Superintendent Resolution No. 031-2024-SMV/02

Lima, 13 March 2024

The Superintendent of the Securities Market

WHEREAS:

File No. 2021011175, containing the appeal filed by Collazos Consultores Financieros S.C.R.L. (formerly, Cordero Carrasco Collazos y Asociados S.C.R.L.), hereinafter CCF; Report No. 190-2024-SMV/06, issued by the Legal Advisory Office (hereinafter, THE REPORT); as well as the proceedings in this file;

CONSIDERING:

That, by means of Report No. 1534-2021-SMV/11.2 of 15 December 2021, the General Intendancy of Conduct Compliance informs the Deputy Superintendency of Market Conduct Supervision that the Audit Firm Cordero Carrasco Collazos y Asociados S.C.R.L., now Collazos Consultores Financieros S.C.R.L. (CCF) incurred a very serious infraction for not having supported, on the basis of the working papers, the issuance of the audit opinions on the separate and consolidated financial statements as of 31 December 2017 of ICCGSA Inversiones S.A. and proposed that a fine equivalent to seventy (70) UIT be imposed on it;

That, by Resolution No. 022-2022-SMV/11, hereinafter, THE RESOLUTION, the Deputy Superintendency of Market Conduct Supervision resolves to sanction CCF with a fine of one hundred (100) UIT, for having incurred one (01) infraction of a very serious nature classified in numeral 1.3 of subsection 1 of Annex XII of the Sanctions Regulation, for not having supported, on the basis of the working papers, the issuance of the audit opinions on the separate and consolidated financial statements as of 31 December 2017 of ICCGSA Inversiones S.A. (hereinafter, THE AUDIT.);

That, by brief of 07 April 2022, CCF filed an appeal against THE RESOLUTION, (hereinafter THE APPEAL);

That, from the evaluation carried out, it is observed that the appeal complies with the requirements established in articles 218 and 220 of the Single Ordered Text of Law No. 27444, General Administrative Procedure Law, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS1 (hereinafter, TUO LPAG)

[1] Article 218. Administrative appeals 216.1 Administrative appeals are: a) Appeal for reconsideration b) Appeal

Electronic document fi digitally signed under Law No. 27269, Law of Di gital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulation and amendments.
The integrity of the document and the authorship of the( s) si gnature( s) can be verified at https://apps.fi rmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

given that it was filed within the 15-day term of notification of the administrative act and is founded;

That, by Official Letter No. 745-2024-SMV/14, notified to the address indicated by CCF in its appeal, THE REPORT was made available to it and a term of five (5) business days was granted, counted from the day following the receipt of said report, for it to formulate its arguments, if it deemed it pertinent, and to date, CCF has not formulated arguments;

That, CCF alleges that the due administrative procedure and its right of defense have been violated by not having considered that the required information was not presented in a timely manner for reasons of health of the representatives of the audit firm, which would constitute a case of force majeure. It also states that they are persons included in the high-risk group. Likewise, it alleges that it complied with presenting the documentation on 30 September 2021, specifying the reasons for the delay;

That, CCF also alleges that, once the sanctioning procedure was initiated, it requested an extension for the presentation of its defenses, because the team of auditors that carried out THE AUDIT contracted the Covid-19 virus. It adds that the validity of the medical certificates presented by CCF was confirmed by the Medical College, at the request of the General Intendancy of Conduct Supervision (hereinafter, THE IGSC). Additionally, it states that, in view of the medical complications, it requested that a date be scheduled for it to present the audit belatedly; however, it states that THE IGSC did not agree to said request alleging that the date for presenting had already passed. In this regard, it considers that the SMV, by virtue of its powers, could have issued corrective measures aimed at reversing the situation altered by the alleged commission of an infraction, so they should have admitted said request, considering that no economic harm was caused. In that sense, they find no technical support for the imposition of the sanction, which they consider disproportionate;

That, CCF requests that fortuitous event or force majeure be taken into account, in its opinion, applicable to the present case. Likewise, it alleges that the administrative matter of the administrative sanctioning procedure would have been rendered moot. Additionally, it states that they are currently going through a complicated financial situation, which has led to them being in temporary suspension of activities;

That, CCF alleges that THE RESOLUTION cites and invokes the norm regarding the auditor's responsibility; however, it considers that it has not had a

[*] Only in the case that it is expressly established by law or legislative decree, is the filing of the administrative appeal for review admissible.

216.2 The term for filing appeals is fifteen (15) peremptory days, and they must be resolved within thirty (30) days.

Article 220.- Appeal

The appeal shall be filed when the challenge is based on a different interpretation of the evidence produced or when it involves questions of pure law, and must be addressed to the same authority that issued the act being challenged so that it may forward the proceedings to the hierarchical superior.

Electronic document fi digitally signed under Law No. 27269, Law of Di gital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulation and amendments.
The integrity of the document and the authorship of the( s) fi rma( s) can be verified at https://apps.fi rmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

logical and reasonable criterion for its application, by not having taken into consideration the health situation experienced by the auditor and their team, for which it details a classification with names and ages of the members of CCF;

That, on the other hand, CCF states that it has not been provided with the tools to exercise its right of defense. In this regard, it points out that it requested access to the file within the framework of the Transparency and Access to Public Information Law and that, as of the date of filing the appeal, this request was not attended to by the SMV, a fact that would limit its right;

That, CCF considers that the fine imposed is disproportionate and that it violates the Principle of Reasonableness referred to in the TUO LPAG, even more so, as it is a small auditing firm and the context in which it found itself. It maintains that the sanctions applied must be proportional to the non-compliance qualified as an infraction. It adds that, despite considering that it should not be subject to sanction for the arguments indicated, in the event of a sanction being imposed, it must be adequate to the seriousness of the fact;

That, CCF argues that the PAS and the sanction cause it economic harm, since, in order to exercise its right of defense, it has to hold meetings with advisors, lawyers and law firms, as well as incur other expenses, such as the use of work hours;

That, in relation to the arguments put forward by CCF, it is observed that most of them are related to the difficulties that the auditor in charge and their team had due to having contracted the Covid-19 virus. In order to determine whether CCF's arguments are valid, it is appropriate to establish, first, the date on which the infraction was committed;

That, by means of Official Letter No. 1475 -2019-SMV/11.1 of 21 March 2019, the former audit firm Cordero Carrasco Collazos y Asociados S.C.R.L., now Collazos Consultores Financieros S.C.R.L. (CCF), was summoned for the substantiation of the opinions issued within the framework of THE AUDIT, a proceeding that would take place on 27 March 2019, at 09:30 hours at the SMV premises;

That, the Minutes of “Substantiation of the audit performed by the audit firm Cordero Carrasco Collazos y Asociados S.C.R.L., on the separate and consolidated financial statements as of 31 December 2017 of ICCGSA Inversiones S.A.”2, of 27 March 2019, signed by the representatives of CCF (hereinafter, THE MINUTES), states that this proceeding did not take place, for the following reason:

“The (…) representative of the Audit Firm Cordero Carrasco Collazos y Asociados S.C.R.L. (…) states that (…) the partner in charge and responsible for the audit could not appear due to work commitments. Likewise, they indicate that they do not have at their disposal the Audit Services Contract or Agreement on the terms of the Audit engagement signed with the company ICCGSA Inversiones S.A. for the 2017 fiscal year, nor the working papers that support said audit due to the

[2] File No. 2019009520

Electronic document fi rmado digitally within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Fi rmas and Digital Certificates, its Regulation and amendments.
The integrity of the document and the authorship of the( s) fi rma( s) can be verified at https://apps.fi rmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

reasons set forth in the document submitted through documentary procedure to the SMV on 27 March 2019.”

That, according to the cited documents, it is concluded that the non-compliance with the obligation by CCF (formerly SOA CCCA) occurred on 27 March 2019, by not having substantiated THE AUDIT. In this regard, article 46 of the Financial Information Regulation, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 103-99-EF-94.10 (hereinafter, THE RIF) establishes that:

“When CONASEV deems it appropriate, the audit opinions shall be substantiated by those responsible for their issuance on the basis of the working papers, which must evidence the audit work performed and the conclusion reached. The attendance of the legal representative of the company to said act is optional and their non-attendance does not prevent its completion. The working papers may only be presented during the substantiation of the opinion, and such quality cannot be attributed to documents presented after said act.”

That, likewise, article 39 of the cited RIF establishes:

“(…) The audit report must be prepared and presented subject to the requirements and formalities established by the NIAs approved and in force in Peru and, if applicable, by the specific norms issued by the corresponding Supervisory and Control Bodies.”

That, in accordance with THE RIF, numeral 1.3 of subsection 1 of Annex XII of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION), establishes that it constitutes a very serious infraction:

“Not evidencing the audit work performed or not substantiating the conclusion reached to issue the audit opinion or report based on their respective working papers, or not presenting the working papers during the substantiation of the audit opinion or report.”

That, having determined the date of the commission of the infraction and that CCF's conduct constitutes an infraction, in accordance with the cited regulations, it is appropriate to analyze the arguments contained in THE APPEAL;

That, the obligation to substantiate audit opinions by audit firms is related to the protection of the transparency of the securities market. This, to the extent that, thereby, the SMV ascertains whether the financial information that has been audited adequately reflects the financial situation of the company, since financial information is key for adequate decision-making by investors. In this regard, Payet3 points out:

[3] PAYET, Juan Antonio (1996). The securities market and investor protection. In: IUS ET VERITAS, 7 (12), Pág. 73

Electronic document di gitally signed under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law on Di gital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments.
The integrity of the document and the authorship of the( s) si gnature( s) can be verified at https://apps.fi rmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

“Securities market legislation must oblige issuers to provide the public with the necessary information to make an adequate decision regarding investment in a security. It is not merely a prohibition of deceiving, such as exists in other fields of Law, but an obligation to carry out a positive action to provide all relevant information to investors. (…) The so-called obligation to inform constitutes the fundamental pillar of securities market regulation (…)”

That, along the same lines, the Ibero-American Institute of Securities Markets, in its "Study on the transparency of issuers in Ibero-America”4 , points out:

“One of the fundamental pillars for the development of the securities market is the transparency of the information provided to the investing public, since this will result both in the mitigation of the risk assumed when participating in the market, and in the security that the securities market grants to its participants. Therefore, it is essential that the best and most appropriate mechanisms be generated and applied so that information is disseminated with transparency and timeliness. (…) The collaboration of all agents is a priority for its good performance; the vision of a participatory and orderly society subject to a regulatory framework is the only possible conception to achieve a transparent and reliable market.”

That, in relation to the financial information required from issuers in Latin American markets, it points out:

“(…) in addition to the minimum content of the annual information, an express declaration is required from those responsible (management body, oversight body, Official Auditor of Accounts) regarding the quality of the information, guaranteeing its reliability and conformity with the applicable accounting standards, as well as a description of the main risks and uncertainties to which the financial information is subject.

That, as can be deduced from the cited texts, the work of audit firms is fundamental for the information disclosed to the market by issuers to comply with the characteristics of being truthful, sufficient and timely. Equally relevant is that audit firms, when summoned by the SMV, appear, since through such diligence, the SMV can ascertain whether the audit firm is carrying out its work in observance of the regulations applicable to it.

[4] IBERO-AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF SECURITIES MARKETS (2010). “Study on the transparency of issuers in Ibero-America”. Madrid: Cyan. Pág. 123 - 159

That, in that line of reasoning, the LMV highlights the importance and relevance that the presentation of financial information has for the market, since it establishes the obligation of issuers to inform the market of relevant facts that may affect investors' decisions (material facts, financial information). The information must be truthful, sufficient and timely, and must be made immediately available to the market5 ;

That, in line with the foregoing, the SMV has the power to require, when it deems appropriate, that audit firms substantiate the opinions issued and that such substantiation be made on the basis of the working papers produced during the audit. Due to the nature and significance of the protected legal interest, the substantiation must be carried out in a timely manner;

That, in the case of CCF, the substantiation of THE AUDIT was not carried out on the established date, and it could not be postponed because it was an unjustified non-compliance. On this aspect, it should be noted that article 47 of the RIF clearly establishes that “The unjustified absence of the Auditor to the summons made by CONASEV or the fact of appearing without the respective working papers, is equivalent to the non-substantiation of the opinion.”;

That the cited norm does not provide for a case of postponement in the event of the auditor's unjustified absence. It should be noted that THE MINUTES do not refer to any health problem on the part of the auditor and/or his team (the pandemic caused by the Covid-19 virus began almost a year later). On the contrary, it is stated that the absence is due to work commitments and that the non-presentation of the working papers is due to the reasons set forth in the brief submitted that same day through the SMV's document reception desk, related to a computer virus that affected the corresponding files;

Que, in that sense, since it is an unjustified failure to appear, CCF's claim that, as the SMV has the power to “reverse situations that occur or are reported due to the commission of a supposed infringement”, it could have postponed or granted a second opportunity for the proceeding to be carried out, is not possible;

Que, all of CCF's arguments aimed at questioning THE RESOLUTION, related to the complications caused by the auditor and his team contracting the Covid-19 virus and that, for that reason, exceptional deadlines should have been granted to them to submit the information out of time, to hold the audit substantiation on another date, etc.; as well as that it must be taken into account that they submitted the documentation on 30 September 20216, start from a false premise, since, as has already been explained, it is not possible to reschedule the proceedings if they are not carried out for unjustified reasons. In that sense, the regrettable fact of having had health complications does not affect the

[5] In accordance with the provisions of Article 10 of the TUO of the LMV: Article 10.- Quality of Information.- All information that by provision of this law must be presented to the SMV, the stock exchange, the entities responsible for centralized mechanisms or investors, must be truthful, sufficient and timely. Once the information is received by said institutions, it must be immediately made available to the public.

[6] Approximately thirty (30) months after the date on which the proceeding should have been carried out (27/03/2019)

Electronic document fi rmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Fi rmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias.
La integridad del documento y la autoría de la( s) fi rma( s) pueden ser verificadas en https://apps.fi rmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

infringement, since it was committed in March 2019, almost a year before the start of the pandemic caused by the Covid-19 virus. For all of the foregoing, it is considered that this part of the APPEAL is unfounded;

Que, regarding the parties' access to the file, Article 171 of the TUO LPAG states:

“171.1 The administered parties, their representatives or their lawyer, have the right of access to the file at any time of its processing, as well as to its documents, background, studies, reports and opinions, to obtain certifications of its status and to request copies of the pieces it contains, upon prior payment of the cost thereof. Only those acts, proceedings, reports or opinions that contain information whose knowledge may affect their right to personal or family privacy and those expressly excluded by law or for reasons of national security in accordance with the provisions of subsection 5) of Article 2 of the Political Constitution are excepted. Additionally, matters protected by banking, tax, commercial and industrial secrecy are excepted, as well as all those documents that imply a prior pronouncement by the competent authority. 171.2 The request for access to the file may be made verbally, without the need to request it through the transparency and access to public information procedure, being granted immediately, without the need for an express resolution, at the office where the file is located, even if it is not the document reception unit.”

Que, as observed in the file records, through Official Letter No. 3749-2021-SMV/11.2, dated 17 September 2021 (hereinafter, THE IGCC LETTER), the IGCC informed CCF that both it and its lawyer have always had and have access at any time of the processing of File No. 2021011175. For the purposes of accessing the information contained in said file, in the aforementioned letter it was specified which were the two means through which it could access the administrative file:

Through an electronic request addressed to the General Directorate of Financial Guidance and Education (hereinafter, IGOEF), for which the access link to the corresponding form was provided; and
Through an in-person visit to the SMV offices, for which it had to take into account the “Protocol for citizen service, recommendations and health guidelines in the context of COVID-19”, applicable at the time, in the context of the pandemic caused by the Covid-19 virus.

Que, on 4 April 2022, CCF sent an email message to the mailbox ‘atenciónsmv@smv.gob.pe’7 , in which it requests “(…) to correct the link sent via Official Letter No. 3749-2021-SMV/11.2”. After requesting further details, on the 5th of the same month and year, CCF specified: “(…) we ask you to send us a new Link to access the information of our file or to activate

[7] Corresponding to the Information Technology Office

the one sent on 17 Sep 2001.”. On the same date, a response was given to the request8 , indicating the link to access the information access form (hereinafter THE RESPONSE), which had to be completed and sent to the IGOEF. It should be noted that, without prejudice to being able to access through said electronic means, CCF's representatives always had the possibility of appearing in person at the SMV facilities to access said file;

Que, additionally, it should be noted that the Single Text of Administrative Procedures – TUPA of the SMV contains Procedures No. 184 and 185, “ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION CREATED OR OBTAINED BY THE ENTITY, WHICH IS IN ITS POSSESSION OR UNDER ITS CONTROL” and “REQUEST FOR A SIMPLE OR CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENTATION AND INFORMATION CONTAINED IN ADMINISTRATIVE FILES IN PROCESS”, respectively, where the requirements and service channels for requesting access to the file by either of the two means are detailed;

That, in addition, it must also be mentioned that the link that CCF requested be ‘corrected’ and ‘updated’ is a link permanently available on the SMV portal which allows access to the “Virtual form for handling requests for access to public information” (hereinafter, THE FORM), which must be completed and submitted through the system in order to register the request;

That, in that sense, the information contained in THE OFFICE OF THE IGCC, referring to access to the file, is permanently published on the SMV portal9 and is a matter of public knowledge, so its inclusion in said office was an additional action on the part of the administration, in the interest of transparency and safeguarding the right of the administered party;

That, upon review of the file, it is observed that, as a result of the submission of THE RESPONSE, CCF claims to have submitted THE FORM between 5 and 7 April 2022; however, upon consultation with the IGOIEF, no form is registered in the system. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the request that originated with the email that CCF sent on 4 April 2022 to the address ‘atencionSMV@smv.gob.pe’, which had to be clarified by CCF the following day, was attended to on 8 April. It should be noted that said mailbox is in charge of the Oficina de Tecnologías de la Información of the SMV and is not a channel for attending requests for access to information; however, the request was directed to the corresponding area for its timely attention;

That, in view of all the foregoing, it is observed that, despite the fact that the channels for requesting access to the file were always available to CCF and that, additionally, in September 2021, the IGCC also sent it the steps to follow (through the OFFICE OF THE IGCC), CCF only exercised its right (by filing its request through the enabled channel) two days before filing the appeal, and that, despite the large volume of information contained in the file,

[8] Email message dated 5 April 2022, sent from the email account ‘kbarzola@smv.gob.pe’ to the email account ‘juancarloscordero@corderoyasociados.com.pe’

[9] Both the TUPA and the “Virtual form for the handling of requests for access to public information” are permanently available to the public through the SMV portal

Documento electrónico fi rmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Fi rmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias.
La integridad del documento y la autoría de la( s) fi rma( s) pueden ser verificadas en https://apps.fi rmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

the request was handled within a period of two days. In that sense, no violation is observed of the right of defense, nor of what could be analogous to effective judicial protection10 that was applicable to the scope of an administrative sanctioning procedure, nor of any other that could be comprised in the Convención Interamericana de Derechos Humanos and the Constitución Política del Estado, instruments to which CCF refers;

That, without prejudice to the foregoing, and in relation to the alleged violation of the right of defense and due administrative procedure, it should be indicated that from the record it is observed that CCF requested up to two times the extension of the term to present its discharges, upon the initiation of the administrative sanctioning procedure. It is also observed that, in attention to the alleged medical complications, an additional term of thirty-five (35) business days11 was granted and, subsequently, another of sixty (60) business days12, making a total of ninety-five (95) additional business days for it to exercise its right of defense. In that sense, the SMV has indeed taken into consideration the extraordinary circumstances alleged by CCF and has provided the facilities required by the situation, for the exercise of the administered party's right of defense;

That, with regard to the alleged violation of the principles of legality, truthfulness and reservation of law, it should be noted that the actions of the SMV are within the framework of the powers granted to it by its Organic Law, as well as the Securities Market Law; likewise, the infractions imputed, subject of sanction, are clearly and duly typified in the SANCTIONS REGULATIONS. In that sense, no violation of the aforementioned principles is observed;

That, additionally, with regard to the alleged lack of assessment of the evidentiary means offered, it is convenient to clarify that the inadmissibility of CCF's request for a new date for the presentation of THE AUDIT supported by medical certificates of the auditor and his team does not constitute a violation of its right of defense, since said non-compliance constitutes the infraction that gave rise to the administrative sanctioning procedure and the sanction. The reasons for the inadmissibility of its request have already been developed throughout this resolution. Without prejudice to this, the evidentiary means offered, medical certificates, have been taken into account to grant the administered party a total of ninety-five (95) additional business days to exercise its right of defense;

That, as regards the alleged violation of the right to work, it should be noted that when the SMV exercises its supervisory work and its sanctioning power against non-compliance with the regulations under its charge, it does not constitute a violation of the sanctioned party's right to work. It should be borne in mind that CCF is an auditing firm that, at the time of the commission of the infraction, provided services to an issuer in the securities market, subject to the regulation of the SMV and that the work

[10] Effective jurisdictional protection, applicable in the judicial sphere, relates to the power of administered parties to challenge administrative decisions, once the corresponding avenue has been exhausted.

[11] Term granted by Official Letter No. 2797-2021-SMV/11.2 dated 18 August 2021

[12] Term granted by Official Letter No. 1545-2021-SMV/11.2 dated 20 April 2021

Electronic document di gitally signed within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Di gital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments.
The integrity of the document and the authorship of the( s) si gnature( s) can be verified at https://apps.fi rmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

carried out is regulated and supervised by the SMV in exercise of the functions that the law grants it. It cannot be attributed to the SMV that it violates the right to work due to the expense that may be incurred to defend against a sanction imposed for an infraction that the SMV has the duty to supervise and inspect. For all the foregoing, this part of the APPEAL is unfounded;

That, CCF also links the medical complications arising from the auditor and his team contracting the Covid-19 virus to the submission of its defenses, once notified of the letter of charges that initiated the administrative sanctioning procedure that led to THE RESOLUTION, subject of appeal. However, as stated in the preceding paragraphs, considering the health conditions, a total of ninety-five (95) additional business days in total were granted so that it could exercise its right of defense;

That, CCF also relates the application of this exculpatory circumstance to the late presentation of THE AUDIT. As part of its defenses, on 21 September 2021, CCF requested that a new date be granted for the presentation of THE AUDIT, and alleged that the delay was due to medical complications, which would constitute no responsibility as it was a case of fortuitous event or force majeure13. As previously developed, there is no justification for rescheduling said proceeding, since it was not carried out for unjustified causes. Furthermore, the infraction was committed almost a year before the start of the pandemic caused by the Covid-19 virus, so alleging that the delay was due to a fortuitous event or force majeure is an invalid argument, since the date on which such proceeding should have inevitably been carried out was 27 March 2019;

That, CCF reiterates the arguments put forward before the first instance, regarding an alleged disappearance of the subject matter. In this regard, it should be noted that the change of corporate name, unlike merger or spin-off, does not imply the creation of a new subject of rights and obligations; much less the mere change of the corporate purpose of the legal entity. This is because the subject of rights and obligations is not the name of the company, but the legal entity that owns the denomination. That is, the change of denomination and/or corporate purpose does not imply that the obligations or rights contracted by the legal entity are transferred, modified or extinguished. In that sense, this does not constitute a case in which the disappearance of the subject matter applies;

That, likewise, the fact that ICCGSA Inversiones S.A. (regarding whose AUDIT the sanctioning procedure deals) no longer has the status of issuer in the securities market does not constitute a case in which the disappearance of the subject matter applies, since the administrative sanctioning procedure focuses on the responsibility of CCF as an auditing firm, with respect to the obligations that correspond to it, related to the function it exercised. It should be noted that the SMV's competence to impose sanctions is determined, fundamentally, on the basis of the subject matter (whether the conducts and infractions imputed are materially within the SMV's competence); and, on the basis of timeliness (verifying that the alleged infractions were carried out while CCF was exercising its function as an audit firm),

[13] CCF's approach is generic, since it does not specify which of the two assumptions would be, in its view, the applicable one to its case

assumptions that are met in the present case. Therefore, this part of the APPEAL is unfounded;

That, CCF alleges that the sanction causes it economic harm, insofar as it must use financial and human resources in order to exercise its right of defense in the sanctioning procedure. In this regard, as previously stated, operating in a regulated and supervised market, such as the securities market, entails obligations that must be observed by those who carry out their economic activities therein. In the event of non-compliance, the Administration is empowered to exercise its sanctioning power and, naturally, the administered entity is empowered to make use of the resources it deems best to exercise its defense, which does not mean that the Administration seeks to harm it, but rather that it is the normal development of the consequences of non-compliance, within the applicable regulatory framework;

That, in the present case, the fine imposed on CCF by THE RESOLUTION amounts to one hundred (100) UIT. However, in accordance with the provisions of subsection a) of article 20 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, the SANCTIONS REGULATION), the range of fines applicable to infractions of a very serious nature goes from fifty (50) to (700) UIT, in the case of applying a fine;

That, CCF states that the sanction imposed violates the principle of proportionality14 and that it is not adequate with the infraction imputed. In this regard, it is observed that THE RESOLUTION makes a detailed evaluation of each of the sanction criteria referred to in article 25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 3) of article 248 of the TUO LPAG15. It should be noted that the financial situation of the sanctioned party is not a sanction criterion according to the aforementioned regulation, nor is it an exempting or mitigating condition, according to the TUO LPAG;

That, the principle of proportionality is applicable in cases where the sanction to be imposed and the facts imputed are not proportionate. In this regard, it should be noted that this office considers that, in the present case, there is no disproportion between such elements. This is because in the present case a series of facts have been evidenced that explain the sanction imposed by the first instance, such as the circumstance that CCF not only failed to timely support two (2) audit reports, referring to the financial statements of ICCGSA, but also did not provide, when requested, the working papers; likewise, irregularities are observed regarding the dates of

[15] With regard to the antecedents of sanction and recidivism, none are recorded; with regard to the circumstances of the commission of the infraction, it is evidenced that it is not only one audit report, but two audit reports that have not been supported by CCF; with regard to the severity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal right, the transparency of the securities market has been violated; with regard to the harm caused and repercussion to the market, the transparency of the information disseminated in the securities market, the protection of the investors of the securities market and the confidence of such investors have been harmed; with regard to the illegally obtained benefit, it has not been possible to determine the existence of an illicitly obtained benefit; with regard to the probability of detection of the infraction, it should be mentioned that it is intermediate; with regard to the intentionality in the conduct of the offender, it is considered that the conduct of SOA Cordero Carrasco Collazos was intentional.

issuance of the reports and the appointment of CCF as audit firm of the financial statements of ICCGSA; and it is observed that CCF requested extensions of deadlines on various occasions, even alleging an alleged inability to comply with its obligation to support the reports due to the virus that caused the Covid-19 pandemic, whereas the non-compliance dates from one year before the start of the aforementioned pandemic. In that sense, this office agrees with the evaluation carried out by the first-line body in recitals 66 to 71 of THE RESOLUTION; and,

In accordance with the provisions of numeral 26 of article 12° of the Regulation of Organization and Functions of the Superintendence of the Securities Market, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF, and its amendments;

RESOLVES:

Article 1°.- Declare Unfounded the appeal filed by Collazos Consultores Financieros S.C.R.L. (formerly, Cordero Carrasco Collazos y Asociados S.C.R.L.) against the Resolution of Deputy Superintendence SMV No. 022-2022-SMV/11.

Article 2°.- Consider the administrative route exhausted.

Article 3.- Transcribe this resolution to Collazos Consultores Financieros S.C.R.L. (formerly, Cordero Carrasco Collazos y Asociados S.C.R.L.).

Article 4.- Order the dissemination of this resolution on the Portal of the Superintendency of the Securities Market (https://www.smv.gob.pe).

Signed by: MASIAS QUIROGA Lorena FAU 20131365994 soft Reason: 2023-05-05 10:04:07-05:00

Lorena Masías Quiroga
Superintendent of the Securities Market

Signed by: VARGAS PIÑA Julio Cesar FAU 20131016396 soft Reason:

Signed by: GIL VASQUEZ Liliana FAU 20131016396 soft Reason:

Electronic document fi rmado digitally signed under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Fi rmas and Digital Certificates, its Regulation and amendments.
The integrity of the document and the authorship of the( s) fi rma( s) can be verified at https://apps.fi rmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml

Superintendent Resolution No. 031-2024-SMV/02

WHEREAS:

CONSIDERING:

Article 220.- Appeal

RESOLVES:

Lineage