Superintendency Resolution No. 047-2025-SMV/10 — SMV — PE

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship Superintendency Adjunct Resolution SMV No. 047-2025-SMV/10 Lima, September 1, 2025 Summary: Credicorp Capital S.A. Sociedad Administradora de Fondos is sanctioned with a fine of nine (9) UIT, equivalent to S/ 39,600.00 (Thirty-nine thousand six hundred and 00/100 Soles) for having committed three (3) serious infractions: one (01) typified in Annex I, numeral 2, clause 2.25 and two (2) typified in Annex VII, numeral 2, clause 2.9 of the Sanctions Regulation; for not complying with the conduct norm established in Article 3, letter f) of the Regulation of Mutual Funds for Investment in Securities and their Administrating Companies, by providing the participant during the quota placement process with information that was not precise and clear regarding the characteristics of the Fund, for not complying with providing minimum advisory to the participant as established in Article 86-A of said regulation and for not complying with the deadline established in the Fund Participation Regulation to provide the participant with a response to the complaint filed, respectively.

Administered by: Credicorp Capital S.A. Sociedad Administradora de Fondos Subject: Administrative sanctioning procedure File No.: 2024041763

The Adjunct Superintendent of Prudential Supervision

SEEN:
Administrative file No. 2024041763, Report No. 815-2025-SMV/10.3, issued by the General Superintendency of Prudential Compliance, as well as the defenses presented by Credicorp Capital S.A. Sociedad Administradora de Fondos; and,

CONSIDERING:

In accordance with Article 1° of Law No. 29782, Law for the Strengthening of the Supervision of the Securities Market, the denomination
Signed
Digitally by:
GUTIERREZ
OCHOA Omar
Dario FAU
20131016396 soft
Date: 1/09/2025
14:37:23

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship 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 made to the SMV;

I. Facts
2. On October 3, 2022, the COMPLAINANT1 filed
a complaint with the Securities Market Superintendency (SMV) against Credicorp Capital S.A. Sociedad Administradora de Fondos (hereinafter, CREDICORP SAF) and Banco de Crédito del Perú - BCP, regarding the mutual investment fund in securities denominated Fondo de Fondos Credicorp Capital Visión I FMIV (hereinafter, FUND VISION I);
3. With Letter No. 5036-2022-SMV/10.3, notified to
CREDICORP SAF on October 5, 2022 (hereinafter, the LETTER), CREDICORP SAF was made aware of the complaint filed by the COMPLAINANT, in order to submit comments, as well as the corresponding information; therefore, on October 14 of 2022, the intermediary responded to the LETTER;
4. By Letter No. 4475-2024-SMV/10.3, notified on October 9
of 2024 (hereinafter, LETTER OF CHARGES) an administrative sanctioning procedure was initiated against CREDICORP SAF;
5. On October 21, 2024, CREDICORP SAF requested
an extension of the deadline granted via the LETTER, in order to review and present the corresponding defenses; which was granted with Letter No. 5159-2024-SMV/10.3, notified on November 13, 2024. In this sense, through a document presented to the SMV on November 27, 2024, CREDICORP SAF presented the respective defenses; which were complemented with a document presented by the stockbroker society on June 10, 2025;
6. The charge formulated, as well as the defenses
presented by CREDICORP SAF, have been the subject of evaluation in Report No. 815- 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, clause 1, numeral 1.2 of the Preliminary Title, as well as in Article 248°, numeral 2, of the Single Text of the General Administrative Procedure Law No. 27444, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, TUO OF THE LPAG), via Letter No. 3358 - 2025-SMV/10, the administrative file to which the present resolution refers was made available to CREDICORP SAF for its review;

II. Issues to be determined
8. In the present administrative procedure, at
the discretion of this Adjunct Superintendency, it corresponds to determine the following:
a. Whether CREDICORP SAF incurred or did not incur an infraction provided for in Annex I, numeral 2, clause 2.25 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035- 2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), for not complying with the conduct norm established in Article 3, letter f) of the Regulation of Mutual Funds for Investment in Securities and their Administrating Companies, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 068-2010-EF/94.01.1 (hereinafter, REGULATION), since the administering company informed the COMPLAINANT during the quota placement process of FUND VISION I, information that was not precise and clear regarding the characteristics of said mutual fund; b. Whether CREDICORP SAF incurred or did not incur an infraction provided for in Annex VII, numeral 2, clause 2.9 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, for not complying with providing minimum advisory to the COMPLAINANT as established in Article 86-A of the REGULATION, since the information on the relationship between the risk profile of the COMPLAINANT in their capacity as a potential participant and the characteristics of the offered mutual fund (FUND VISION I) explaining why it adjusted to their profile was not accredited;
c. Whether CREDICORP SAF incurred or did not incur an infraction provided for in Annex VII,
numeral 2, clause 2.9 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION for not complying with what is established in Article 15 of the PARTICIPATION REGULATION, that is, for not complying with the legal deadline established to provide the COMPLAINANT with a response to the complaint filed on May 11, 2022; d. Whether it corresponds or not to impose a sanction on CREDICORP SAF;

III. ANALYSIS
3.1 FIRST CHARGE: REGARDING THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF CONDUCT NORMS IN THE
INFORMATION PROVIDED TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS IN THE QUOTA PLACEMENT PROCESS
3.1.1 OF THE APPLICABLE NORMS
9. Article 3 of the REGULATION provides as follows:
“Article 3 General Conduct Norms
In the development of their activities, the administering company, officials, employees, promoters, members of the investment committee, External Manager, Distributor, custodian and placement agent, as well as any person directly or indirectly related to the administering company, must comply with the following general conduct norms, for which they will implement the necessary procedures and controls for their proper observance:
(…) f) Information to Participants and Investors: Inform, within the quota placement process, about the profitability and risk attributes that characterize the investments of mutual funds; likewise, offer participants of the mutual funds under their charge all information that may be relevant for the adoption of their subscription, redemption, transfer or swap decisions, under equal conditions. All information to participants and investors must be clear, correct, precise, truthful, sufficient and timely. (…).”
10. Likewise, Article 40 of the REGULATION provides
as follows.
“Article 40 Content of the Contract
(…)
The administering company is jointly liable with its promoters and the promoters designated by the placement agents, for the improper acts of these, as well as for their omissions (…).”
11. In this context, Article 85-A of the REGULATION
establishes as follows:
“Article 85-A Promotion
Promotion is the activity consisting of providing necessary and sufficient information for the taking of an informed investment decision. This activity includes advertising and advisory.
In the exercise of the promotion activity, it is prohibited to guarantee profitability, except in the case of a guaranteed mutual fund; and, to disseminate advertising containing declarations, allusions or representations that induce error or confusion in the public, regarding the nature, profitability, redemptions, liquidity, guarantees or other characteristics of the mutual fund or the administering companies. (…).”
3.1.2 OF THE FACTS OCCURRED
12. Through a document received on October 3, 2022,
the COMPLAINANT filed a complaint against CREDICORP SAF and BCP (hereinafter, COMPLAINT), in which the COMPLAINANT pointed out, among other things, that these companies violated the obligation provided for in the legal framework, of the principle of transparency of information, through their Professional Savings and Investment Advisor at BCP, the ADVISOR;
13. Likewise, he pointed out that, in the face of persistent
communications from the ADVISOR, he listened to his proposal, which consisted, according to him, in helping him to profitabilize his savings through the mutual fund product (he states that this is recorded in the WhatsApp of June 10, 2021) affirming that this product would generate better profitability than his conventional savings account, where he had his savings from the sale of a property;
14. In this sense, he states that on June 10, 2021,
the ADVISOR presented himself to the COMPLAINANT formally through the WhatsApp application. Likewise, that on June 14, 2021, in constant insistence, the COMPLAINANT indicates, he offered him the same “profitability of my savings”;
15. Thus also, according to the COMPLAINANT, on July
2, 2021, the ADVISOR sent him via WhatsApp an informative letter and information sheet of FUND VISION I (as of April 30, 2021, 1 page). He states that he reviewed this information, where everything was profitability and it seemed like a good proposal;
16. In view of the above, the COMPLAINANT presented
a copy of the WhatsApp screenshot from June 10, 2021, in which the ADVISOR tells the COMPLAINANT that his function is to help him profitabilize his savings through a product like a mutual fund that will generate better profitability than his savings account, as seen in the following text:
“Dear (…)
2 good day, as I indicated, the reason for contacting you was to introduce myself to you. I am (…) 3 , your savings and investment advisor at BCP, my function is to help you profitabilize your savings through a product like a mutual fund that will generate better profitability than your savings account and you will be able to dispose of your money at any time.

2
COMPLAINANT. 3
ADVISOR.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship I sent you a presentation email where you can view my data. If you want me to send you investment proposals to your email so that you can analyze the proposals, I will gladly do so, awaiting your kind response. (…).” (Added highlight).
17. Likewise, he presented a copy of the
WhatsApp screenshot from July 2, 2021, in which the ADVISOR tells the COMPLAINANT that he is sending him information through this medium, since his email seems to be incorrect, as seen in the following text:
“Sir (…)
I am sending you the information here
Because the email seems to be incorrect.
(…).”
18. In the WhatsApp screenshot from July 2,
2021, the sending of a document with the BCP and Credicorp Capital logos and the denomination Fondo de Fondos Credicorp Capital Visión I FMIV is observed. It should be clarified that, in these images or screenshots, the formal presentation of the ADVISOR is appreciated, in which his name and the verification of sending formal information are even seen. Therefore, this indicates that the ADVISOR is an indirect promoter who provides services to the placement agent BCP, according to what is established in Article 154 of the REGULATION;
19. Thus also, the COMPLAINANT attaches a document with
the BCP logo, his name and position, which would correspond to the document sent to the COMPLAINANT through the WhatsApp of July 2, 2021, observing that the first paragraph of the following text of the referred document coincides with what is stated in the extract of the WhatsApp image sent and through which he is informed as follows:
“Dear (…)
5
:
As I indicated by phone, I introduce myself as your Savings and Investment Advisor and to make you aware that from now on you have my support and advisory. As a specialized area we can offer you special rates and a variety of mutual funds that adjust to your needs. Therefore, I attach the comparison and information of Mutual Fund VISION I that will generate better profitability than traditional products (Time Deposits, Savings Accounts) in this pandemic. (…) Currently (Dollar Savings Account)

4
“Article 15.- PROMOTERS
(…)
A direct promoter is understood to be one who works directly for the administering company or the Distributor, regardless of his labor contracting regime, while an indirect promoter is one who provides services to the placement agents.
(…).”
5 The name of the COMPLAINANT is indicated.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship With Mutual Funds (VISION I) () Approximate interest, may vary by market behavior. (…) Advantages of FFMM:
(…)
-Performance: You get better performance compared to other traditional alternatives (Savings accounts and time deposits).
(…)”. (Added highlight and underline).
20. Thus also, he attaches a document with
information about FUND VISION I as of April 30, 2021, which would be the factsheet (information sheet), according to the response of CREDICORP SAF;
21. In this sense, with Letter No. 5036-2022-
SMV/10.3, notified on October 5, 2022 (hereinafter, LETTER) the complaint filed by the COMPLAINANT was transferred to CREDICORP SAF, in which he requested his comments, as well as additional information and/or documentation that he considers pertinent;
22. In view of the LETTER, through a document presented
on October 14, 2022, CREDICORP SAF, among other aspects, stated that at the time of making the investment, the COMPLAINANT did have information about the risks and historical returns of FUND VISION I. This is because, according to CREDICORP SAF, he was provided with the Simplified Prospectus of FUND VISION I, its respective Annex and a factsheet;
23. Additionally, CREDICORP SAF adds that as can be seen in the factsheet, the profitability shown does not have an upward slope, but rather, on the contrary, shows a natural movement of the quota value of FUND VISION I, with increases and decreases, so that any sensible investor can infer that the quota value of the fund may suffer variations that could eventually translate into losses;
3.1.3 OF THE CHARGE ATTRIBUTED
24. In accordance with what is established in Article 3 of
the REGULATION, the administering company and its promoters must comply with the general conduct norms in the development of their activities. In this context, letter f) of said article, establishes as a conduct norm the obligation on the part of the administering company and its promoters, to inform, within the quota placement procedure, about the profitability and risk attributes that characterize the investments of mutual funds; as well as to offer participants of the funds under their charge all the information that could be relevant for the adoption of their subscription, redemption, transfer or swap decisions under equal conditions. As well as, that all information provided to participants and investors must be clear, correct, precise, truthful, sufficient and timely;
25. Additionally, Article 85-A of the REGULATION
specifies that promotion is the activity consisting of providing necessary and sufficient information for the taking of an informed investment decision and that in the exercise of said activity it is prohibited to disseminate advertising containing declarations that induce error or confusion;
26. In this sense, in the quota placement process, administering companies and their promoters are obligated to provide to every investor (potential participant) clear, correct, precise, truthful, sufficient and timely information for the adoption of their investment decisions;
27. Being so, as previously stated, in the
content of the WhatsApp screenshot from June 10, 2021, it is observed that, the ADVISOR, in addition to presenting himself as Savings and Investment Advisor at BCP, informed the COMPLAINANT as follows: “(…) my function is to help you profitabilize your savings through a product like a mutual fund that will generate better profitability than your savings account (…).”
28. Likewise, in the information sent by the ADVISOR to the COMPLAINANT through the WhatsApp of July 2, 2021, the COMPLAINANT is told phrases such as the following:
“Dear (…)
6
:
As I indicated by phone, I introduce myself as your Savings and Investment Advisor and to make you aware that from now on you have my support and advisory. As a specialized area we can offer you special rates and a variety of mutual funds that adjust to your needs. Therefore, I attach the comparison and information of Mutual Fund VISION I that will generate better profitability than traditional products (Time Deposits, Savings Accounts) in this pandemic. (…) Currently (Dollar Savings Account) With Mutual Funds (VISION I) () Approximate interest, may vary by market behavior.

6 Name of the COMPLAINANT.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship (…) Advantages of FFMM:
(…)
-Performance: You get better performance compared to other traditional alternatives (Savings accounts and time deposits).
(…)”. (Added highlight and underline).
29. From the above, it is observed that, despite the fact that with the document whose text is detailed previously, a document is attached which would be a presentation of FUND VISION I with characteristics of said fund and in which it does show the movement of the quota value of FUND VISION I, with increases and decreases, the ADVISOR in the WhatsApp of June 10, 2021, whose text has been previously stated, offered him “(…) profitabilize your savings through a product like a mutual fund that will generate better profitability than your savings account (…);
30. Likewise, in the presentation document sent
through the WhatsApp of July 2, 2021 (hereinafter, PRESENTATION DOCUMENT), the ADVISOR offers him special rates, and affirms that FUND VISION I “(…) will generate better profitability than traditional products (Time Deposits, Savings Accounts)”. Likewise, the ADVISOR affirms to the COMPLAINANT that he will obtain better performance “(…) You get better performance compared to other traditional alternatives (Savings accounts and time deposits). Even a comparison is made of a savings account interest rate with the average profitability obtained in FUND VISION I;
31. In this context, from this it can be seen that the
ADVISOR offers the COMPLAINANT special rates and assures him that FUND VISION I will generate a profitability, which according to the nature of mutual funds and specifically with the objective of FUND VISION I is not possible to affirm to a potential participant; that is, it is not possible to assure that the mutual fund will generate better profitability than traditional ones like a savings account, since, depending on the behavior of the fund's quota value, with the investment in the mutual fund one could obtain lower performance than that obtained with the interest rate paid by the savings account, or not receive any percentage of profitability or even lose capital, which is not stated in said document;
32. In effect, it is appreciated that, through the PRESENTATION DOCUMENT, the ADVISOR highlights as advantages of the mutual fund that it will generate better profitability than banking products; however, he does not specify that investment in mutual funds is exposed to investment risks, nor does he specify that, by investing in the mutual fund, the invested amount may decrease and that the investor might have to wait a long period for the recovery of his capital or perhaps not manage to recover it. It should be noted that, in the profiling done to the COMPLAINANT, he mentioned that he planned to use his money within a period of six (6) months, that is, in the short term, which the ADVISOR would not have taken into account to specify the risks of investing in the mutual fund;
33. Likewise, it must be added that, affirming that the
mutual fund will generate better profitability than a savings account could create

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship expectations of profitability in the potential participant that are incorrect and in that sense could influence their investment decisions;
34. Now, although according to CREDICORP SAF
in the factsheet, the profitability shown does not have an upward slope, but rather on the contrary, shows a natural movement of the share value of FONDO VISIÓN I, with increases and decreases, such that any sensible investor can infer that the share value of the fund may suffer variations that could eventually result in losses, this is not shown in the details of the comparison and profitability details that the ADVISOR indicates to the COMPLAINANT, prior to the subscription of FONDO VISIÓN I, and as noted by the administrator society itself, it leaves it to the deduction of the COMPLAINANT, potential participant, when according to article 3, letter f) of the REGULATION the administrator society, as well as its promoters, have the obligation to inform investors, within the placement process, all information that could be relevant for the adoption of their decisions, among others, of subscription, the same which, in addition to being timely, truthful, must be sufficient, correct, precise and clear;
35. Thus, although a potential participant must
review all information provided by administrator societies during the placement process of shares such as the Simplified Prospectus and other information developed by the administrator society, the information provided to the potential participant as a whole must be consistent with each other, that is, precise and clear, so that it must not contain information or phrases that could induce error or confusion to the potential participant, such as the information provided to the COMPLAINANT by the ADVISOR. This also, in accordance with what is established in article 85-A of the REGULATION;
36. As stated above, it is noted that
CREDICORP SAF would have violated the code of conduct established in article 3, letter f) of the REGULATION, since the administrator society, through the ADVISOR, informed the COMPLAINANT during the placement process of the shares of FONDO VISIÓN I, via WhatsApp, as well as documents sent through said medium, confusing information about its characteristics;
37. Consequently, it was attributed to CREDICORP SAF that
it would have committed one (1) serious offense typified in Annex I, numeral 2, clause
2.25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes an offense: “Not having, approving, implementing, nor complying with or modifying them without communicating them to the SMV, within the corresponding deadline, the codes of conduct, internal codes of conduct, or code of conduct, in accordance with the applicable regulations, or not approving a control procedure for said norms.”;
3.1.4 OF THE DEFENSES PRESENTED
38. Regarding this, concerning the charges detailed
previously, CREDICORP SAF states that on June 10, 2021, the ADVISOR contacted the COMPLAINANT with the aim of offering him a mutual investment fund in securities administered by CREDICORP SAF, as an investment product;
39. For this effect, CREDICORP SAF states, through
WhatsApp and email, the ADVISOR sent to the COMPLAINANT, information related to FONDO VISIÓN I and that among said documentation he was sent the Simplified Prospectus, the Annex to the Participation Regulation and the factsheet of FONDO VISIÓN I; documents in which, according to the administrator society, the essential characteristics of FONDO VISIÓN I are recorded, such as profitability, associated risks, applicable commissions, among others;
40. Also, it states that on July 5, 2021, the
COMPLAINANT signed the Mutual Investment Fund Administration Contract and the ADVISOR proceeded with the risk profile evaluation, in which the rating of “Moderate Conservative” was obtained. Likewise, they specify that the same document contains the description of the obtained profile, which was made known to the COMPLAINANT by the ADVISOR. Subsequently, the administrator society states, on the same date, the COMPLAINANT signed the request for subscription of participation shares of FONDO VISIÓN I for the amount of shares equivalent to USD 120,000.00 (One hundred twenty thousand and 00/100 dollars);
41. By virtue thereof, CREDICORP SAF maintains that the
ADVISOR would have provided all available information related to FONDO VISIÓN I, with the aim that the COMPLAINANT makes an adequate investment decision, counting for said effect with clear, correct, precise, truthful, sufficient and timely information, in accordance with what is established in article 3 of the REGULATION;
42. Additionally, taking into account what has been stated, the
administrator society states that it expressly recognizes the charge imputed;
3.1.5 OF THE EVALUATION OF THE DEFENSES
43. Regarding this, although, taking into account what was stated
by CREDICORP SAF, the COMPLAINANT signed the corresponding Mutual Investment Fund Administration Contract, as well as the request for subscription of participation shares of FONDO VISIÓN I and would have been delivered to the COMPLAINANT the Simplified Prospectus, the Annex to the Participation Regulation and the factsheet of FONDO VISIÓN I, with which information related to FONDO VISIÓN I would have been provided, the ADVISOR, prior to the signing of the Contract of the referred mutual fund, also provided to the COMPLAINANT via WhatsApp on June 10, 2021 the following information “(…)my function is to help you profit from your savings through a product like a mutual fund that will generate better profitability than your savings account (…).”;
44. Also, through the PRESENTATION DOCUMENT, the ADVISOR offers the COMPLAINANT special rates and affirms that FONDO VISIÓN I “(…) will generate better profitability than traditional products (Fixed Term Deposit, Savings Accounts) (…),” as well as that he will obtain better performance, given that through said document he points out “(…) You get better performance compared to other traditional alternatives (savings accounts and fixed terms).
Likewise, the comparison between a savings account interest rate and the average profitability obtained in FONDO VISIÓN I is detailed;
45. From this it is evident that, the ADVISOR not only offers
special rates, but also affirms that FONDO VISIÓN I will generate better profitability or performance than traditional alternatives such as a savings account or fixed-term deposits, which according to the nature of mutual funds and the objective of FONDO VISIÓN I is not possible to assure a potential investor, given that, as it is known by the administrator society, the profitability of the mutual fund will depend on the behavior of the fund's share value, considering the risks to which it is subject. Affirming that the mutual fund will generate better profitability than a savings account could create expectations

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship support the determination of the risk profile of the COMPLAINANT, in his capacity as participant of FONDO VISION I, in which the advisory activities performed to the COMPLAINANT are verified, such as, among others, the information on the relationship between the risk profile of the potential participant and characteristics of the offered mutual fund explaining why it fits his profile.”;
56. On July 16, 2024, CREDICORP SAF
responded to OFFICE 1 and stated the following “Attached is the profiler performed on the Complainant on July 5, 2021, which is duly signed. In said document the obtained risk profile is evidenced, which corresponds to a profile “Moderate Conservative”. Likewise, the description of each risk profile managed by CCSAF is detailed, explaining the objectives and the temporal horizon of each one. Additionally, we indicate that the complainant received by his advisor, the corresponding advice regarding the obtained risk profile and the relationship thereof with respect to the Fund, which is accredited with the disclaimer that is found in the same profiler.”
57. To accredit his response, he presented the same
document sent in response to OFFICE, denominated “Investment Profile” (hereinafter, INVESTMENT PROFILE).
3.2.3 OF THE IMPUTED CHARGE
58. Regarding this, it should be noted that, according to
article 86-A of the REGULATION, the advice activity comprises as a minimum i) the
determination of the risk profile of the potential participant; ii) the explanation of the structure of the offered mutual fund; iii) the explanation of the risks related to the offered mutual fund, as well as its historical performance, if applicable; and, iv) the information on the relationship between the risk profile of the potential participant and characteristics of the offered mutual fund explaining why it fits his profile;
59. In that sense, regarding the advice
provided to the COMPLAINANT, CREDICORP SAF in response to OFFICE 1 stated that in the INVESTMENT PROFILE the risk profile of the COMPLAINANT is evidenced, which corresponds to a “Moderate Conservative” profile and that likewise the description of each risk profile managed by CREDICORP SAF is detailed, explaining the objectives and the temporal horizon of each one;
60. From the review of the INVESTMENT PROFILE it is observed
a questionnaire that refers, among others, to information relative to the investment horizon, to the level of knowledge and profitability/risk. Likewise, it is observed that as a response to the first point the COMPLAINANT stated that he planned to use the money invested in less than six (6) months, regarding his knowledge in mutual funds he stated knowing a little and regarding the third point he stated that it does not matter if his savings grow very little as long as they remain completely safe;
61. Additionally, the following disclaimer is observed
(hereinafter, DISCLAIMER):
“Disclaimer
In the framework of the advice received, I have been informed about my risk profile and, assume responsibility regarding any investment decision that does not fit it.

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

However, as can be observed from the text of the aforementioned DISCLAIMER, it only emerges that the COMPLAINANT would have received information regarding their risk profile and assumes responsibility for any decision that does not align with it; however, the explanation regarding why the characteristics of the offered mutual fund adjust to the risk profile of the potential participant, in this case the COMPLAINANT in relation to the FONDO VISIÓN I, is not observed;
Therefore, CREDICORP SAF would not have complied with providing the minimum advisory service to the COMPLAINANT as established in Article 86-A of the REGULATIONS, as the information regarding the relationship between the COMPLAINANT's risk profile in their capacity as a potential participant and the characteristics of the offered mutual fund (FONDO VISIÓN I) explaining why it adjusted to their profile was not substantiated;
Consequently, CREDICORP SAF was charged with having committed the infraction classified as serious, typified in item 2.9, numeral 2, of Annex VII of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS, which establishes as an infraction of a serious nature: "To fail to comply with the obligations and functions corresponding to them in accordance with what is established in the participation regulation of the fund, or simplified prospectus of the fund or in the contracts celebrated on behalf of the fund with participants and third parties or those established in the regulations";

3.2.4 OF THE DEFENSES PRESENTED

Regarding this charge, CREDICORP SAF states that the ADVISOR would have provided the advisory service as established in Article 86-A of the REGULATIONS, insofar as, according to the administrator company, it complied with determining the COMPLAINANT's risk profile, provided an explanation regarding the FONDO VISIÓN I, explained the risks associated with the FONDO VISIÓN I and its historical performance as detailed in the WhatsApp communications;
In that context, regarding the six (6) month time horizon that the COMPLAINANT would have informed the ADVISOR, CREDICORP SAF indicates that the FONDO VISIÓN I was a product that adjusted to their investment profile "Conservative Moderate", as emerges, notes the administrator company, from the detailed description in said document and in the Simplified Prospectus, as well as in the Annex of the Participation Regulation of the FONDO VISIÓN I, both sent to the COMPLAINANT, as stated by CREDICORP SAF;
CREDICORP SAF adds that the COMPLAINANT mentioned being interested in investing for a term of six (6) months in the Risk Profile, so taking into account said preference, the administrator company maintains that the investment profile is considered "Conservative Moderate". In this sense, the administrator company points out that, despite investing in the FONDO VISIÓN I, whose validity period is indefinite, as it is a mutual fund, characterized as being of open capital as established in Article 240 of the LMV, the COMPLAINANT could redeem their investment at any time. Likewise, the administrator company maintains that, for this effect, the FONDO VISIÓN I establishes a minimum stay period of one (1) day and a redemption commission of 1% + IGV, which the COMPLAINANT could have requested;
Taking into account what has been stated, the administrator company expresses recognition of the charge imputed;

3.5 OF THE EVALUATION OF THE DEFENSES

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

Regarding this charge, the administrator company maintains that the advisory service would have been provided to the COMPLAINANT as established in Article 86-A of the REGULATIONS; however, it must be noted that said article establishes that the advisory activity comprises, among others, information on the relationship between the risk profile of the potential participant and the characteristics of the offered mutual fund explaining why it adjusts to their profile, which is not observed in the INVESTMENT PROFILE, that is, the explanation of why the offered investment product, the FONDO VISIÓN I, adjusted to the COMPLAINANT's risk profile "Conservative Moderate", as determined by the administrator company, is not observed;
Nor is at least one suggested portfolio model or the mutual funds corresponding to each risk profile employed by CREDICORP SAF in its determination observed, aspects that could allow substantiating that the characteristics of the offered mutual fund adjusted to the COMPLAINANT's risk profile in their capacity as a potential participant. This evidences that the administrator company did not provide the COMPLAINANT with the minimum advisory service according to what is provided in Article 86-A of the REGULATIONS;
Likewise, regarding the fact that the FONDO VISIÓN I was a product that adjusted to the "Conservative Moderate" investment profile of the COMPLAINANT, it must be noted that although an "Conservative Moderate" profile is determined for the COMPLAINANT in the INVESTMENT PROFILE, in the profiling performed on them, it is observed that they mentioned they planned to use their money within a period of less than six (6) months, that is, an investment horizon corresponding to the short term; likewise, regarding profitability/risks, although they consider an growth of their investment, the important thing for the COMPLAINANT, according to the INVESTMENT PROFILE, is that their money remains safe, aspects that do not match the characteristics of the FONDO VISIÓN I, since in the "Objectives and Investment Policy" section of the Simplified Prospectus of the FONDO VISIÓN I, it is clearly indicated that "(...) this fund may not be adequate for investments where it is anticipated to withdraw the money in a period of less than 3 years", which evidences that the FONDO VISIÓN I did not adjust to the risk profile of the COMPLAINANT, according to the own information provided by the COMPLAINANT in the INVESTMENT PROFILE;
In that line, regarding the fact that taking into account that the COMPLAINANT mentioned being interested in investing for a term of six (6) months, the COMPLAINANT's investment profile was considered "Conservative Moderate", it is necessary to point out that this is not concordant not only with what is stated in the "Objectives and Investment Policy" section of the Simplified Prospectus of the FONDO VISIÓN I, but also is not concordant with the detail of the investment horizon described in the INVESTMENT PROFILE for the "Conservative - Moderate" profile, since in said document it is stated that the horizon for said profile is medium and long term, considering the short term horizon for the "Conservative" profile, which resembles more that observed by the COMPLAINANT;
Likewise, it is necessary to point out that the description of the "Conservative" profile, in which it is stated "(...) the most important thing is the preservation of capital. The investments corresponding to this profile must have a minimum risk of capital loss, although this means obtaining a low level of return. (...)" resembles more the information provided by the COMPLAINANT regarding the profitability/risks of their surplus money, since regarding this the COMPLAINANT stated that "It does not matter that they grow very little, as long as they remain completely secure";

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

With which, it can be sustained that the risk profile determined by the administrator company was not necessarily the one corresponding to the COMPLAINANT, according to what was described in the INVESTMENT PROFILE;
In that context, regarding the fact that the COMPLAINANT could redeem their investment at any time, although as a procedure and right of the participant it is true, this is not the purpose of an investment, considering additionally that this was not recommended according to what is stated in the "Objectives and Investment Policy" section of the Simplified Prospectus of the FONDO VISIÓN I, in which it is clearly indicated that "(...) this fund may not be adequate for investments where it is anticipated to withdraw the money in a period of less than 3 years", in such a way that it could not be considered as a recommended alternative for the COMPLAINANT;
It is worth indicating that the possibility of making subscriptions and redemptions of quotas at the time a participant considers pertinent, is part of the nature of a mutual fund, which is an open capital investment alternative. Therefore, attempting to subsume the characteristic of a minimum investment horizon, which depends on the type of instrument on which the investment policy is based and defines a risk tolerance profile, to the possibility of redemptions by the participant, would imply emptying of content and reason for being of the advisory service established in Article 86-A of the REGULATIONS;
Consequently, it is concluded that CREDICORP SAF did not comply with providing the minimum advisory service to the COMPLAINANT as established in Article 86-A of the REGULATIONS, as the information regarding the relationship between the COMPLAINANT's risk profile in their capacity as a potential participant and the characteristics of the offered mutual fund (FONDO VISIÓN I) explaining why it adjusted to their profile was not substantiated;
Therefore, CREDICORP SAF has committed the infraction classified as serious typified in Annex VII, numeral 2, item 2.9 of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS;
Regarding the express recognition of the charge imputed, it must be noted that this will be considered in the evaluation of the sanction to be imposed;

3.3 THIRD CHARGE: REGARDING THE DEADLINE FOR ATTENDING COMPLAINTS

3.3.1 OF THE APPLICABLE NORMATIVE

Article 39 of the REGULATIONS establishes the following:

"Article 039°.- PARTICIPATION REGULATION
The Participation Regulation comprises the legal framework to which the administrator company must be subject, and may be common to all mutual funds it manages.
(...)."

Regarding the resolution of complaints, Article 15 of the Participation Regulation of the FONDO VISIÓN I, in force from April 1, 2019 and in force at the date the events occurred (hereinafter, PARTICIPATION REGULATION), establishes the following:

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

"Article 15.- Queries and complaints of Participants Any query or complaint must be processed through any of the offices that make up the network of offices of the authorized placement agent.
The participant must present their query or complaint, and the Administrator Company must give a response to it within a period of fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt, a period that may be extended for an equal period when the nature of the complaint justifies it, which will be communicated to the participant before the expiration of the initial deadline. Complaints raised by participants do not require the presentation of additional documentation; however, depending on the nature of each complaint, the Administrator Company may request the respective supporting documentation from the participant. The Administrator Company will be in charge of solving the problems or inconveniences that occur with the participants of the mutual fund both in Lima and in the provinces. In case the Administrator Company does not resolve the complaint within the period established in the preceding paragraph or in case the participant is not in agreement with what was resolved by the Administrator Company, they may present their complaint before the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and the Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) or before the SMV. The formulation of a complaint by the participant does not constitute a prior avenue nor implies any limitation for participants to use other mechanisms for the resolution of controversies or to file the corresponding administrative complaints." (Underline added).

3.3.2 OF THE EVENTS OCCURRED

The COMPLAINANT states that they presented to CREDICORP SAF complaint No. C07345699 on April 13, 2022 and complaint No. C07963780 presented on May 11, 2022. The latter, according to the COMPLAINANT, exceeded the response time of thirty (30) days. Likewise, they state that when they accessed the platform to inquire about the lack of response, they were registered in front of the COMPLAINANT with the current date;
In order to substantiate the late response to complaint No. C07963780 by CREDICORP SAF, the COMPLAINANT presented with their complaint a copy of an email from Credicorp Capital Fondo Reclamos – credifondoreclamos@credicorpcapital.com dated June 29, 2022, through which they remit via their email the response to Complaint No. C07963780;
In that sense, with the OFFICE LETTER, notified on October 5, 2022, the COMPLAINANT's request was transferred to the administrator, in which it was requested:

"The responses provided to the COMPLAINANT regarding the complaints filed on April 13 and May 11, 2022, as indicated in the complaint."

In attention to the OFFICE LETTER, through a document presented on October 14, 2022, CREDICORP SAF, among other aspects, stated that:

"(...), Mr. (...) refers that CCSAF did not comply with responding timely to complaint No. C07963780. From the review of our records, we have managed to validate that indeed, the aforementioned complaint was attended in an untimely manner and, therefore, we recognize our responsibility for not having provided a timely response to Mr. Jara. Regarding this aspect of Mr. (...) complaint, we expressly recognize not having given a response to the complaint presented within the thirty (30) calendar days period established in Article 3 of the Norms Applicable to complaints and claims against entities supervised by the Superintendency of the Securities Market".

In order to substantiate the response sent to the COMPLAINANT regarding complaint No. C07963780, CREDICORP SAF presented a document addressed to the COMPLAINANT dated June 29, 2022;

3.3.3 OF THE CHARGE IMPUTED

Regarding this, according to what is established in Article 15 of the PARTICIPATION REGULATION, the administrator company, that is, CREDICORP SAF, had the obligation to respond to the complaints presented by participants within a period of fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of said complaints, unless it had communicated to the participant, before the expiration of said period, the extension of said response for an equal period when the nature of the complaint so justifies. Such extension has not been substantiated by CREDICORP SAF;
However, according to what was stated by the COMPLAINANT and CREDICORP SAF, the COMPLAINANT received a response to their Complaint No. C07963780 presented on May 11, 2022 to the administrator company, after a period that exceeded the fifteen (15) calendar days as established in the PARTICIPATION REGULATION, since according to what was substantiated by the COMPLAINANT and recognized by CREDICORP SAF, the response was sent to the COMPLAINANT on June 29, 2022, that is, more than thirty (30) calendar days after the expiration of said period;
It is worth specifying that, according to what was stated by the COMPLAINANT, they accessed the platform to inquire about the lack of response, having even exceeded the thirty (30) calendar days period without a response to their complaint of May 11, 2022, which has not been contradicted by the administrator company;
Consequently, CREDICORP SAF would not have complied with observing what is provided by Article 15 of the PARTICIPATION REGULATION, that is, said administrator company would not have complied with the legal period established to provide a response to the complaint presented on May 11, 2022, filed by the COMPLAINANT;
Therefore, CREDICORP SAF would have committed the infraction classified as serious typified in Annex VII, numeral 2, item 2.9 of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS which establishes as an infraction of a serious nature: "To fail to comply with the obligations and functions corresponding to them in accordance with what is established in the participation regulation of the fund, or simplified prospectus of the fund or in the contracts celebrated on behalf of the fund with participants and third parties or those established in the regulations";

3.3.4 OF THE DEFENSES PRESENTED

CREDICORP SAF through the defense documents presented on November 27, 2024 and June 10, 2025, states that regarding Complaint No. C07963780 dated May 11, 2022, it was indeed attended in an untimely manner and, therefore, expressly recognizes not having given a response to the complaint presented within the fifteen (15) calendar days period established in Article 15 of the Participation Regulation of the FONDO VISIÓN I;
Notwithstanding this, they request that the following mitigating factors be taken into account: i) that their conduct has not caused a quantifiable and/or significant detriment to the COMPLAINANT, ii) that they have not obtained any undue benefit or economic advantage, resulting from the infraction, iii) that they have expressly recognized the untimely non-compliance with the obligation under analysis; and, iv) that they have not acted with intent in the commission of the infraction subject of the present charge;

3.3.5 EVALUATION OF THE DEFENSES

Regarding this charge, it is necessary to indicate that, according to the defenses presented, CREDICORP SAF has expressly recognized their responsibility in the commission of the imputed infraction, which will be taken into consideration when performing the evaluation of the sanction to be imposed;
In this sense, taking into account the recognition of their responsibility in the commission of the infraction under analysis, it has been substantiated that CREDICORP SAF did not comply with what is provided in Article 15 of the Participation Regulation of the FONDO VISIÓN I, by not complying with the legal period established in said regulation to provide a response to the complaint presented by the COMPLAINANT to CREDICORP SAF on May 11, 2022, insofar as the response to said complaint should have been provided at the latest on May 26, 2022; however, the response was provided on June 29, 2022;
On the other hand, it is worth indicating that what was mentioned by CREDICORP SAF regarding the sanctioning criteria will be considered when performing the evaluation of the sanction to be imposed;
Consequently, CREDICORP SAF has committed the infraction classified as serious, typified in Annex VII, numeral 2, item 2.9, of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS;

IV. EVALUATION OF THE SANCTION

According to Article 344 of the Single Text of the Securities Market Law, Legislative Decree No. 861; and its modifications, approved by Supreme Decree No. 020-2023-EF (hereinafter, TUO OF THE LMV), Article 25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS7, in concordance with

7
"Article 25.- CRITERIA OF SANCTION
The administrative sanctions that are imposed must take into account the following criteria:
a) Antecedents, for firm sanctions imposed by the SMV within the period of four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned. The commission of the same infraction in the year prior to the infraction to be sanctioned is not considered antecedents. b) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infraction, that firm sanction imposed by the SMV within the period of one (1) year prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned is taken into account. c) Circumstances of the commission of the infraction. d) Economic damage caused and its repercussion in the market. e) Illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction. f) Probability of detection of the infraction. g) Severity of the damage to the public interest and/or legal good protected. h) Existence or not of intent in the conduct of the infractor. When, from the evaluation of the aforementioned criteria, it is observed that there is no proportionality between the sanction to be imposed and the imputed facts, by exception and through a reasoned resolution, a sanction corresponding to a classification lower than that provided can be imposed".

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

Article 248°, numeral 38, of the TUO OF THE LPAG9; the administrative sanctions that are imposed must take into account the criteria provided by the TUO OF THE LMV, the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS and the TUO OF THE LPAG, as well as the mitigating and exempting factors of responsibility regulated in Articles 26 and 27 of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS, in concordance with what is established in Article 257°10 of the TUO OF THE LPAG11;

Within this framework, the evaluation of the sanction must consider: a) antecedents of the infractor; b) recidivism; c) the circumstances of the commission of the infraction; d) the damage caused and the repercussion in the market; e) the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction; f) probability of detection of the infraction; g) severity of the damage to the public interest and/or legal good protected; h) the existence or not of intent in the conduct of the infractor;
Regarding the sanction antecedents, it must be noted that in accordance with what is provided by Article 25° of the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS, antecedents constitute firm sanctions imposed by the SMV within the period of four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned regarding any type of infraction. In this sense, from the review carried out in said period, it has been verified that CREDICORP SAF registers the following sanction antecedents:

8
Article 230°, numeral 3 of Law No. 27444 (hereinafter, LPAG). 9
“Article 248.- Principles of Administrative Sanctioning Power The sanctioning power of all entities is additionally governed by the following special principles:
(…)
3. Reasonableness.- Authorities must foresee that the commission of the sanctionable conduct does not prove more advantageous for the offender than complying with the infringed rules or assuming the sanction. However, the sanctions to be applied must be proportional to the non-compliance qualified as an infraction, observing the following criteria indicated for their graduation:
a) The illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction; b) The probability of detection of the infraction; c) The gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal interest; d) The economic harm caused; e) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infraction within a period of one (1) year from when the resolution sanctioning the first infraction became final. f) The circumstances of the commission of the infraction; and g) The existence or non-existence of intent in the offender's conduct.” 10 “Article 257°.- Exemptions and Mitigating Factors for Liability for Infractions 1.- The following constitute conditions exempting 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 aptitude to understand the infraction. d) Mandatory order of a competent authority, issued in the exercise of its functions. e) Error induced by the Administration or by a confusing or illegal administrative provision. f) Voluntary remediation by the potential sanctioned party of the act or omission imputed as constitutive of an administrative infraction, prior to the notification of the charges referred to in subsection 3) of article 253. 2.- The following constitute conditions mitigating liability for infractions:
a) If, once an administrative sanctioning procedure has begun, the offender expressly and in writing recognizes their responsibility.
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.”
11 Article 2° of Legislative Decree No. 1272 modified article 236-A of the LPAG, and in this sense incorporates and restructures the exemption and mitigation scenarios for liability.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

12 Notified on May 18, 2018.
13 Notified on February 7, 2019.
14 Notified on July 17, 2019.
15 Notified on October 21, 2020.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
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 authorship Cargo No. Resolution Resolved Finality 1° 2° 3° v Adjunct Superintendence Resolution SMV No. 048- 2021-SMV/1016 CREDICORP SAF is sanctioned with a fine of 0.7725 UIT, equivalent to S/ 3,244.50 (Three thousand two hundred forty-four and 50/100 Soles), for having committed two (2) infractions of a minor nature typified in Annex I, numeral 3, subsection 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, for failing to present occasional information within the deadline established by the applicable regulation referring to material events. 13/12/2021 X vii Adjunct Superintendence Resolution SMV No. 058- 2021-SMV/1017 CREDICORP SAF is sanctioned with a fine of 1.545 UIT equivalent to S/ 6,489.00 (Six thousand four hundred eighty-nine and 00/100 Soles) for having committed one (1) minor infraction typified in Annex I, numeral 3, subsection 3.1 of the Sanctions Regulation, for failing to communicate a material event within the deadline established by the applicable regulation. 18/01/2022 X
107. With regard to recidivism for the commission of the same infraction, that final sanction imposed by the SMV within a period of one (1) year prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned is taken into account. Within this framework, it must be stated that CREDICORP SAF does not record sanctions for the commission of the same infractions subject of analysis in the present administrative sanctioning procedure, within the aforementioned period, so the scenarios configuring recidivism do not present themselves;
108. As for the circumstances of the commission of the infractions, it must be noted that CREDICORP SAF, in its capacity as a company supervised by the SMV, with more than 30 years of activities, knows the regulations governing the securities market and, in this sense, the provisions contained in the
SANCTIONS REGULATION, such as the general conduct norms it must comply with in the development of its activities, among which is the duty to provide information in a clear, precise, truthful, sufficient and timely manner to participants and potential participants. However, the administrating company did not comply with the aforementioned conduct norm, as it was observed that in the process of placing shares of the VISIÓN I FUND, information that was not precise and clear was provided to the COMPLAINANT, i.e., information that could have influenced their investment decision;
109. It is worth noting that, although the potential participant must review all the information and documentation provided by the administrating company so as to adopt an investment decision, in some cases it could be observed that participants, guided by trust in the administrating company, adopt their investment decisions based on the preliminary information that the administrating company presents to them, so it is fundamental that all information provided to the potential participant must be coherent with each other, avoiding the delivery of incomplete and contradictory information;
110. It should be noted that the securities market is a specialized market, which is why, for an administrating company of funds to participate in it, it must be authorized by the regulator; and consequently, among other things, it must take care to have promoters duly trained, which allows it to fully comply with the general conduct norms during the development of its activities, which have as their fundamental objective the protection of the investor and the integrity of the market; otherwise, it would imply affecting these legal interests that are intrinsically necessary for the proper functioning and development of the securities market;
111. On the other hand, with regard to the non-compliance with the advisory activity, it must be noted that, taking into account that the purpose of determining the risk profile of the potential investor in cases of fund subscription implies the subsequent individualized recommendation that will be given to the potential participant on the mutual funds that adjust to their profile so that they take their investment decision with adequate information, is that said advisory service must comprise, among others, the explanation of why the investment product offered, in this case, the VISIÓN I FUND, adjusted to the risk profile of the COMPLAINANT, notwithstanding that said explanation was not observed in the INVESTOR PROFILE, i.e., it was not accredited by the administrating company;
112. It should be indicated that adequate advice allows participants and potential participants to understand their tolerance and capacity regarding risk, which in turn helps them adopt more informed investment decisions. Likewise, adequate risk profiling allows participants to align their strategies, needs and circumstances with their financial objectives, avoiding assuming unnecessary or insufficient risks; which is not fulfilled when situations such as those exposed previously are observed;
113. Additionally, the administrating company knows the provisions established in the Regulation of Participation of the funds it administers, which obligate it to attend the claims presented by participants, within the deadline established by the same. However, CREDICORP SAF did not comply with observing the deadline established for the attention of the claim presented by the COMPLAINANT; it must be taken into account that said claim was attended with more than thirty (30) calendar days of delay, given that to comply with the established deadline it should have been attended by the administrating company until May 26, 2022; however, the claim was attended on June 29, 2022; and this as a result of additional efforts by the COMPLAINANT;
114. As for the economic harm caused and the repercussion in the market, it is worth indicating that it has not been evidenced that the infractions in which CREDICORP SAF has incurred in the present sanctioning procedure have produced a concrete quantifiable harm in the market; that is, it has not been determined that there has been concrete affectation or caused economic damage to one or more investors, so it has not been evidenced that there has been repercussion in the market;
115. Regarding the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction, it has not been accredited in the present administrative sanctioning procedure that CREDICORP SAF has obtained any illicit benefit as a result of having incurred in the infractions subject of analysis;
116. With regard to the probability of detection of the infraction, it must be indicated that the facts constitutive of the infractions committed by CREDICORP SAF were evidenced when verifying compliance with the applicable regulation in the development of its functions, based on the facts exposed by the COMPLAINANT in the complaint filed against the administrating company, so the probability of detection of the infraction was low;
117. As for the gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal interest, in the present case, it has not been possible to prove that the action of CREDICORP SAF in the commission of the infractions subject of analysis in the present sanctioning procedure has caused damage to the determinable public interest or has had repercussion in the market;
118. Nevertheless, it must be noted that, according to the applicable regulation, administrating companies must comply during the development of their activities with the general conduct norms established in the
SANCTIONS REGULATION; in this way they have the obligation to provide clear, precise, truthful, sufficient and timely information to potential participants and participants regarding the funds under their administration. Consequently, the transgression of said regulation affects the legal interest referred to the protection of the same, insofar as the fact that an administrating company of funds does not comply with the general conduct norms in the exercise of its activities affects the trust that participants, potential participants and the market in general can deposit in the securities market;
119. Likewise, with regard to the non-compliance with the advisory activity, it must be noted that, taking into account that the purpose of determining the risk profile of the potential investor in cases of fund subscription implies the subsequent individualized recommendation that will be given to the potential participant on the mutual funds that adjust to their profile so that they take their investment decision with adequate information, is that said advisory service according to article 86-A of the
SANCTIONS REGULATION, must comprise, among others, information on the relationship between the risk profile of the potential participant and characteristics of the offered mutual fund explaining why it adjusts to their risk profile, notwithstanding this has not been evidenced in the present case with the INVESTOR PROFILE. In this way, it affects legal interests such as investor protection and market integrity, creating distrust in the same;
120. Likewise, it must be noted that the obligation established in article 86-A of the
SANCTIONS REGULATION is one of the obligations that the administrating company must comply with in the administration of mutual funds, considering moreover that this constitutes a fiduciary obligation, so the administrating company must carry out its activities complying with the norms applicable to it in order to avoid that the trust of the market participants is deteriorated. In such a way that, by not observing what is provided in the applicable regulation, this not only affects the trust that investors can have in the administrating companies of mutual funds in the diligent development of their activities in the securities market, but also affects the legal interests relative to the tutelage of the mutual fund industry and duties of the administrating company to manage its

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
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 authorship activity in a prudent manner, caring for the interests of the participants as if they were their own;
121. In the same way, taking into account that administrating companies of funds have the obligation to act in strict compliance with the regulation applicable to them such as the provisions established in the
SANCTIONS REGULATION, in the Regulation of Participation of the funds it administers and other applicable regulation, by failing to comply with the deadline established for the attention of claims, in this case the claim presented by the COMPLAINANT, this also affects the legal interest referred to the integrity of the market; potentially affecting the trust deposited in the securities market;
122. Regarding the existence or non-existence of intent in the conduct of the offender, it has not been evidenced that CREDICORP SAF has acted with intent in the commission of the infractions subject of analysis in the present administrative sanctioning procedure;
123. In addition to the above, it corresponds to analyze the exemption and mitigation scenarios for liability established in article 257° of the TUO LPAG, as well as the conditions mitigating and exempting liability for responsibility established in articles 26° and 27° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
124. To this effect, in accordance with what is determined in article 27°18 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, in concordance with article 257, numeral 1 of the TUO LPAG, it is not observed that in the present case any of the scenarios that constitute conditions exempting liability for responsibility with respect to the analyzed infractions has been configured;
125. With regard to the recognition of responsibility of the offender (article 257, numeral 2, subsection a) of the TUO LPAG) and its contribution to the clarification of the infraction, established in article 26, subsections a) and b), respectively, of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, it must be indicated that CREDICORP SAF has contributed to the clarification of the infractions committed. In the present case, the administrator has manifested that the infractions subject of imputation occurred in a context of offering to the COMPLAINANT a mutual investment fund in securities administered by it;
126. As for the recognition, for the first two infractions, CREDICORP SAF has not recognized the commission of the infractions subject of charges in a precise, concise, clear, express and unconditional manner and without ambiguities, this insofar as in its defenses it has presented a set of arguments that sought to disclaim its responsibility; which have been disproven. Thus, for the first charge it argues facts linked to the subscription of the corresponding contract

18 “Article 27.- EXEMPTIONS OF LIABILITY FOR INFRACTIONS” The following constitute conditions exempting liability for infractions:
a) Force majeure, fortuitous event or another exceptional situation that, in the opinion of the SMV, is comparable to a fortuitous event or force majeure duly proven. b) Acting in compliance with a legal duty or the legitimate exercise of a right of defense. c) Mental incapacity duly proven by the competent authority, provided that this affects the aptitude to understand the infraction. d) Mandatory order of a competent authority, issued in the exercise of its functions. e) Error induced by the Administration or by a confusing or illegal administrative provision. f) Voluntary remediation by the potential sanctioned party of the act or omission imputed as constitutive of an administrative infraction, prior to the notification of the charges referred to in subsection 3) of article 253 of the LPAG and always that no communication demanding compliance with the obligation has been issued”

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations, and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship regarding the administration of mutual investment funds in securities, the subscription request for participation units of the FONDO VISIÓN I, and the delivery to the COMPLAINANT of the Simplified Prospectus, the Annex to the Participation Regulations, and the factsheet of the FONDO VISIÓN I, among others, detailed in the preceding considerations as part of the evaluation of the defenses. Likewise, regarding the second charge, the administrator states, among other things, that it complied with the required regulations insofar as it determined the RISK PROFILE OF THE COMPLAINANT;

It should be noted that Article 257°, numeral 2, literal a) of the TUO of the LPAG provides that it constitutes an attenuating condition of liability for offenses "if an administrative sanctioning procedure has been initiated and the offender recognizes their responsibility expressly19 and in writing";
In this sense, as evident from the regulatory text, recognizing the administrative offense will constitute an attenuating condition of liability; that is, what must be valued as an act generating attenuation is the declaration produced by the offender themselves, recognizing in an express manner, that is, voluntarily, clearly and precisely, the commission of the imputed offense; therefore, from what was mentioned by the administrated party, the administrative authority, in this case, this Adjunct Superintendency, cannot interpret or infer the administrated party's willingness to recognize or admit responsibility for the commission of the offense if it is not expressed expressly, concisely, clearly, and unconditionally, as stated above;
Along these lines, Morón, commenting on the cited article, specifies that "The recognition of responsibility for the infringing conduct attributable must follow the form provided for by the LPAG, that is, that it be written and express. In this sense, (...) it requires (...) a communication from the administrated party in which it indicates, beyond doubt, the recognition of responsibility for the imputations formulated by the administrative authority. Along these lines, there should be no vagueness or ambiguity in the administrated party's declaration; the recognition must be unequivocal, without any doubt being generated regarding the meaning expressed."20 Likewise, it specifies that "The Recognition of responsibility by the administrated party implies a voluntary declaration of the commission of the imputed offense (...)". Therefore, according to this, this circumstance will always be configured whenever there is the will of the administrated party to recognize responsibility for the commission of the offense;
Thus, also, from the foregoing it follows that for such recognition to be configured as an attenuating condition of liability, it must be unequivocal, without ambiguities, and without any doubt being generated regarding what is expressed; that is, the administration cannot interpret or extract from what was stated by the administrated party that it is a voluntary recognition of the commission of the imputed administrative offense according to the aforementioned regulatory text;
In this sense, considering the context of what is provided by the TUO of the LPAG, it should be noted that what was manifested by CREDICORP SA SAF does not express the aforementioned attenuating condition, since a precise, clear, and indubitable declaration of recognition of responsibility for the commission of the administrative offenses in which the administrator has incurred, subject matter of the present sanctioning procedure, related to the lack of timeliness in the presentation of information, is not observed. In effect, although CREDICORP SAF makes a declaration

19 The Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy states that the word 'express' means: "Clear, patent, specified". 20 Comments on the General Administrative Procedure Law", Juan Carlos Morón Urbina, T.II, Gaceta Jurídica. Year 2017, Page 255.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations, and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship regarding that it recognizes the described facts, additionally presents arguments, as previously referred to;

It should be added that the SANCTIONS REGULATION has established in its Article 26° that "The recognition of responsibility regarding an offense must be carried out 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 shall proceed to evaluate the defenses";
Likewise, it must be added that the arguments presented by CREDICORP SAF as defenses make the declaration made by the administrator of a supposed recognition even more imprecise, ambiguous, and interpretative; therefore, considering the context of what is provided by the TUO of the LPAG and the SANCTIONS REGULATION, as well as the pronouncement of doctrine on the matter, the declarations made by CREDICORP SAF could not be considered as an attenuating condition of the liability for the commission of the offense;
Consequently, considering what was manifested by the administrator and under the support of the aforementioned regulatory context, as well as what was commented on by doctrine, in the present case, an express recognition of responsibility for the first and second offenses is not configured; therefore, its application in the present administrative sanctioning procedure does not correspond;
On the other hand, it should be noted that the commission of an offense by an administrated party implies, among other things, i) the affectation of a protected legal good, in this case, investor protection and market integrity; ii) a process and set of activities to determine if a potential sign of an identified offense, resulting from supervision and control activities of the SMV, finally constitutes the commission of an offense; the aforementioned means that the SMV has limited resources at its disposal to carry out the aforementioned, resources that could be destined to other purposes of supervision and control that contribute to achieving objectives such as investor protection, market integrity, and reduction of systemic risk. In this sense, when the recognition of the offense does not comply with what is provided by the regulations, as observed in the present case, it does not prevent the scarce resources of the regulator from being used to evaluate the defenses and allegations presented. On the contrary, when the recognition is carried out in a precise, concise, clear, express, and unconditional manner, and does not contain ambiguous or contradictory expressions, the opportunity cost of using said resources is reduced; therefore, the regulations have considered a 50% reduction in the fine to be imposed;
Regarding the third charge, the commission of the offense has been recognized in a clear, concise, and unambiguous manner; therefore, regarding this offense, what is provided by Article 26°, literals a), numeral 1) and b) of the SANCTIONS REGULATION must be taken into account;
From the foregoing, it is concluded that CREDICORP SAF has incurred the commission of three (3) offenses qualified as serious;
Therefore, it would correspond to impose on said administering society a sanction in accordance with what is established in Article 34° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, which establishes that serious offenses are sanctioned

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations, and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship with a fine of not less than twenty-five (25) and up to fifty (50) UIT or with the suspension of the operating authorization for up to (20) days;

For its part, taking into account the analyzed sanction criteria, and in application of the Principle of Reasonableness contemplated in Article 248°, numeral 3 of the TUO LPAG, which states that sanctions to be applied shall be proportional to the non-compliance qualified as an offense, it must be considered that it has not been possible to prove that the analyzed offenses have produced any harm to the participants nor repercussion in the market, that the administering society is not a repeat offender in the commission of the offenses, that intent in the commission of the offenses has not been accredited, and that CREDICORP SAF has contributed to the clarification of the facts;
In this sense, considering the analysis performed, this Adjunct Superintendency considers that it is possible to impose on CREDICORP SAF a sanction corresponding to a classification lower than that provided for serious offenses, according to what is stated in the third paragraph of Article 25°21 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION; therefore, a sanction corresponding to minor offenses is applicable, according to what is established in Article 35° of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;

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

RESOLVES:
Article 1º.- Declare that Credicorp Capital S.A. Administering Fund Society has incurred one (1) offense qualified as serious, typified in Annex I, numeral 2, clause 2.25 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01, for failing to comply with the conduct norm established in Article 3, literal f) of the Regulation of Mutual Investment Funds in Securities and Their Administrator Societies, by providing the participant during the quota placement process information that was not precise and clear regarding the characteristics of the Fund.

Article 2º.- Declare that Credicorp Capital S.A. Administering Fund Society has incurred one (1) offense qualified as serious, typified in Annex VII, numeral 2, clause 2.9 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01, for failing to provide the minimum advice to the participant as established in Article 86-A of the Regulation of Mutual Investment Funds in Securities and Their Administrator Societies.

Article 3º.- Declare that Credicorp Capital S.A. Administering Fund Society has incurred one (1) offense qualified as serious, typified in Annex VII, numeral 2, clause 2.9 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01, for failing to comply with the

21 “Article 25°.- Sanction Criteria
(...)
When, from the evaluation of the aforementioned criteria, it is evident that there is no proportionality between the sanction to be imposed and the imputed facts, by exception and through a reasoned resolution, a sanction corresponding to a classification lower than that provided for may be imposed.”

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Document electronically signed digitally under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations, and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship established deadline in the Fund's Participation Regulation, to provide the participant with a response to the complaint presented.

Article 4º.- Sanction Credicorp Capital S.A. Administering Fund Society with a fine amounting to nine (9) UIT, equivalent to S/ 39,600.00 (Thirty-nine thousand six hundred and 00/100 Soles) for the commission of the offenses indicated in Articles 1° to 3°.

Article 5º.- This resolution does not exhaust the administrative route, unless it is consented, and may be challenged before the Adjunct Superintendency of Prudential Supervision by filing a reconsideration or appeal resource submitted to the same, within the term of fifteen (15) business days counted from the day following its notification.

Article 6º.- In the event that this resolution is not subject to challenge via reconsideration or appeal resource within the term of fifteen (15) business days of being notified and becomes final, it must be published on the Institutional Page of the SMV in the Unique Digital Platform of the Peruvian State (www.gob.pe/smv), in observance of what is provided by numeral 1, Article 7° of the Policy on dissemination of normative projects, general character legal norms, early agenda, and other administrative acts of the SMV, approved by SMV Resolution Nº 014-2014-SMV/01 and its amendment, and by what is provided in Article 14° of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01.

Article 7º.- Transcribe this resolution to Credicorp Capital S.A. Administering Fund Society.
Register, communicate, and publish.
Omar Gutiérrez Ochoa
Adjunct Superintendent
Adjunct Superintendency of Prudential Supervision

Lineage