Superintendency Resolution No. 029-2025-SMV/10 — SMV — PE

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship Superintendency Resolution SMV No. 029-2025-SMV/10 Lima, May 16, 2025 Subject: El Dorado Asset Management Fund Management Company S.A. is sanctioned with two (02) warnings and one (01) fine of 1.53 Tax Units, equivalent to S/ 6,732.00 (Six thousand three hundred thirty-two and 00/100 soles) for having committed three (3) minor infractions type in Annex I, number 3, item 3.1 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not having complied with presenting occasional information within the deadline established by the applicable regulation. Administered by: El Dorado Asset Management Fund Management Company S.A. Subject: Administrative sanctioning procedure File No.: 2025005011 The Adj Superintendent of Prudential Supervision SEEN:
The administrative file No. 2025005011, and the Report No. 327-2025-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Superintendent of Prudential Compliance; as well as the defenses presented by El Dorado Asset Management Fund Management Company 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 Securities Market Superintendency (SMV), so that any reference to CONASEV in legal norms shall be understood as referring to the SMV;
I. FACTS
Within the supervisory functions assigned to
the SMV, an evaluation was carried out regarding the timely compliance in the presentation of occasional information by El Dorado Asset Management Fund Management Company S.A. (hereinafter, EL DORADO SAF);

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
3. As a result of said evaluation and under the auspices of
what is provided for in the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law, Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO LPAG), through Letter No. 701-2025-SMV/10.3, notified on February 07, 2025 (hereinafter, CHARGES LETTER), charges were formulated against EL DORADO SAF for infractions to the Regulation of Investment Funds and their Management Companies, approved by SMV Resolution No. 029-2014-SMV/01 (hereinafter, INVESTMENT FUND REGULATION), the Regulation of Mutual Investment Funds in Securities and their Management Companies, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 0068-2010- EF/94.01.1 and its amendments (hereinafter, MUTUAL FUND REGULATION), and to the Regulation of Important Events and Confidential Information, approved by SMV Resolution No. 005-2014-SMV/01 and its amendments (hereinafter, RHI), in force at the time the facts were committed, for not having timely presented the following information:
a) The communication of the important event referred to the agreement to appoint Mr. Paul Henry Smith as a member of the board of directors and Mrs. Mery Rocío Infantas Duran as president of the board of directors; which occurred on March 31, 2021. This event had to be communicated to the Public Registry of the Securities Market (RPMV) on the day it occurred 1 ; however, it was reported on October 25, 2021 2 ; b) The communication of the important event referred to the revocation of the authorization to operate as a Fund Management Company. The Revocation Resolution was notified to EL DORADO SAF on October 12, 2021; however, the communication as an important event was made on October 18, 2021 3 ; c) The important event referred to the communication of the Daily Basket of the “Van Eck El Dorado Peru ETF Fund” (hereinafter, the ETF FUND), of May 10,
2021. This event had to be communicated to the RPMV on the day it occurred; however, it was reported on May 11, 2021 4
;
4. The mentioned non-compliances are
type in Annex I, number 3, item 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), which prescribes as a minor infraction: “To submit outside the established deadline, or to do so incompletely, or, without observing the technical specifications approved by the SMV or without communicating the approval by the corresponding corporate body to the SMV, to the Stock Exchange, to the entity in charge of the mechanism centralized trading or to any other entity or subject of the securities market, the audited individual or consolidated financial information, the individual or consolidated interim financial statements, management report, special audit report, important events and, annual reports”;
5. In writing received on February 18, 2025, EL
DORADO SAF presented its defenses to the observations made;

Although on March 31, 2021 1
, EL DORADO SAF communicated to the RPMV the change of board members, it did not make said communication in accordance with what is established in Title II, number 2.8 of the Technical Specifications of the Registration and Supervision Information System, approved by Superintendent Resolution No. 080-2014-SMV/02. 2 File No. 2021039999. File No. 2021039209. File No. 2021018921.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronally signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
6. The charges formulated, as well as the defenses
presented by EL DORADO SAF have been subject to evaluation by the General Superintendent of Prudential Compliance in Report No. 327-2025-SMV/10.3, which has been submitted to the knowledge of this Adjunct Superintendency;
7. In observance of the Principle of Due
Process contemplated both in article IV, item 1, number 1.2 of the Preliminary Title, as well as in article 248°, number 2, of the TUO LPAG, through Letter No. 1314-2025-SMV/10, the administrative file to which this resolution refers was made available to EL DORADO SAF for review;
II. ISSUES TO DETERMINE
8. In the present administrative procedure, at
the discretion of this Adjunct Superintendency, it corresponds to determine the following:
a. Whether EL DORADO SAF incurred or not an infraction by communicating the important event referred to the agreement to appoint Mr. Paul Henry Smith as member of the board of directors and Mrs. Mery Rocío Infantas Duran as president of the board of directors, which occurred on March 31, 2021, subject of charges, within the deadline established in article 9, number 9.1 of the RHI, in force at the date the facts occurred; b. Whether EL DORADO SAF incurred or not an infraction by communicating the important event referred to the revocation of the authorization to operate as a Fund Management Company, subject of charges, within the deadline established in article 9, number 9.1 of the RHI, in force at the date the facts occurred;
c. Whether EL DORADO SAF incurred or not an infraction by communicating the important event
referred to the communication of the Daily Basket of the ETF FUND, of May 10, 2021, subject of charges, within the deadline established in article 9, number 9.1 of the RHI, in force at the date the facts occurred; d. Whether it corresponds or not to impose a sanction on EL DORADO SAF;
III. ANALYSIS
3.1. Of the applicable regulation
9. Regarding this, article 131, letter a) of the
MUTUAL FUND REGULATION establishes the following:
“Article 131.- Important Events
The management company is obliged to send all information regarding the mutual fund under its administration that qualifies as an important event for investors, in accordance with what is provided in the regulation on the matter, as well as by the provisions issued by the SMV. Also important event information must be sent regarding the own management company that meets the scenario provided for in the second paragraph of article 28° of the Law for the participants and potential investors of the mutual fund under its administration. Additionally, the management company is obliged to communicate as an important event, any information that could influence the behavior of the mutual fund, the share value and, in general, any information that could influence the appreciation of an investor regarding the performance of the mutual fund. Qualify as Important Events, in addition to what is stated above, the following:
a) Resignations, dismissals and appointments of the members of the board of directors and of the management of the management company, as well as the members of the investment committee. (…)”;
10. Also, article 191 of the MUTUAL FUND REGULATION establishes the following:
Article 191°.- Daily Portfolio
The daily portfolio is composed of all securities and cash that will be exchanged for each creation unit of the exchange-traded fund or ETF. In the participation regulation, the means by which the composition of the daily portfolio will be reported must be indicated. This reference must be accessible to the general public. (…).”;
11. Likewise, number 12, point I of the Participation Regulation of the ETF FUND indicates the following:
“12. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
(…)
“I. Daily Composition of the Basket
Likewise, the management company is obliged to send to the SMV all information of the fund that qualifies as an important event for investors, in accordance with what is stated in article 131 of the Mutual Fund Regulation. Additionally, the management company is obliged to communicate as an important event, any information that could influence the behavior of the fund, the net asset value and, in general, any information that could influence the appreciation of an investor regarding the performance of the fund.”;
12. Article 140 of the INVESTMENT FUND REGULATION disposes the following regarding important events:
“Article 140.- Subject to the Regulation of Important Events The Management Company is governed by the Regulation of Important Events and the provisions on the matter issued by the SMV. The Management Company has the obligation to inform the Registry of important events regarding the Management Company and the Funds it administers while it maintains Funds registered in the Registry. (…)”;

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document 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. Likewise, Annex I, number 33 of the RHI
establishes as a scenario of important event, the following:
“33. Start and final result of judicial or arbitral processes and administrative procedures that may affect the assets or the business and activities of the Issuer.”;
14. In that sense, article 7°, numbers 7.2 and 7.3
of the RHI disposes the following:
“Article 7°.- Obligation to Inform
(…)
7.2. Important events must be sent complying with the
technical specifications approved by the SMV. The Issuer must ensure that in the sending of the information there is coherence between the content of the same and the classification or typology existing in the MVNet.
7.3. The obligation to inform an important event will only be understood as
fulfilled if the Issuer has observed the requirements established in this Regulation and in the corresponding technical specifications that establish the SMV. (…)”;
15. Regarding the opportunity to inform said
important events, article 9, number 9.1. of the RHI refers to the following:
“Article 9.- Opportunity to inform important events
9.1. The Issuer must inform its important event as soon as such event
occurs or the Issuer takes knowledge of it, and in no case beyond the day on which it has occurred or has been known. This information must be communicated to the SMV before any other person, entity or means of dissemination, and simultaneously when it corresponds to the Stock Exchange or to the entity administrator of the respective centralized trading mechanism. This, regardless of whether the information has been generated or not in the own Issuer; (…)”;
3.2. Of the charges formulated
16. Through the CHARGES LETTER, charges were formulated
against EL DORADO SAF for not communicating, within the deadline established by the regulation, the occasional information indicated in the third considering of this resolution;
3.3. Of the defenses presented
17. EL DORADO SAF expressly recognizes,
precise, concise, clear and unconditional having committed the infractions imputed in the CHARGES LETTER. In that sense, it requests that the attenuant of responsibility established in article 26, item 1, letter a) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION be applied, and that if a fine is imposed, it be reduced by fifty percent (50%);

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
3.4 Evaluation of the defenses
18. It must be initiated in this analysis by stating
that EL DORADO SAF has expressly recognized its responsibility in the commission of the infractions imputed in the CHARGES LETTER, in accordance with what is established in article 26, item 1, letter a) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION. Therefore, it must be indicated that said recognition will be considered at the time of carrying out the evaluation of the sanction to be imposed;
19. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is necessary to indicate
that EL DORADO SAF is a company supervised by the SMV, with authorization of operation granted by Superintendent Resolution No. 113-2017- SMV/02 of November 27, 2017, and has knowledge of the applicable regulation for the presentation of occasional information, so it has the obligation to comply with what is established in said regulation and therefore act diligently in the timely presentation of the mentioned information. Nevertheless, this did not happen, since EL DORADO SAF committed three (3) infractions, subject of the present administrative sanctioning procedure;
20. In that sense, regarding said infractions, it is
precise to mention that management companies are obliged to communicate important events at the opportunity established in article 9° of the RHI, that is, as soon as the event occurs or is taken knowledge of it, in no case beyond the day on which it has occurred or has been known;
21. Nevertheless, it is appreciated that EL DORADO SAF
presented the occasional information described in letters a), b) and c) of the third considering of this resolution, outside the deadline provided by the applicable regulation:
Letters
(point 2.2 of
Section II)
Presentation Date
Deadline for presentation Delay (days) a) 25/10/2021 31/03/2021 208 days b) 18/10/2021 12/10/2021 6 days c) 11/05/2021 10/05/2021 1 day
22. In view of the above, it is concluded that EL
DORADO SAF has not disproven the charges imputed in this regard;
23. Consequently, taking into account the
considerations stated above, it is noted that EL DORADO SAF has committed three (3) infractions classified as minor, typified in Annex I, number 3, item 3.1, of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, in force at the date of the commission of the facts, according to which it constitutes an infraction: “To submit outside the established deadline, or to do so incompletely, or, without observing the technical specifications approved by the SMV or without communicating the approval by the corresponding corporate body to the SMV, to the Stock Exchange, to the entity in charge of the mechanism centralized trading or to any other entity or subject of the securities market, the audited individual or consolidated financial information, the individual or consolidated interim financial statements, management report, special audit report, important events and, annual reports”;

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
24. Regarding the arguments exposed by EL
DORADO SAF regarding the application of article 26, item 1, letter a) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, it must be noted that this will be evaluated in the next
section;
IV. EVALUATION OF THE SANCTION
25. In accordance with what is established in article
35° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, the commission of a minor nature infraction is subject to a sanction corresponding to a warning or fine not less than one (1) and up to twenty-five (25) Tax Units (UIT);
26. Regarding this, taking into account that in the present
sanctioning procedure infractions typified as minor related to the non-compliance of the deadline for presentation of occasional information are evaluated, it must be considered that item 1 of the “Criteria Applicable to the Administrative Sanctioning Procedure for Non-Compliance with the Regulations that regulate the Submission of Periodic or Occasional Information”, approved by SMV Resolution No. 006-2012-SMV/01 and its amendment 5 (hereinafter, SANCTION CRITERIA) provides that the purpose of said criteria is “to establish the sanctioning parameters that within the framework of the General Administrative Procedure Law, the Securities Market Law and the Decree Law on Collective Fund Management Companies allow applying sanctions to issuers with values registered in the Public Registry of the Securities Market, legal entities registered in the Records under the custody of the SMV, and other persons obliged to present periodic or occasional information for the non-compliances in the timely submission of said information that are typified as a minor infraction in the annexes of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 055-2001-EF94.10. The criteria that follow are developed exclusively for the non-compliances of the regulations that regulate the submission of periodic or occasional information and are not applied extensively to other cases investigated by this Superintendency”;
27. Therefore, to evaluate the sanction that must
be imposed on EL DORADO SAF for failing to comply with the deadline for communication of the important events described in letters a), b) and c) of the third considering of this resolution, it corresponds to apply the SANCTION CRITERIA;
28. It is worth highlighting that in the application of the
SANCTION CRITERIA, the principle of proportionality established in the TUO LPAG must be observed, since it allows determining in a predictable manner for the administrated, the sanctions to be imposed on the issuers of securities and on the persons registered in the RPMV for non-compliances in the deadlines for submission of information to which they are obliged by the regulations and for omission in the submission of that information that is required by the SMV;
29. For the purpose of determining the sanction that
corresponds to the infractions subject of analysis, and in accordance with what is established in item 3.2 of the SANCTION CRITERIA, the criteria of

Modified by article 3 of SMV Resolution No. 010-2014-SMV/01 of May 22, 2014, in force from May 25, 2014.
The aforementioned resolution modified, the first paragraph of the Fourth Criterion of item 4.1, the numbers (ii), (iv), (v) (vi) and (vii) of item 4.2 of the Criteria applicable to the administrative sanctioning procedure for non-compliance with the regulations that regulate the submission of periodic or occasional information, approved by SMV Resolution No. 006-2012- SMV/01.

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 evaluación dispuestos en el 344° del Texto Único Ordenado de la Ley del Mercado de Valores, en el artículo 248°, numeral 3, del TUO LPAG, en el artículo 25° del REGLAMENTO DE SANCIONES, así como en el inciso 4.1 de los CRITERIOS DE SANCIÓN, cuya observancia es obligatoria;
30. Within this framework, the evaluation of the sanction
must consider: a) The seriousness of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal interest; b) The economic harm caused and its repercussion in the market; c) Sanction history; d) Recidivism; e) The circumstances of the commission of the offense; f) The illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the offense; g) The existence or non-existence of intent in the offender's conduct; and, h) The probability of detection of the offense;
31. Regarding the seriousness of the damage to the public interest
and/or protected legal interest, it must be taken into consideration that when it comes to the submission of ad hoc information, any non-compliance with the regulations on its timely presentation, that is, the non-observance of the deadlines established to present such information, affects the transparency of the securities market, as this safeguards the right of investors (actual and potential) and the general public to access such information in a timely manner in order to adopt investment decisions or perform a specific evaluation; likewise, it affects the SMV in the implementation of its supervision and control activities that seek to protect the integrity of the market;
32. Therefore, it can be stated that EL DORADO SAF
has affected the protected legal interest referred to as market transparency, since it communicated the material facts subject to charges belatedly;
33. Regarding the economic harm caused and
the repercussion in the market, it has not been evidenced that the infractions committed by EL DORADO SAF have produced a concrete, quantifiable harm in the market, that is, it has not been determined that there has been concrete impact or caused economic damage to one or more investors, so it has also not been evidenced that there was any repercussion in the market;
34. Regarding sanction history, it
must be noted that according to the SANCTION CRITERIA and Article 25, letter a) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, history consists of final sanctions imposed by the SMV within a period of four (4) years prior to the commission of the infractions to be sanctioned;
35. In this sense, upon review conducted during said
period, it has been verified that EL DORADO SAF has the following sanction history in the four (4) years prior to the commission of the infractions subject to analysis:
a. Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 016-2020-SMV/10, notified on August 4, 2020, through which EL DORADO SAF is sanctioned with two (2) warnings for having committed one (1) serious infraction typified in Annex XIX, numeral 2, item 2.12 of the Sanctions Regulation and one (1) serious infraction typified in Annex XVI, numeral 2, item 2.10 of the New Sanctions Regulation, for failing to comply with presenting the Annual Special Audit Plan for the years 2018 and 2019, respectively, according to the deadline established in the Standards for the Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism. This Adjunct Superintendent Resolution

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 Adjunta was not subject to appeal. The fifteen (15) business day deadline for filing the administrative appeal expired on August 26, 2020; b. Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 005-2021-SMV/10, notified on March 3, 2021, through which EL DORADO SAF is sanctioned with one warning for having committed one (1) serious infraction typified in Annex XIX, numeral 2, item 2.8 of the Sanctions Regulation, for failing to comply with appointing its Compliance Officer on a full-time basis, according to the deadline established in the Standards for the Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism. This Adjunct Superintendent Resolution was not subject to appeal. The fifteen (15) business day deadline for filing the administrative appeal expired on March 24, 2021;
36. Regarding recidivism for the commission of the
same offense, that final sanction imposed by the SMV within a period of one (1) year prior to the commission of the offense to be sanctioned is taken into account. Regarding this, it must be stated that EL DORADO SAF does not have sanctions, within the aforementioned period, for the commission of the infractions subject to analysis;
37. As for the circumstances of the commission of the
offense, it should be mentioned that EL DORADO SAF, in its capacity as a company supervised by the SMV, knows the regulations that govern the securities market and, in that sense, the regulations that oblige it to present ad hoc information to the SMV within the deadlines established in them. However, EL DORADO SAF presented belatedly the information detailed in letters a), b) and c) of the third preamble of this resolution, subject to the evaluation of the administrative sanctioning procedure;
38. Regarding the illicit benefit resulting from the
commission of the infractions, it must be noted that it has not been proven that EL DORADO SAF obtained a benefit directly related to the infractions subject to analysis;
39. As for the existence or non-existence of intent
in the offender's conduct, it has not been evidenced that EL DORADO SAF acted with intent in the commission of the infractions subject to analysis;
40. Regarding the probability of detection of
the infractions, it must be indicated that in the present case the infractions in which EL DORADO SAF has engaged were evidenced as a result of the supervision and control activities carried out by the SMV regarding compliance with the timely submission of periodic and ad hoc information, according to what is established in the applicable regulations; therefore, the probability of detection was high;
41. Continuing with the analysis, it is necessary to determine
the sanction to be imposed on EL DORADO SAF. In that sense, the SANCTION CRITERIA establish that a warning sanction may be imposed when the following guidelines established in item 4.2, numeral (ii) of the aforementioned criteria are met concurrently: (i) the impact on market transparency is minimal; (ii) the committed offense has not caused concrete harm to investors or partners; (iii) the offending entity does not have a history or, if it does, it concerns infractions typified as minor offenses imposed in the four (4) years prior to the commission of the offense being evaluated; (iv) the offending entity has not obtained a

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 benefit from its illegal conduct; and, (v) it has not been proven that the offender acted with intent in the commission of the offense;
42. Likewise, said SANCTION CRITERIA
establish that if it is not appropriate to apply a warning sanction, a fine sanction must be imposed;
43. On the other hand, the Gradual Sanctions Regime for late submission of financial information, annual report and material facts, approved by SMV Resolution No. 007-2023-SMV/01 of
September 4, 2023 6
(hereinafter, GRADUAL SANCTIONS REGIME), in force as of January 1, 2024, establishes in Article 6, numeral 6.1, that a warning sanction may be applied when the following conditions are met concurrently: a) When the impact on market transparency is minimal. This statement is linked to the criterion of the seriousness of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal interest; b) The committed offense has not caused concrete harm to investors or partners; c) The offending entity does not have a history or, if it does, it concerns sanctions corresponding to minor infractions imposed by the SMV that had become final in the four (4) years prior to the commission of the offense being evaluated; d) The offending entity is not a recidivist; e) The offender has not obtained benefits from his administrative offense; and, f) It has not been proven that the offender acted with intent in the commission of the offense;
44. In this sense, it is necessary to evaluate the conditions for the application of a warning sanction established in the SANCTION CRITERIA as well as in the GRADUAL SANCTIONS REGIME, in order to determine those that are more favorable to the administrative party;
Letters b) and c) of the third preamble
45. On this matter, in accordance with the evaluation carried out in this resolution, it has been verified that EL DORADO SAF
has two (2) sanction history records in the four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction being evaluated. These correspond to infractions typified as serious; however, they were sanctioned as minor nature infractions;
46. Likewise, it has not been proven that the infractions
committed caused concrete harm to investors, it has not been evidenced that EL DORADO SAF obtained a benefit from its illegal conduct, it has not been proven that it acted with intent in the commission of the offense and no recidivism has been observed in the present case;
47. Regarding the condition referring to the impact on market transparency being minimal, it must be warned in principle and as mentioned in the evaluation of the sanction criteria, that any non-compliance with the regulations regarding the deadlines established to present
ad hoc information affects the transparency of the securities market, even more so if this non-compliance persists over time; since such information is relevant not only to investors but also to the market in general. In that sense, it is the obligation of every management company to present the ad hoc information required by the regulations within the established deadlines, that is, in a timely manner;

Published in the Official Gazette El Peruano on September 8, 2023.

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
48. Nevertheless, it must be indicated that the infractions
described in letters b) and c) of the third preamble of this resolution, although they present a delay of six (6) days, and one (1) day in their presentation, respectively, it can be appreciated that during the period in which EL DORADO SAF did not report these material facts to the SMV, the degree of impact on the transparency of the market has been minimal; without prejudice to the fact that in similar cases, a greater delay in the presentation of the information may determine a greater degree of impact on the transparency of the securities market;
49. Likewise, regarding the infraction described in letter b) of numeral 2.2 of Section II of this report, Superintendent Resolution No. 100-2021-SMV/02, which revoked the operating authorization as an investment fund management company of EL DORADO SAF, was published on the SMV Market Portal and in the Official Gazette El Peruano on October 12, 2021, that is, the same day that EL DORADO SAF had the obligation to present the material fact subject to imputation in the present procedure,
since the management company took knowledge of the aforementioned resolution on that date. On the other hand, it must be indicated that the FUND began operations on March 11, 2021;
50. In this sense, such information was known to the securities market, considering that the aforementioned revocation is disseminated on the SMV Portal and published in the Official Gazette El Peruano;
51. Therefore, as a result of the evaluation carried out for the infractions contained in letters b) and c) of the third preamble of this resolution, EL DORADO SAF meets the conditions established in Article 6, numeral 6.1 of the GRADUAL SANCTIONS REGIME, therefore, according to said conditions, it corresponds to apply two warning sanctions for each of the two infractions committed, since they are more favorable to the administrative party;
Letter a) of the third preamble
52. On this matter, as can be seen from the evaluation carried out in this resolution, it has been verified that EL DORADO SAF
has two (2) sanction history records in the four (4) years prior to the commission of the infractions being evaluated. These correspond to infractions typified as serious; however, they were sanctioned as minor nature infractions;
53. Likewise, it has not been proven that the infraction
committed caused concrete harm to investors, it has not been evidenced that EL DORADO SAF obtained a benefit from its illegal conduct, nor has it been proven that it acted with intent in the commission of the offense and no recidivism has been observed in the present case;
54. Nevertheless, it must be indicated that, according to what is established in the SANCTION CRITERIA and the GRADUAL SANCTIONS REGIME, the infraction analyzed in this part of the resolution does not meet the requirement of minimal impact on the transparency principle, so it does not correspond to apply a warning sanction;

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
55. In effect, regarding the condition referring to the
impact on market transparency being minimal, it must be warned in principle and as mentioned in the evaluation of the sanction criteria, that any non-compliance with the regulations regarding the deadlines established to present ad hoc information affects the transparency of the securities market, even more so if this non-compliance persists over time;
56. In that sense, it is necessary to highlight that the
infraction described in letter a) of the third preamble of this resolution maintains a greater delay in the presentation of the information. In that sense, the delay in the presentation of the material fact was two hundred eight (208) days; therefore, it is determined that this infraction generated a greater degree of impact on the transparency of the market;
57. Therefore, according to the guidelines established in
item 4.2, numerals iv) and v) of the SANCTION CRITERIA 7 , regarding a non-compliance in the submission of ad hoc information such as material facts, it would correspond to apply to the fact subject to evaluation described above, a fine sanction, according to the following detail:
TABLE: NON-COMPLIANCE IN THE COMMUNICATION OF AD HOC INFORMATION,
SUCH AS MATERIAL FACTS
Reference of the present
Resolution
(Third preamble)
Days of delay
Timeliness
Fine UIT
Criteria
Numeral
(iv)* UIT
Sanction History
UIT
Total in
UIT a) 208 1 3 0.06 3.06
Total UIT 3.06
*For each calendar day of delay, thirty percent (30%) of one (1) UIT will be added up to a maximum of three (3) UIT. (v) The amount resulting from the guidelines of numeral (iv) will be increased by two percent (2%) if it is determined that the offending entity has sanction history and by three percent (3%) if it has history of the same conduct to be sanctioned.
58. In view of the TABLE, regarding the infraction indicated
in letter a) of the third preamble of this resolution, it would correspond to impose on EL DORADO SAF a fine sanction amounting to 3.06 UIT 8 equivalent to S/ 13,464.00 (Thirteen thousand four hundred sixty-four and 00/100 Soles);

7 It should be mentioned that, according to numeral 6.2.3 of the GRADUAL SANCTIONS REGIME, the considerations for the application of a fine sanction, regarding non-compliance in the submission of material facts, are as follows: Based on two (2) UIT, ten percent (10%) of one (1) UIT will be added for each calendar day of delay up to forty (40) days equivalent to six (4) additional UITs to the base, additional percentage that is counted from the second day of delay, without prejudice to the fact that this amount could be higher if there are aggravating circumstances. Likewise, according to numeral 6.3.1 of the GRADUAL SANCTIONS REGIME, the amount resulting from the application of the guidelines contemplated in numeral 6.2 can be increased by up to five percent (5%) if it is proven that the offending entity has sanction history and by up to ten percent (10%) if it is verified that the offending entity is a recidivist. Therefore, what is established in the GRADUAL SANCTIONS REGIME is not more beneficial for the administrative party. 8 UIT in force for the year 2021 equivalent to S/ 4,400.00 according to Supreme Decree No. 392-2020-EF.

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
59. On the other hand, it should be noted that in the present
procedure no aggravating circumstances contemplated in item 4.2, numeral (vi) of the aforementioned SANCTION CRITERIA have been determined;
60. In addition to the above, it is necessary to analyze the exempting and mitigating circumstances of liability established in Article 257° of the TUO LPAG 9
, as well as the mitigating and exempting conditions of liability established in Articles 26° and 27° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
61. Regarding this, it is not observed that in the present case
any of the conditions constituting exempting conditions of liability have been configured;
62. Regarding the voluntary declaration of the commission of the infractions and the contribution of the offender to their clarification,
established in Article 257°, numeral 2, letter a) of the TUO LPAG and in Article 26°, letters a) and b) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, it must be noted that EL DORADO SAF has recognized its responsibility for the infractions subject to analysis, in an express and written manner, within the deadline granted for the presentation of defenses, and in a precise, concise, clear, express and unconditional manner, without ambiguous or contradictory expressions, as well as has contributed to the clarification of the same; therefore, according to what is established in said Article 26 10, letter a), numeral 1 and fourth paragraph of the same article, it would correspond to reduce the amount of the applicable fine by fifty percent (50%);
63. In this sense, considering the above
and that the present sanctioning procedure is related to infractions whose determination and proof is objective based on a deadline by which the information must be presented, in addition to the detection of the same being evidenced as a result of the supervision and control activities that

“Article 257.- Exempting and mitigating circumstances of liability for infractions 1.- The following constitute exempting conditions of liability 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 ability to understand the infraction. d) Mandatory order from a 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 potential sanctioned party of the act or omission imputed as constituting an administrative infraction, prior to the notification of the charge imputation referred to in item 3) of Article 235. 2.- The following constitute mitigating conditions of liability for infractions:
a) If, once an administrative sanctioning procedure has been initiated, the offender recognizes his responsibility in an express and written manner. In cases where the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced to an amount no less than half of its value. b) Others established by special regulation.” “Article 26.- MITIGATING CONDITIONS OF LIABILITY The following constitute mitigating conditions of liability for infractions:
a) Recognition of the offender's responsibility in an express and written manner, once the administrative sanctioning procedure has been initiated. When the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced, taking into account the following:

If the recognition of the infraction is presented within the deadline granted for the presentation of defenses,
the reduction amount will be fifty percent (50%).
(…)
The recognition of responsibility regarding an infraction must be made in a precise, concise, clear, express and unconditional manner, and must not contain ambiguous or contradictory expressions; otherwise, it will not be understood as a recognition. If defenses are presented, despite having made a recognition of responsibility, it will be understood as a non-recognition, and the authority will proceed to evaluate the defenses.”

PERÚ 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 is carried out by the SMV continuously regarding compliance with the timely submission of information established by the RHI; it corresponds to apply a 50% reduction in the fine to be imposed on EL DORADO SAF, in accordance with what is established in article 26, letter a), numeral 1 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, which is why it is proposed to reduce the determined fine sanction from 3.06 UIT to 1.53 UIT;
64. Being in accordance with what is provided by article 32°, numeral
17, of the Organization and Functions Regulation of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF and its amendments, as well as the SANCTION CRITERIA and its amendment; RESOLVES:
Article 1°.- Declare that El Dorado Asset Management
Sociedad Administradora de Fondos S.A. has committed one (1) minor infraction type in Annex I, numeral 3, clause 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having communicated in a timely manner the significant event referred to the agreement of appointment of Mr. Paul Henry Smith as a member of the board of directors and of Mrs. Mery Rocío Infantas Duran as president of the board of directors; occurred on March 31, 2021.
Article 2°.- Declare that El Dorado Asset Management
Sociedad Administradora de Fondos S.A. has committed one (1) minor infraction type in Annex I, numeral 3, clause 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having communicated in a timely manner the significant event referred to the revocation of the authorization to operate as an Investment Fund Management Company.
Article 3°.- Declare that El Dorado Asset Management
Sociedad Administradora de Fondos S.A. has committed one (1) minor infraction type in Annex I, numeral 3, clause 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having communicated in a timely manner the significant event referred to the communication of the Daily Basket of the ETF FUND, on May 10, 2021.
Article 4°.- Sanction El Dorado Asset Management
Sociedad Administradora de Fondos S.A. with a fine of 1.53 UIT, equivalent to S/.
6,732.00 (Six thousand seven hundred thirty-two and 00/100 soles) for what is provided in article 1° of this resolution.
Article 5°.- Sanction El Dorado Asset Management
Sociedad Administradora de Fondos S.A. with two (2) reprimands, for what is provided in articles 2° and 3° of this resolution.
Article 6°.- This resolution does not exhaust the administrative
path, unless it is consented to, and may be challenged before the Superintendence of Prudential Supervision by filing a reconsideration appeal, presented before the same, within the term of fifteen (15) working days counted from the day following its notification.
Article 7°.- In the event that this resolution is not
subject to challenge through a reconsideration appeal within the term of fifteen (15) working days of being notified and remains consented, it must be published on the Page

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

Lineage