Superintendency Resolution No. 020-2026-SMV/10

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

Adjunct Superintendency Resolution SMV
No. 020-2026-SMV/10
Lima, April 1, 2026

Summary: Faro Capital Sociedad Administradora de Fondos S.A. is sanctioned with a fine of 8 UIT, equivalent to S/ 36,800.00 (Thirty-six thousand eight hundred and 00/100 soles) for having committed four (4) infractions: three (3) serious infractions classified in Annex I, item 2, subsection 2.31 of the Sanctions Regulation and one (1) infraction classified in Annex XVI, item 2, subsection 2.10 of the Sanctions Regulation, for not having an Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Prevention Manual containing a client AML/CFT risk profiling methodology in accordance with the PLAFT Norms; failing to comply with the AML/CFT Manual by not reviewing and updating information of non-resident clients on a semi-annual basis; not having an Internal Control System Manual in accordance with the established regulations; and for submitting the Compliance Officer's Report without considering the minimum content established in the regulations.

Administered: Faro Capital Sociedad Administradora de Fondos S.A.
Subject: Administrative sanctioning procedure
File No.: 2025054768

The Adjunct Superintendent of Prudential Supervision

SEEN:

The administrative file No. 2025054768, and Report No. 233-2026-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Superintendence of Prudential Compliance; as well as the defenses and arguments presented by Faro Capital Sociedad Administradora de Fondos S.A. (hereinafter, FARO SAF); and,

CONSIDERING:

In accordance with Article 1 of Law No. 29782, Law for the Strengthening of Securities Market Supervision, the name of the National Commission for the Supervision of Companies and Securities (CONASEV) is replaced by that of the

Digitally Signed by:
GUTIERREZ
OCHOA Omar
Dario FAU
20131016396 soft
Date: 1/04/2026
16:35:22

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

Superintendence of the Securities Market (SMV), so that any reference to CONASEV in legal norms shall be understood as referring to the SMV;

I. FACTS

By Letter No. 3210-2022-SMV/10.2 dated June 17, 2022, the General Superintendence of Entity Supervision – IGSE requested information and documentation from FARO SAF regarding, among other things, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Prevention System;
By Letter No. 4106-2022-SMV/10.2 dated August 9, 2022, the IGSE ordered an inspection of FARO SAF to verify compliance with the applicable regulations for the development of its activities as a fund administrator;
The ordered inspection began on August 23, 2022 (hereinafter, INSPECTION), with this being recorded in the Inspection Visit Start Act signed on that date;
During the INSPECTION, observations were made to FARO SAF regarding the following topics: a) Independence and autonomy of the Internal Control Officer, b) Internal Control System, c) Bimonthly Reports of the Internal Control Officer, d) Transaction Register, e) Minutes of the Surveillance Committee and Investment Committee, Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Prevention System; as well as f) Customer Due Diligence. In response, FARO SAF presented its comments and provided clarifications regarding the observations made;
On September 8, 2022, the INSPECTION Completion Act was signed to record the scope of this, the information requirements, as well as the documentation delivered by FARO SAF;
By Letter No. 5154-2022-SMV/10.2, dated October 10, 2022, FARO SAF was notified of the regulatory non-compliance observations identified in the INSPECTION;
Through Report No. 274-2025-SMV/10.2, the IGSE communicated to this General Superintendence indications of possible infractions to securities market regulations by FARO SAF;
By Letter No. 7343-2025-SMV/10.3, notified on December 19, 2025 (hereinafter, CHARGES LETTER), an administrative sanctioning procedure was initiated against FARO SAF by the General Superintendence of Prudential Compliance (IGCP);
By submission dated January 21, 2026, FARO SAF presented defenses against the charges formulated in the CHARGES LETTER;
The formulated charges were evaluated by the General Superintendence of Prudential Compliance in Report No. 233-2026-SMV/10.3, which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Adjunct Superintendency;
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, subsection 2, of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO LPAG), by Letter No. 807-2026-SMV/10, the administrative file to which this resolution refers was made available to FARO SAF for review;
On March 5, 2026, Faro SAF presented additional written arguments;

II. MATTERS TO BE DETERMINED

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

a. Whether FARO SAF committed or did not commit an infraction provided for in Annex I, item 2, subsection 2.31 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), for not having an Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Prevention System Manual in accordance with what is established in Article 6 of the PLAFT NORMS;

b. Whether FARO SAF committed or did not commit an infraction provided for in Annex I, item 2, subsection 2.31 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not complying with what is established in section 2.3.2 "Enhanced Regime", subsection 2.3.2.1 of its Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Prevention System Manual regarding non-resident clients;

c. Whether FARO SAF committed or did not commit an infraction provided for in Annex I, item 2, subsection 2.31 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not having an Internal Control System Manual in accordance with the provisions established in Annex D of the REGULATION;

d. Whether FARO SAF committed or did not commit an infraction provided for in Annex XVI, item 2, subsection 2.10 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for submitting to the SMV the Second Semi-Annual Report of 2021, without considering the minimum content established in Articles 27 and 28 of the PLAFT NORMS;

e. Whether it corresponds or does not correspond to impose a sanction on FARO SAF;

III. ANALYSIS

FIRST CHARGE: NOT HAVING OR NOT COMPLYING, ACCORDING TO THE REGULATIONS OF THE MATTER, WITH THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND COUNTER-TERRORIST FINANCING PREVENTION MANUAL

OF THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Article 16 of the Norms for the Prevention of Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 033- 2011-EF-94.01.1 (hereinafter, PLAFT NORMS) establishes:

"Article 16.- Nature, content and approval of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Prevention System Manual

16.1 The anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing prevention system must be embodied in the Manual prepared by the obligated subjects, with a risk-based approach, which shall contain the policies, controls and procedures established by the obligated subjects in accordance with the results of the risk assessment of the obligated subject, provided for in Article 3 subsection 3.3 of this norm.

16.2 The Manual must contain as a minimum the information indicated in Annex IV of this norm. Without prejudice to the foregoing, obligated subjects must incorporate in the Manual, in addition to the "Alert Signals" referred to in Annex I of this norm, a list of those operations that due to the nature of the client's economic activity they consider unusual or susceptible to being communicated to the UIF-Peru if they are suspected, and must disseminate this list among the personnel responsible for the prevention and detection of such operations.

(…)";

Regarding the minimum content of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Prevention System Manual, Annex IV of the PLAFT NORMS states the following:

"ANNEX IV
BASIC CONTENT OF THE MANUAL FOR THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING AND TERRORIST FINANCING

The Manual for the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing aims to ensure that all shareholders, directors, control or administration bodies, authorized representatives and in general all personnel of the obligated subject have access to the policies and procedures that must be observed for the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing, therefore it must contain, as a minimum, the following aspects:

Policies
(…)
Prevention mechanisms regarding the client and the employees of the obligated subject

2.1 Criteria for establishing knowledge of the client and the market, in accordance with this norm.

2.2 Description of the procedures and methodology for obtaining, verifying and updating client information, indicating the levels or positions responsible for its execution.

(…)";

Regarding the determination of client profiles according to their AML/CFT risk level, Article 6 of the PLAFT NORMS establishes the following:

"Article 6.- Of Client Profiles

6.1 The obligated subject must have policies and procedures that allow it to acquire sufficient, timely and updated knowledge of clients, verify the information presented by them and carry out adequate follow-up of their commercial operations, considering their respective profiles.

6.2 The policies and procedures mentioned in the previous subsection must incorporate the development of client profiles according to their risk level, which entails classifying the risk of each client.

6.3 In the development of the client profile, the following variables must be taken into consideration, among others:

Type of client (natural person/legal person or other legal structure, nationality, place of residence, institutional/non-institutional investor);
Client's economic activity/occupation;
Amount and origin of their income; and,
Characteristics (currency, instrument, market, country or geographic area of origin of funds, among others) and amounts of operations.

This information must be duly documented and form part of the individual file of each client.;

Likewise, subsection 2.3.2 of FARO SAF's Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Prevention Manual, effective since April 1, 2021, (hereinafter, AML/CFT MANUAL)1, establishes the following:

2.3 ENHANCED DUE DILIGENCE REGIME FOR CLIENT KNOWLEDGE
(…)

2.3.2 Enhanced Regime

Faro will apply this regime to identify and register Clients who, according to an analysis by the Compliance Officer, demonstrate a pattern that does not correspond to their AML/CFT risk profile, as well as those Clients who could be affected by AML/CFT risks, such as PEPs.

Therefore, Faro has established that this enhanced regime will be mandatory for the following Clients:

a) Non-resident nationals or foreigners
(…) f) PEPs (…)
(…)

For this purpose, Faro must implement the following measures:

2.3.2.1 Increase the frequency of review and update of information. That is, from annual to semi-annual, additionally in the case of legal entities, such update must be carried out at least once a year, and includes that of its shareholders, partners or associates, who directly or indirectly hold more than 25% of its share capital, contribution or participation, if applicable;

(…).;

OF THE FACTS OCCURRED REGARDING CLIENT KNOWLEDGE: METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING CLIENT PROFILES

According to the cited regulations, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Prevention Manual must contain as a minimum, among other things, the criteria for establishing client knowledge, as well as a description of the procedure and methodology for obtaining, verifying and updating their information;

1
File No. 2022032982.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

In the same line, Article 6 of the PLAFT NORMS states that supervised entities must have policies and procedures that allow them to obtain sufficient, timely and updated knowledge of their clients, verify the information presented by them and carry out adequate follow-up of their commercial operations, in attention to their respective profiles;
The cited article adds that the aforementioned policies and procedures must incorporate the development of client profiles according to their risk level, which entails classifying each client, therefore it establishes the variables that, as a minimum, must be taken into account when determining client profiles;
On this matter, during the INSPECTION carried out, upon reviewing the methodology developed by FARO SAF to calculate the AML/CFT risk profile of its clients, it was observed that the calculation of client profiles performed by FARO SAF did not include the variables: "Nationality", "Institutional or non-Institutional investor", "Profession or occupation", "Economic activity", "Amount of their income", "Origin of their income", "Currency of the operation", "Instrument", "Market", "Country or geographic area of origin of funds" and "Amount of the operation";
Consequently, since it was determined that within the framework of the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing prevention system implemented, FARO SAF would not have considered the variables indicated in the preceding consideration when determining the risk profile of its clients as part of "client knowledge", in accordance with what is established in the aforementioned subsections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of Article 6 of the PLAFT NORMS, it is noted that the administrator would not have an Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Prevention System Manual in accordance with what is required by the aforementioned regulations;

REGARDING ENHANCED DUE DILIGENCE

According to what is regulated in its AML/CFT MANUAL, FARO SAF, when applying the due diligence regime for client knowledge, has established, among other measures, to increase the frequency of review and update of such information regarding clients who demonstrate a pattern that does not correspond to their risk profile, as well as clients who could be affected by money laundering or terrorist financing risks, establishing that it be carried out on a semi-annual basis;
During the INSPECTION, upon reviewing the sample corresponding to seven (7) clients to whom, according to FARO SAF, enhanced due diligence was required, it was identified that FARO SAF had not reviewed and updated the information on a semi-annual basis regarding two (2) non-resident clients, as established in section 2.3.2 "Enhanced Regime", subsection 2.3.2.1, of its AML/CFT MANUAL;
The following table details the case of the aforementioned two (2) non-resident clients to whom FARO SAF had not reviewed and updated the information on a semi-annual basis, after the start of the commercial relationship:

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

No. CLIENT NAME2 CLIENT TYPE
START DATE OF
COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIP
DATE BY WHICH SEMI-ANNUAL
UPDATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT
1 CLIENT 1 NON-RESIDENT 27/8/21 27/02/2022
2 CLIENT 2 NON-RESIDENT 3/9/21 03/03/2022

Therefore, it is noted that FARO SAF did not comply with what is established in section 2.3.2 "Enhanced Regime", subsection 2.3.2.1, of the AML/CFT MANUAL, regarding the clients indicated in the aforementioned table;
In this sense, it was attributed to FARO SAF that it had committed two (2) infractions classified as serious, in accordance with Annex I, item 2, subsection 2.31 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION which establishes as a serious nature infraction: "Not having, approving, implementing, updating, nor complying with, or modifying without communicating it to the SMV, in accordance with the regulations of the matter, the Integrated Risk Management Manual, or the Valuation Manual or the Valuation Methodology, or the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Prevention Manual or any other manual";

OF THE DEFENSES PRESENTED

Prior to its defenses to the CHARGES LETTER, FARO SAF requests the application of the exemption from liability for voluntary remediation collected in Article 257, subsection 1, literal f) of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS, as well as in Article 27, literal f) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
Additionally, in its additional written arguments it indicates that subsection 1.4 of Article IV of the TUO LPAG enshrines the principle of reasonableness, according to which the decisions of the administrative authority, when qualifying infractions or imposing sanctions, "must adapt within the limits of the attributed power and maintaining due proportion between the means to be employed and the public ends to be protected, in order to respond to what is strictly necessary for the satisfaction of its purpose".
Therefore, with regard to what was stated, it cites Danós3:

"postulates the adequacy between means and ends, so that the Public Administration must not impose any burden, obligation, sanction or provision more onerous than what is indispensable to meet the requirements of the public interest", and additionally refers to the Constitutional Tribunal: "Reasonableness is a criterion intimately linked to justice and is in the very essence of the Constitutional State of Law. It is expressed as a mechanism of control or interdiction of arbitrariness in the use of discretionary powers, requiring that decisions taken in that context respond to criteria of rationality and that they are not arbitrary" 4;

2 In Annex attached to this resolution, Annex Denominations, the complete data of the natural persons to whom the denominations used in this resolution belong are detailed.
3 DANÓS ORDOÑEZ, J. (1999). Comments on the draft of the new law of general norms of administrative procedures. THEMIS Law Review, (39), p. 240.
4 Ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal on Exp. No. 00535-2009-PA/TC, FJ No. 16.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

Furthermore, FARO SAF argues that the duty of self-control of the punitive power has, additionally, a guarantee correlate in item 10 of Article 66 of the LPAG, which recognizes the right of the administered "that the actions of the entities that affect them be carried out in the least onerous way possible". Therefore, it points out, the sanction can only be elevated when aggravating circumstances concur. In the absence of these and in the presence of multiple mitigating factors, the authority is obliged to

[RegAlert note: the English text above is a translation of the first 24,000 characters of a 201,682-character original (12% of the document). The remainder was not translated. The complete original-language text is stored with this document.]

Lineage

Similar documents from other regulators