Superintendence Resolution No. 016-2026-SMV/10 — SMV — PE

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV

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

Superintendence Adjunct Resolution SMV
No. 016-2026-SMV/10

Lima, March 19, 2026

Summary: The reconsideration appeal filed by Plan Rentable Perú ex EAFC against the Superintendence Adjunct Resolution SMV No. 012-2026-SMV/10 is declared unfounded.

Administered Entity: Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. ex EAFC Subject: Reconsideration appeal against Superintendence Adjunct Resolution SMV No. 012-2026-SMV/10 File No.: 2025028964

The Adjunct Superintendent of Prudential Supervision

HAVING SEEN:

Administrative file No. 2025028964, the reconsideration appeal filed by Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. ex EAFC (hereinafter, PLAN RENTABLE) and Report No. 318-2026-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Superintendence of Prudential Compliance; and,

CONSIDERING:

Pursuant to 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); therefore, any reference to CONASEV in legal norms shall be understood as a reference to the SMV;

I. BACKGROUND

By Superintendence Adjunct Resolution SMV No. 012-2026-SMV/10 of February 13, 2026 (hereinafter, RESOLUTION SASP), PLAN RENTABLE was sanctioned with three (3) UIT for having committed one (1) serious infringement typified in Annex XIII, item 2, subsection 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), as it failed to apply the purchase certificate in accordance with what was established in the conditions set forth in the contract.
By letter presented on March 3, 2026, PLAN RENTABLE filed a reconsideration appeal against the RESOLUTION;

Digitally Signed by:
GUTIERREZ
OCHOA Omar
Dario FAU
20131016396 soft
Date: 19/03/2026
15:14:59

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV

The reconsideration appeal was subject to evaluation by the General Superintendence of Prudential Compliance in Report No. 318-2026-SMV/10.3, which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Adjunct Superintendence;
In observance of the Principle of Due Process contemplated in Article IV, item 1, subsection 1.2, of the Preliminary Title, as well as in Article 248, item 2 of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law, Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO LPAG), the administrative file to which this resolution refers was made available to PLAN RENTABLE for its review;

II. ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE RECONSIDERATION APPEAL

According to what is established in Article 32, subsection 27 of the Regulation on Organization of Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF, it is a function of the Adjunct Superintendence of Prudential Supervision to resolve reconsideration appeals against the resolutions it issues;
Likewise, Article 2181, subsection 218.2 of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law, Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO LPAG), establishes that the term for filing appeals is fifteen (15) peremptory days. According to what is stated in Article 144 of the TUO LPAG, the aforementioned period shall begin to run from the day following the legal notification of the challenged administrative act;
In this regard, it has been verified that the reconsideration appeal was filed within the fifteen (15) days established by Article 218 of the TUO LPAG;

III. ON THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY PLAN RENTABLE

PLAN RENTABLE states that it disagrees with the grounds of the RESOLUTION SASP regarding the infringement imputed to it, against which a fine sanction was imposed, as the following was not considered for the issuance of the sanction: (i) The compliance with the CONTRACT2 signed between the COMPLAINANT3 and the EAFC (date of last payment 22/06/2023), and (ii) The compliance with the REGULATION4.

1 "Article 218. Administrative Appeals
218.1 The administrative appeals are:
a) Reconsideration appeal b) Appeal
Only in the case that a law or legislative decree expressly establishes, the filing of the administrative appeal of review is admissible.
218.2 The term for filing appeals is fifteen (15) peremptory days, and they must be resolved within thirty (30) days."
2 Collective Funds Administration Contract No. 001130, corresponding to the "Special Program Plan 36", Group No. 3605, for the award of a purchase certificate of US$ 12,000.00 (Twelve thousand and 00/100 US dollars), signed on December 17, 2021 (hereinafter, CONTRACT).
3 In the annex attached to this report, Annex Denominations, the complete data of the natural person to whom the denomination used belongs is detailed.
4 Regulation of the Collective Funds System and its Managing Companies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 020-2014-SMV-01 and its amendments (hereinafter, REGULATION)

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV

In this regard, PLAN RENTABLE states that the RESOLUTION SASP sanctioned it for failing to comply with the provisions of the CONTRACT by applying the purchase certificate to the acquisition of a used vehicle and for paying the pending installments to the COMPLAINANT;
However, PLAN RENTABLE indicates that the COMPLAINANT had cancelled her CONTRACT on July 22, 2023, before the application of the purchase certificate, as derived from the "Cancellation Letter" and the account statement attached to her reconsideration;
In this sense, PLAN RENTABLE indicates that since the contract was fully cancelled, the subsequent application of the money for the acquisition of the used vehicle was a formality at the express request of the COMPLAINANT. In this sense, it indicates that this situation was not prohibited by the norm, as the COMPLAINANT no longer formed part of the active group under the same initial contractual conditions, so according to the grounds exposed in the appeal, PLAN RENTABLE acted in good faith in a legal vacuum, without intent or intentionality, which should be a mitigating factor;
PLAN RENTABLE concludes that by specifying that the contract was no longer in force having been fully cancelled the respective collective installments, its legal consequences formally concluded;
On the other hand, PLAN RENTABLE maintains that the nature of the legal bond changed at the moment of the total cancellation of installments, as once the COMPLAINANT paid 100% of her obligation, the collective fund administration contract as such "is extinguished by fulfillment", ceasing to exist the restriction of "exclusive use for new goods" that seeks to protect the integrity of the common fund;
In such sense, PLAN RENTABLE argues the non-existence of the infringement due to the extinction of the obligation, as the contract was given as fully cancelled on June 22, 2023, since when the COMPLAINANT completed all her payments, the extinction of the contractual relationship of administration occurred by fulfillment of the associate's obligations;
Likewise, PLAN RENTABLE mentions that Article 90 of the REGULATION aims to protect the contributions of the other associates of the group. However, it considers that if an associate cancelled the total of the installments, her purchase certificate ceased to be an "expectation of right" financed by the group to become a liquid and enforceable credit right against the administrator;
Additionally, PLAN RENTABLE points out that since there was no risk for the collective fund given that the associate no longer owed installments, the disbursement for a vehicle was an execution of payment of the accrued debt. In this sense, PLAN RENTABLE refers that requiring the purchase of a new vehicle from a person who already cancelled her contract would violate her autonomy of will and her right to dispose of the value of her certificate according to her real need;
In addition, PLAN RENTABLE refers that the payment made on June 23, 2023 to the seller of the used vehicle was not an application of the certificate in operational terms of the fund system, but a formal act of the settlement of balances derived from a terminated contract, so PLAN RENTABLE acted as a payment agent to close the bond with the former associate;

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV

PLAN RENTABLE states that the nature of the Collective Funds System prohibits the delivery of money directly to the associate. In this sense, it points out that since the contract had concluded, they were in a legal dilemma as they could not return cash to her, but the COMPLAINANT also did not want a new good;
In this regard, PLAN RENTABLE cites Article 90 of the REGULATION concerning that the award grants the right to an amount to be used exclusively for the acquisition of a good or service, so collective fund managing companies are prohibited from delivering cash to associates, even if the contract has concluded, to avoid that the system becomes distorted into an unauthorized financial intermediation activity;
In such sense, in the appeal it alleges that given the cancellation of the total of the installments, PLAN RENTABLE maintained a debt with the COMPLAINANT and given the legal prohibition of delivering money in cash, the only legal way to settle the balance and comply with the associate was through the acquisition of a good;
Therefore, PLAN RENTABLE indicates that since the contract was not in force and, given that the COMPLAINANT decided by her own will that the good of her interest was a used vehicle, the managing company proceeded to pay the chosen supplier, as acting differently would have violated her rights as a consumer or would have forced her represented party to commit a greater infringement;
Additionally, PLAN RENTABLE points out that the payment to the seller of the used vehicle should be understood not as an infringement of the rules of the "Special Program Plan 36", but as the only possible formality for the return of the value of the certificate without transgressing the prohibition of delivery of cash that governs EAFCs;

IV. EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

Regarding what was stated by PLAN RENTABLE, it is important to mention that the collective fund administration contract is the legal document through which a person designated as an associate incorporates into a group of associates managed by a collective fund managing company, whose purpose is the acquisition of goods or services through monthly draws or auctions among the members of said group to whom a purchase certificate is delivered, that is, the purpose of the group is the acquisition of goods or services through the contributions of the collective of associates, so the administrator's action must take into account the interests of that collective, incorporated in the contracts signed, along with the individual satisfaction of contractual commitments with each associate, always within the framework of that collective interest;
Likewise, it must be indicated that, among other provisions, Article 122 of the REGULATION establishes that the return of monetary contributions regarding those associates who were not awarded the respective purchase certificate and who have resolved their contracts, will be carried out through draws in Assemblies, and if they are not benefited in such draws, their contributions will be returned at the end of the group;
It is appropriate to add that the contributions made by the associate to the collective group can only be used for the acquisition of goods or

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV

services expressly indicated in the collective contract, in that sense, they cannot be destined for goods or services different from them;

With regard to the reconsideration presented, PLAN RENTABLE has alleged that the RESOLUTION SASP did not consider that the COMPLAINANT had cancelled the total of the installments of her collective contract on June 22, 2023 and before the application of the purchase certificate, which is supported by the account statement attached as proof;
It should be indicated that said account statement shows the payments made by the COMPLAINANT corresponding to the capital installment, administration fee, vehicle appraisal, fines incurred, among others;
On this particular matter, it must be indicated that the content of the account statement presented does not undermine or modify the decision contained in the RESOLUTION SASP insofar as it concerns the payments made by the COMPLAINANT, as well as the deductions applied by the then managing company as part of the cancellation process of the Contract; and, taking into account moreover that the infringement imputed and sanctioned refers to facts that have no relation with the content of the information contained in said account statement;
It is important to indicate that the imposed sanction was based on the fact that PLAN RENTABLE failed to apply the purchase certificate in accordance with what was established in the CONTRACT, which expressly established in clause 1, subsection 1.0, that it was for the acquisition of "New Vehicles: Cars, SUVs, trucks and buses", however, Plan Rentable applied such certificate for the purchase of a used vehicle;
We must also point out that it is not admissible to maintain, as PLAN RENTABLE does in its reconsideration appeal, that the said application was made at the express request of the COMPLAINANT, who had cancelled the total of the installments of her contract and when she no longer formed part of the respective collective group and, that therefore, it did not imply non-compliance with the provisions of the REGULATION, this in attention to the fact that the REGULATION taxatively establishes the destination that must be given to the contributions made to the Collective Fund and it is not just about individual and independent contractual relationships, but such contributions are made within the framework of contractual agreements adopted before a collective of associates;
As to this, it must be highlighted that the RESOLUTION SASP expressly cited the norm that supported the charge imputed, that is, Articles 35 and 90 of the Regulation in considering 16:

"Article 35.- Functions and Obligations of the Administrator "The following are the functions and obligations of the Administrator:
(...) f) Adopt the necessary measures so that the Awarded Associate receives the good and/or service, in accordance with what is established in its Contracts, the Regulation and other current legislation.
(...)
"Article 90.- Acquisition Modalities

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV

The acquisition of the goods and/or services of a Program will be carried out through one of the following modalities:
(...) b) Purchase certificate.- The object of this modality is to award the right to an amount that will be used exclusively to acquire the good and/or service subject of the Contract, with a supplier chosen by the Associate after being awarded." (Underline added)."

The aforementioned evidence shows that the REGULATION clearly disposes that the application of the purchase certificate must be made "to acquire the good and/or service subject of the contract", that in the present case the Contract determined that it must be to acquire a new vehicle and not a used one, as occurred in the facts;
In this sense, it is not valid to legally sustain that having cancelled the total of the collective installments, the extinction of the commercial relationship had occurred and therefore, the CONTRACT no longer had legal effects, so that Plan Rentable could apply the purchase certificate to a good that was outside what was strictly established in said contract;
On this particular matter, it must be indicated that such argument is contradictory because, supposing the extinction of the contractual relationship, it is not understood why PLAN RENTABLE proceeded to the acquisition of a good when, according to the company, the CONTRACT no longer had legal effects and therefore it had no contractual obligations to fulfill with the COMPLAINANT;
Likewise, having demonstrated and ratified that PLAN RENTABLE did not comply with the CONTRACT, nor with Articles 35 and 90 of the REGULATION, it does not correspond to issue a pronouncement on the application of the provisions of Article 90 of the REGULATION referred to the modalities of acquisition of goods and services, since PLAN RENTABLE considers that by not applying the CONTRACT, it was authorized to acquire a good different from that established in the contract; nor to the facts and action of the former managing company linked to the purchase of the used vehicle, which are not relevant given the ratification of the sanctioned infringement;
Being in accordance with what is disposed in Article 32, subsection 27, of the Regulation on Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF and its amendments;

RESOLVES:

Article 1st.- Declare unfounded the reconsideration appeal presented by Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. ex EAFC for the reasons exposed in this resolution.

Article 2nd.- This resolution does not exhaust the administrative route, unless it is consented, being able to file before the Adjunct Superintendence of Prudential Supervision the appeal, within the term of fifteen (15) business days counted from the day following its notification.

Article 3rd.- In the case that this resolution is not subject to challenge through an appeal within the term of fifteen (15) business days of being notified and remains consented, it must be published on the Institutional Page of the SMV in the Unique Digital Platform of the Peruvian State, in observance of what is disposed by subsection 1, Article 7 of the Policy on diffusion of normative projects, legal norms of general character, 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 disposed in Article 14 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01.

Article 4th.- Transcribe this resolution to Plan Rentable Perú S.A.C. ex EAFC.

Omar Gutiérrez Ochoa
Adjunct Superintendent
Adjunct Superintendence of Prudential Supervision