Superintendent Resolution No. 012-2026-SMV/02

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance SMV Superintendence of the Securities Market “Decade of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men” “Year of Hope and the Strengthening of Democracy” 1 Electronic document digitally signed within the framework of Law N° 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml Superintendent Resolution Nº 012-2026-SMV/02 Lima, January 30, 2026 The Superintendent of the Securities Market (e) WHEREAS: File N° 2024041763 and Report N° 130-2026-SMV/06, from the Legal Advisory Office, through which it issues an opinion on the appeal filed by Credicorp Capital S.A. Fund Management Company (hereinafter, CREDICORP) against Deputy Superintendence Resolution SMV N° 047-2025-SMV/10 (hereinafter, THE SANCTION RESOLUTION); CONSIDERING:

1. That, by means of THE SANCTION RESOLUTION, notified on September 1, 20251, the Deputy Superintendence of Prudential Supervision (hereinafter, SASP) resolved to sanction CREDICORP 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 following three infractions: i) One (1) infraction classified as serious, typified in subsection 2.252 of numeral 2 of Annex I of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01, for not having complied with the conduct standard established in literal f)3 of article 3 of the Regulation of Mutual Funds for Investment in Securities and their Management Companies (hereinafter, Mutual Funds Regulation), approved by CONASEV Resolution N° 068-2010-EF/94.01.1, by providing the participant, during the unit placement process, 1 Through the Peruvian Securities Market System – MVNet System. 2 ANNEX I Of General Infractions Common infractions for Participants and liquidators, as applicable: (...) 2.- Serious (...) 2.25 Not having, approving, implementing, or complying with conduct standards, internal conduct standards, or a code of conduct, or modifying them without communicating it to the SMV, within the corresponding period, in accordance with the relevant regulations, or not approving a procedure for controlling said standards. 3 Article 3.- GENERAL CONDUCT STANDARDS In the development of their activities, the management company, officers, 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 management company, must comply with the following general conduct standards, for which they will implement the necessary procedures and controls for their due observance: (...) f) Information to Participants and Investors.- Inform, within the unit placement process, about the profitability and risk attributes that characterize Mutual Fund investments; likewise, offer Mutual Fund participants under their charge all information that may be relevant for their subscription, redemption, transfer, or traspaso decisions, under equal conditions. All information to participants and investors must be clear, correct, precise, truthful, sufficient, and timely; (...) PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance SMV Superintendence of the Securities Market “Decade of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men” “Year of Hope and the Strengthening of Democracy” 2 Electronic document digitally signed within the framework of Law N° 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml information that was not precise and clear about the characteristics of the Fund. ii) One (1) infraction classified as serious, typified in subsection 2.94 of numeral 2 of Annex VII of the Sanctions Regulation, for not having provided minimum advice to the participant in accordance with article 86-A5 of the Mutual Funds Regulation. iii) One (1) infraction classified as serious, typified in subsection 2.9 of numeral 2 of Annex VII of the Sanctions Regulation, for not having complied with the deadline established in the Fund Participation Regulation, for providing the participant with a response to the complaint filed;
2. That, on September 22, 2025, Credicorp filed an appeal against the Sanction Resolution;
3. That, by Superintendent Resolution N° 115-2025-SMV/02, dated September 24, 2025, the administrative sanctioning procedure was classified as high complexity; I. ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPEAL 4 ANNEX VII Of the infractions of Mutual Fund Management Companies for Investment in Securities, External Managers, Distributors, members of the Investment Committee, Placement Agent, Custodian, the officer responsible for internal control of the management company A) Infractions of mutual fund management companies for investment in securities, the placement agent, the external manager, members of the investment committee, the officer responsible for internal control of the management company, as applicable: (...) 2.- Serious (...) 2.9 Not complying with the obligations and functions corresponding to them in accordance with the provisions of the fund participation regulation, or simplified fund prospectus, or in the contracts entered into on behalf of the fund with participants and third parties, or as established in the regulations. 5 Article 86-A.- ADVICE Advice consists of determining the risk profile of the potential participant, as well as providing individualized recommendations, so that their decision to invest or disinvest in a mutual fund is informed. Advice is provided to potential investors in the subscription, transfer, and traspaso of units. For the purposes of the aforementioned profiling, the promoter must request from the potential investor, at a minimum, information related to their financial situation, knowledge and experience in investments, investment horizon, and risk tolerance. The potential investor is responsible for the veracity of the information provided for profiling purposes. The management company, placement agent, or distributor must have policies and procedures that ensure correct client profiling. These policies and procedures, as well as the justification for their individualized application, must be available to the SMV when required. The advisory activity includes at least the following: a) Determination of the potential participant's risk profile. b) Explanation of the structure of the mutual fund offered. c) Explanation of the risks related to the mutual fund offered, as well as its historical performance, if applicable. d) Information on the relationship between the potential participant's risk profile and the characteristics of the mutual fund offered, explaining why it fits their profile. In the event that the potential participant, after receiving advice, decides to invest in a mutual fund that does not fit their risk profile, the management company, placement agent, or distributor must inform them of this situation and the risks involved. If, after this, the potential participant maintains their decision to invest in a fund that does not fit their profile, a record of this situation must be obtained. The obligation indicated in this article is excepted in cases where the potential investor wishes to acquire units of very short-term debt instrument Mutual Funds, or if they are one of the persons included in Annex 1 of the Institutional Investor Market Regulation. PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance SMV Superintendence of the Securities Market “Decade of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men” “Year of Hope and the Strengthening of Democracy” 3 Electronic document digitally signed within the framework of Law N° 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml
4. That, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 109.1 of article 109 of the General Administrative Procedure Law, Law N° 27444 (hereinafter, LPAG), against an «act that is presumed to violate, disregard or injure a legitimate right or interest, its contradiction proceeds through administrative channels by means of the administrative appeals indicated in the following article, initiating the corresponding appeal procedure»;
5. That, regarding this, article 207 of the LPAG provides that administrative appeals are for reconsideration and appeal; and that their filing must be made within fifteen (15) peremptory days. Complementarily, subsection 134.1 of article 134 of the LPAG6 provides that when the term is indicated in days, it will be understood as consecutive business days, excluding from the calculation non-working days of the service, and national or regional non-working holidays. Furthermore, articles 1137, 2098 and 2119 of the LPAG establish the requirements that the appeal must meet;
6. That, now, from the evaluation carried out on the basis of said legal framework, it has been verified that the appeal filed by CREDICORP complies with the requirements established in articles 113, 207, 209 and 211 of the LPAG, given that it was filed within fifteen (15) business days of notification of THE SANCTION RESOLUTION, it is based on pure legal questions and complies with the other requirements established by the regulations, for which it is appropriate to issue an opinion on its grounds; II. APPEAL 6 «Article 134.- Passage of time limit 134.1 When the time limit is indicated in days, it will be understood as consecutive business days, excluding from the calculation non-working days of the service, and national or regional non-working holidays. (...)» 7 «Article 113.- Requirements for writings Every writing submitted to any entity must contain the following:
7. Full names and surnames, address and National Identity Document number or foreigner's card of the administered party, and, where applicable, the capacity of representative and the person represented.
8. The concrete expression of what is requested, the factual grounds supporting it and, when possible, the legal grounds.
9. Place, date, signature or fingerprint, in case of not knowing how to sign or being unable to do so.
10. The indication of the body, entity or authority to which it is addressed, understood as, as far as possible, the authority of the closest degree to the user, according to the hierarchy, with competence to hear and resolve it.
11. The address where notifications of the procedure are to be received, when different from the real address stated in virtue of numeral 1. This designation of address takes effect from its indication and is presumed to subsist, unless its change is expressly communicated. Likewise, the email address or, where applicable, the electronic mailbox, in accordance with article 20 of this law.
12. The list of documents and annexes attached, indicated in the TUPA.
13. The identification of the relevant file, in the case of already initiated procedures.» 8 «Article 209.- Appeal The appeal shall be filed when the challenge is based on a different interpretation of the evidence produced or when it concerns pure legal questions, and must be addressed to the same authority that issued the challenged act so that it may elevate the proceedings to the superior hierarchical authority.» 9 «Article 211.- Requirements of the appeal The appeal document must indicate the act being appealed and comply with the other requirements set forth in article 113 of this Law.» PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance SMV Superintendence of the Securities Market “Decade of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men” “Year of Hope and the Strengthening of Democracy” 4 Electronic document digitally signed within the framework of Law N° 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml
14. That, within the framework of the appeal, CREDICORP requests that the fine established in THE SANCTION RESOLUTION be reduced, in accordance with the recommendations made by the General Superintendency of Prudential Compliance in Report N° 815-2025-SMV/10.3 and that CREDICORP's recognition of responsibility be considered admissible, in accordance with article 26 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION and, consequently, that a fifty percent (50%) reduction of the fine be applied, in attention to the attenuating circumstance provided in the regulation and the principle of proportionality and reasonableness;
15. That, in this sense, CREDICORP maintains that, through its letter of November 26, 2024, it expressly recognized the facts imputed in the first two infractions, as can be seen from the following quoted text:
16. That, likewise, in said letter, according to CREDICORP, information was provided about the circumstances of the commission of the infractions as a sign of collaboration and to demonstrate that there was no intentionality in the conduct. By virtue of this, CREDICORP maintains that said information has been relevant for the General Superintendency of Prudential Compliance to evaluate the principles of sanctioning power, established in numeral 310 of article 248 of the Consolidated Text of Law N° 27444, General Administrative Procedure Law (hereinafter, TUO of the LPAG) approved by Supreme Decree N° 004-2019-JUS; 10 Article 248.- Principles of administrative sanctioning power The sanctioning power of all entities is additionally governed by the following special principles: (...)
17. Reasonableness.- Authorities must ensure that the commission of the sanctionable conduct does not result in more advantage for the infringer than complying with the infringed norms or assuming the sanction. However, the sanctions to be applied must be proportional to the non-compliance classified as an infraction, observing the following criteria for their graduation: a) The illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction; b) The probability of detection of the infraction; c) The seriousness of the harm to the public interest and/or protected legal good; d) The economic damage caused; e) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infraction within a period of one (1) year from the date the resolution sanctioning the first infraction became final. f) The circumstances of the commission of the infraction; and g) The existence or not of intentionality in the infringer's conduct. PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance SMV Superintendence of the Securities Market “Decade of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men” “Year of Hope and the Strengthening of Democracy” 5 Electronic document digitally signed within the framework of Law N° 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml
18. That, in the same sense, CREDICORP mentions the recognition of the infraction as an attenuating circumstance of responsibility established in article 26 of the Sanctions Regulation: “Article 26.- ATTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR INFRACTIONS The following constitute attenuating conditions of responsibility for infractions: a) Express and written recognition of responsibility by the infringer, once the administrative sanctioning procedure has begun. When the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced, taking into account the following:
19. If the recognition of the infraction is presented within the period granted for the submission of defenses, the reduction amount will be fifty percent (50%). (...) The recognition of responsibility regarding an infraction must be precise, concise, clear, express, and unconditional, 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. (...)"
20. That, CREDICORP maintains that the SASP deviated from the opinion expressed by the General Superintendency of Prudential Compliance in Report N° 815-2025-SMV/10.3, by indicating that, in the case of the first two infractions, the aforementioned attenuating condition is not expressed, since there is no precise, clear, and unequivocal declaration of recognition of responsibility for the administrative infractions incurred by the administrator, subject of the sanctioning procedure;
21. That, CREDICORP additionally points out that the information above its recognition is only intended to provide context and explain the circumstances in which the events occurred, without implying a denial of responsibility or a substantive defense regarding the infractions. Thus, according to CREDICORP, at no time was it intended for said information to be considered as defenses, nor to question the determination of administrative responsibility, but solely to actively collaborate with the authority, in strict compliance with the principle of procedural conduct detailed in numeral 1.8 of article IV of the TUO of the LPAG;
22. That, finally, CREDICORP emphasizes that the General Superintendency of Prudential Compliance did consider that the recognition made complied with the provisions of article 26 of the Sanctions Regulation and, consequently, applied the fifty percent (50%) reduction of the fine, as established in Report N° 815-2025-SMV/10.3, which is corroborated in the following text: PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance SMV Superintendence of the Securities Market “Decade of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men” “Year of Hope and the Strengthening of Democracy” 6 Electronic document digitally signed within the framework of Law N° 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml
23. That, in this sense, CREDICORP maintains that increasing the sanction proposed by the Superintendency, for having included additional information as context in the letter dated November 26, 2024, and considering that there is no express recognition of responsibility by CREDICORP, would be contrary to the principles of legality, reasonableness, and proportionality, detailed in numeral 3 of article 248 of the TUO of the LPAG, insofar as sanctions must be proportional to non-compliance and the attenuating circumstances provided in the regulations must be considered;
24. That, finally, it states that it should be noted that the General Superintendency of Prudential Compliance in Report N° 815-2025-SMV/10.3 initially recommended a fine amounting to five (5) UIT for the three imputed infractions and that, in application of the attenuating circumstance of recognition of responsibility, it was finally reduced to two point five (2.5) UIT, equivalent to S/ 11,000.00 (Eleven thousand and 00/100 Soles); III. EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPEAL
25. That, regarding CREDICORP's recognition of responsibility, it must be taken into account that article 26 of the Sanctions Regulation requires that said act be precise, concise, clear, express, and unconditional, and must not contain ambiguous or contradictory expressions; otherwise, it will not be understood as a recognition. Likewise, the aforementioned article establishes that 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;
26. That, in this sense, it is noted that the SASP has considered that the conditions established in article 26 have not been met, by interpreting that defenses were presented for the first two infractions, as can be seen from considerations 38 to 42 and 71 to 74 of the Sanction Resolution, respectively;
27. That, according to the analysis carried out on the letter of November 26, 2024, it is concluded that although CREDICORP mentions the recognition of its responsibility for the first and second infractions, we do not find that such recognition fully complies with the requirements provided in article 26 of the Sanctions Regulation cited above;
28. That, in effect, in the document that recognizes its infraction, it presents arguments that, in our opinion, qualify as defenses, as quoted below: “(...) In this regard, we indicate that, as can be seen from the evidentiary means presented in the file subject to this Administrative Sanctioning Procedure, the following can be observed: (...) On July 5, 2021, Mr. Jara signed the Credicorp Capital Mutual Fund Management Agreement for Investment in Securities and the Advisor proceeded with the evaluation of the risk profile, in which the qualification of “Conservative Moderate” was obtained. It is necessary to specify that the same document contains the description of the profile obtained, which was brought to the attention of Mr. Jara by the Advisor. Subsequently, on the same date, Mr. Jara signed the application for subscription of fund units, for the amount of units equivalent to USD 120,000.00 (one hundred twenty thousand and 00/100 dollars). By virtue of the aforementioned, we reiterate that the Advisor would have provided all available information related to the Fund, with the purpose that Mr. Jara make an adequate investment decision; having for this purpose clear, correct, precise, truthful, sufficient and timely information, in accordance with the e

[RegAlert note: the English text above is a translation of the first 24,000 characters of a 37,894-character original (63% of the document). The remainder was not translated. The complete original-language text is stored with this document.]