
17. The COMPLAINANT adds that as stated in clause eighth numeral 8.5 of the CONTRACT, bid proposals must be presented in a document called "bid proposal form", which refers that it must be correctly filled out and signed; however, the complainant reaffirms that she never registered any bid proposal, nor proposed to pay a sum for the concept of bid. Therefore, she reiterates that AUTOPLAN EAFC present the bid proposal form that was supposedly signed;
18. Regarding this, the COMPLAINANT attaches to her complaint, a copy of an email from February 2, 2023, sent by remates@autoplan.pe to her EMAIL1 with the subject: "Proposal for Bid Request", through which AUTOPLAN EAFC confirms to the COMPLAINANT the receipt of her bid request proposal No. 202300564 dated February 2, 2023, corresponding to the assembly of February 6, 2023, for fifteen (15) installments for the amount of US$ 4,457.70;
19. In view of the above, the SMV requested AUTOPLAN EAFC through the LETTER, the following:

"e) Comment and support the reason why you sent the complainant the email of February 2, 2023, referred to the Proposal for Bid Request No. 202300564, taking into account that the Complainant states that she has not presented any request.
(...) k) Any other information and/or documentation you consider pertinent to the case and that allow clarifying the facts complained of."

Nevertheless, as of the date of the letter of charges, AUTOPLAN EAFC did not present any information and/or documentation regarding this;
According to what is established in clause eighth, numeral 8.5 of the CONTRACT, for an associate to present his bid proposal, it must be presented through a "Bid Proposal Form", which must be provided by AUTOPLAN EAFC, so that it is correctly filled out and signed by the associate. That is, to consider an associate in the award procedure by bid, first the administrator company must receive his bid proposal form;
Therefore, based on the facts complained of by the COMPLAINANT regarding that she received a communication from AUTOPLAN EAFC on February 2, 2023, confirming the receipt of her bid request proposal which she accredits, when she affirms that she never presented a physical or virtual bid request; AUTOPLAN EAFC, had to substantiate that it received a bid proposal from the COMPLAINANT in the referred "Bid Proposal Form", in order to be considered as part of the award procedure by bid established in the CONTRACT; however, this was not accredited by AUTOPLAN EAFC;
In that sense, from what has been stated above, it is observed that AUTOPLAN EAFC would not have received the "Bid Proposal Form", from the COMPLAINANT with the purpose of making effective any bid proposal, for the award assembly that took place on February 6, 20233, within the framework of the CONTRACT, since the administrator company has not complied with presenting the referred form, duly filled out and signed by the COMPLAINANT, in order to accredit compliance with what is provided in said clause eighth, numeral 8.5 of the CONTRACT;
Therefore, it was charged to AUTOPLAN EAFC THAT it would have committed one (1) infraction classified as serious, according to Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an infraction: "Not complying with the provisions of the collective fund administration contract celebrated with the associate";

DEFENSE PRESENTED
25. It should be specified that, although AUTOPLAN EAFC has presented its defenses, it has not commented on the present charge imputed;

EVALUATION OF THE DEFENSE
26. Regarding this, it is observed that AUTOPLAN EAFC has not accredited having received the "Bid Proposal Form" from the COMPLAINANT, through which, the complainant would have made effective the bid proposal for the award assembly that took place on February 6, 2023, within the framework of the CONTRACT, since the administrator company has not complied with presenting the referred form duly filled out and signed by the COMPLAINANT. Consequently, AUTOPLAN EAFC failed to comply with what is provided in clause eighth, numeral 8.5 of the CONTRACT;

C. REGARDING THE SENDING OF PAYMENT RECEIPTS
OF THE REGULATION
27. With regard to the obligation of AUTOPLAN EAFC to send the respective payment receipts to the associate, clause 7, numeral 7.6, of the CONTRACT establishes the following:

"Seventh Clause: Of the payments
(...)
7.6 Autoplan will issue the respective payment receipts in the name of the Associate, which will be sent to the address indicated by the Associate in the General Conditions of this Contract. Prior to what is stated, Autoplan must validate the payment made in the Collector Accounts and identify that the same has been made for the obtaining of the Purchase Certificate.
(...)
";

OF THE FACTS
28. In accordance with what is established in the aforementioned regulation, AUTOPLAN EAFC has the obligation to issue the respective payment receipts in the name of the associate, which will be sent to the address indicated by the latter in the general conditions of the contract;

3 In accordance with what is established in the Associate and Award Situation File (SIT) informed by Autoplan EAFC to the SMV, it has been verified that the award assembly took place on February 6, 2023. The SIT file is presented, in accordance with what is stated in the "Technical Specifications Manual for the submission to the SMV of information from Collective Fund Administrator Companies" approved by Superintendent Resolution No. 102-2016-SMV/02 and, registered in the SMV's collective fund information systems.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

The COMPLAINANT mentions that AUTOPLAN EAFC did not send her all the payment receipts for the initial amount they charged her, which according to her manifestation amounts to US$ 2,193.90 (Two thousand one hundred ninety-three and 90/100 US dollars), which according to the complainant constitutes a clear breach of clause 7.6 of the CONTRACT. Likewise, the COMPLAINANT in her complaint indicates that she paid together with an initial installment an advance monthly installment, plus four (4) additional monthly installments;
Based on what was stated by the complainant, through the LETTER, the administrator company was required, among others, the following:

"(...) f. Copy of all payment receipts issued by AUTOPLAN EAFC to the COMPLAINANT, as well as the copy of the mailing receipt of the same, within the framework of the CONTRACT.
(...)
"

Regarding the payments made by the COMPLAINANT, in the Associate and Award Situation File (SIT) presented by AUTOPLAN EAFC to the SMV4 it is observed that the complainant paid the amount of US$ 1,250.00 (One thousand two hundred fifty and 00/100 US dollars) for the concept of five (5) capital installments;
Likewise, there is in the file a payment Voucher of the BCP collection service presented by the COMPLAINANT5 in which for the March 2023 installment, she paid the amount of US$ 297.10 on March 22, 2023. Therefore, it is observed that the COMPLAINANT would have paid five (5) total monthly installments for approximately US$ 297.10 each, plus the enrollment fee I6 for US$ 708.00 which according to the CONTRACT is paid at the time of entering the collective fund group. In that sense, based on the available information, the total paid by the COMPLAINANT would be approximately US$ 2,193.50;
However; as of the date of issuance of the letter of charges, AUTOPLAN EAFC did not present the means of proof that allow accrediting that it sent to the COMPLAINANT the payment receipts, for the total amount she paid, and which according to the complainant corresponds to US$ 2,193.90 (Two thousand one hundred ninety-three and 90/100 US dollars);
Considering the above, AUTOPLAN EAFC would not have complied with observing what is provided by clause 7, numeral 7.6 of the CONTRACT, since it would not have complied with sending all the payment receipts to the COMPLAINANT within the framework of the CONTRACT;
Therefore, it was charged to AUTOPLAN EAFC THAT it would have committed one (1) infraction classified as serious, according to Annex XIII, numeral 2, item 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes

4 In accordance with what is stated in the "Technical Specifications Manual for the submission to the SMV of information from Collective Fund Administrator Companies" approved by Superintendent Resolution No. 102-2016-SMV/02 and, registered in the SMV's collective fund information systems. 5 This payment Voucher was presented by the COMPLAINANT, before the Investor Defender of the SMV 6 According to the Contract Sales and Cessions File (CON), the value of the purchase certificate of the Contract is US$ 15,000.00; therefore, the enrollment fee "I" would be US$ 708 including IGV, in accordance with what is established in clause seventh, numeral 7.2.1 of the CONTRACT.

PERÚ

[RegAlert note: the English text above is a translation of the first 24,000 characters of a 68,473-character original (35% of the document). The remainder was not translated. The complete original-language text is stored with this document.]