Superintendent Resolution No. 059-2025-SMV/02

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
"Decade of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men" "Year of recovery and consolidation of the Peruvian economy" 1 Electronically signed document in the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml Superintendent Resolution No. 059-2025-SMV/02 Lima, May 16, 2025 The Superintendent of the Securities Market SEEN:
File No. 2024026014 and Report No. 654-2025-
SMV/06, from the Legal Advisory Office, through which an opinion was issued on the appeal filed by Grupo Coril Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. (hereinafter, “Coril SAB”) against the Superintendent Resolution Adjunct SMV No. 013-2025-SMV/10 (hereinafter, the Sanction Resolution); CONSIDERING:
That, through the Sanction Resolution, Coril SAB was sanctioned with a fine amounting to eight (8) UITs equivalent to S/ 39,600.00 (Thirty-nine thousand six hundred and 00/100 soles), for having committed one (1) infraction of a very serious nature typified in Annex I, numeral 1, item 1.2 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018- SMV/01 (hereinafter, “Sanctions Regulation”), for failing to comply with what is established in Article 83 of the Regulation of Intermediation Agents, approved by SMV Resolution No. 034-2015-SMV/01 and its amendments (hereinafter, RAI) because the resources of the ACP RTC Trust Heritage (hereinafter, “the Trust”) received in custody in its intermediation account were used, with the authorization of this client, for a purpose that is not related to any of the operations defined in Article 190 of the Single Text of the Securities Market Law, Legislative Decree No. 861, approved by Supreme Decree No. 020-2023-EF (hereinafter, TUO of the LMV) 1 ; That, through a document presented on March 31, 2025, Coril SAB filed an appeal against the Sanction Resolution; That, through Report No. 654-2025-SMV/06 of May 16, 2025, the Legal Advisory Office issued an opinion on the appeal of Coril SAB;
I. OF THE APPEAL
1.1. Formal requirements of the appeal

1 Concorded with Article 194 of the Securities Market Law, Legislative Decree No. 861.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
"Decade of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men" "Year of recovery and consolidation of the Peruvian economy" 2 Electronically signed document in the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml That, from the evaluation carried out, it is observed that the appeal complies with the requirements established in articles 207 and 209 2 of Law No. 27444 - General Administrative Procedure Law (hereinafter, “LPAG”), since it was filed within the period of fifteen (15) days of notification of the administrative act and is substantiated;
1.2. Formal requirements of the appeal
That item 26 of Article 12 of the Regulation of Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216- 2011-EF, states that it corresponds to the Superintendent of the Securities Market to resolve in the last administrative instance the appeals filed against administrative acts of the organs of the Securities Market Superintendency;
1.3. Request made
That in the petition of its appeal, Coril SAB requests to revoke the Sanction Resolution, while in the final part of said document the appellant requests to “proceed to proportionally reduce the fine imposed revoke the Resolution for not having committed a serious nature infringement and leave the imposed sanction without effect.” (sic)
II. OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPEAL
That below, it proceeds to detail in a succinct manner the arguments formulated by Coril SAB that support the appeal:
That, the appellant indicates that the custody service provided to the Trust, complies with what is established in Article 82 of the RAI, which defines the custody service as “the care, conservation or deposit of financial instruments or resources”. It argues that Coril SAB received, administered and custodied financial resources of the Trust in accordance with the regulations, guaranteeing the protection of the securities and resources under its charge; That, Coril SAB states that according to clause fourth of the Custody Service Contract signed between it and the Trust (hereinafter, “the Contract”), the service included the transfer of securities and entry or exit of financial resources prior to direct instruction from the client. It argues that all operations were executed in accordance with the regulations, highlighting that these transfers were made under express and documented instruction of the client, reflecting a relationship of transparency between the parties; That, the appellant states that it has implemented preventive and corrective measures, among which it highlights: recurrent training for staff, modification of the internal system to facilitate access of its staff to normative and operational manuals, distribution of information internally

2 Concorded with articles 218 and 220 of the Single Text of Law No. 27444 - General Administrative Procedure Law, approved by Supreme Decree No. 004-2019-JUS (hereinafter, “TUO of the LPAG”); respectively.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
"Decade of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men" "Year of recovery and consolidation of the Peruvian economy" 3 Electronically signed document in the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml to keep staff updated. It concludes that these actions reflect the commitment of Coril SAB to regulatory compliance and risk mitigation; That, likewise, the appellant argues that in the considering 47 of the Sanction Resolution it is stated that Coril SAB would have failed to comply with Article 83 of the RAI. It specifies that said article establishes basic rules of the custody service where assets can be used for a different purpose if there is express authorization from the client and such purpose is related to any of the operations defined in Article 194 or 207 of Legislative Decree No. 861. It adds that according to Article 83 of the RAI, the custody service comprises basic rules of financial instruments, including the receipt of financial resources by the intermediation agent. Likewise, it states that said article does not expressly prohibit the transfer of funds prior to client authorization and under the custody of the intermediary (sic). Additionally, Coril SAB mentions that it acted exclusively within the framework of the express instructions of the client, the Contract and the applicable regulations; and that the operation does not exceed the powers comprised within the service of custody defined in the regulations; That, Coril SAB states that the Sanction Resolution seems to interpret in a restricted manner the articles related to custody, omitting the analysis of the "express instructions" allowed in the service. In that line, it states that the RAI establishes that agents must provide services in accordance with the instructions and guidelines of the client. It adds that, if the Sanction Resolution considers that the instructions for the use of the Trust became observed, it would disregard the principle of contractual autonomy and the responsibilities inherent to the settlor; That, the appellant states that in considering 38 of the Sanction Resolution it is warned that the purpose in question is not found in any of the operations defined in Article 190 of the TUO of the LMV, although it is accepted that the transfers made to the investors were used to buy bonds. Therefore, it considers that according to items a) and f) of Article 190 of the TUO of the LMV, 3 the operation performed is an activity of the intermediation agents, and to affirm otherwise, would be the product of an isolated interpretation of Article 83 of the RAI and in opposition to what is held in Superintendent Resolution No. 030-2024-SMV/02. 4 Additionally, it indicates that Coril SAB received “financial resources” 5 of property of the Trust,

3 SUBCHAPTER III
Operations
Article 190.- Brokerage societies are authorized to carry out the following operations:
a) Buy and sell securities on behalf of third parties and also on their own account in centralized mechanisms or outside them; (…) f) Promote the launch of public and private securities and facilitate their placement, being able to temporarily stabilize their prices or favor the liquidity conditions of such securities, always with prior agreement with the issuer or offeror and subject to the provisions dictated by the SMV; (…) (The emphasis is Coril SAB) 4 Cites the following paragraph of the resolution:
“the interpretations of the normative provisions cannot start from an isolated and literal reading of a provision of a normative body, since it is a biased reading that would attack the coherence of the same normative body in its entirety”. 5 Where “financial resources”, is the money deposited by the client in the intermediation accounts of Coril SAB.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
"Decade of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men" "Year of recovery and consolidation of the Peruvian economy" 4 Electronically signed document in the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml it custodied them and, by express authorization of this, transferred them to third parties. Finally, it highlights that the instructions were in accordance with its Client Policy, the RAI and the Standards for the Prevention of Money Laundering and of Terrorist Financing, approved by CONASEV Resolution No. 033- 2011-EF/94.01.1; That, on the other hand, Coril SAB states that based on
Article 25 of the Sanctions Regulation and numeral “34” 6 of Article 248 of the
TUO of the LPAG, the administrative sanctions that are imposed must take into account the criteria established in said norms and in the TUO of the LMV. Thus, the evaluation of the sanction must consider: a) antecedents of the infringer; b) recidivism; c) the circumstances of the commission of the infraction; d) the harm 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) gravity of the damage to the public interest and/or legal good protected; h) the existence or not of intent in the conduct of the infringer; That, likewise, the appellant considers that the Sanction Resolution does not credibly prove the existence of real damage to the market or to the client as a result of the questioned operations; and, that according to the Sanctions Regulation, infractions must contemplate effective damage, and this element is not present. It adds that the funds transferred under custody were used following the guidelines of the client and in total transparency; and that no affectation to third parties nor non-compliance with anti-money laundering policies (AML/CFT) has been evidenced; That, Coril SAB argues that it has not acted in a dolous manner, or with the purpose of obtaining benefits in an irregular manner, being necessary to value the real impact of the imputed facts, where said facts have not meant a real affectation to the interests of the investors and/or the market; That, likewise, based on Article IV of the LPAG; and the articles 25 and 26 of the Sanctions Regulation, the appellant states that:
a) Starting from the principle of reasonableness, 7 Coril SAB indicates that the classification of infractions and imposition of sanctions must maintain the due proportion between the means employed and the public ends under protection. This, as it seeks that the means -the sanction- responds to what is strictly necessary for the satisfaction of its purpose -to prevent Coril SAB from recommitting the infractions described in the Resolution. Likewise, the need to guard proportionality and equality at the time of employing the sanctioning power by the SMV would require that, when it corresponds the imposition of a fine, this must bear a quantitative relationship with previous

6 Cited in this way by Coril SAB, we understand that it refers to numeral 3.
7 Established in numeral 1.4 of Article IV of the LPAG, which states:
“Principle of Reasonableness
The decisions of the administrative authority, when they create obligations, qualify infractions, impose sanctions, or establish restrictions on the regulated parties, must adapt within the limits of the attributed power and maintaining the due proportion between the means to be employed and the public ends that must be protected, in order to respond to what is strictly necessary for the satisfaction of its purpose”.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
"Decade of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men" "Year of recovery and consolidation of the Peruvian economy" 5 Electronically signed document in the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml fines issued by the commission of the or the types of infractions by the same supervised subjects; b) Starting from the principle of presumption of veracity, 8 the appellant states that it must consider the declarations formulated by Coril SAB regarding the reasons that caused the commission of the infractions subject of the imputation of the Notice of Charges 9 , it adjusts to the truth; and c) Starting from the principle of predictability or of legitimate trust 10 , the appellant holds that the SMV must consider the legitimate expectations of Coril SAB reasonably generated by the practice and the administrative antecedents. It adds that the authority must submit to the current legal order and cannot act arbitrarily, not being able to vary unreasonably and unmotivatedly the interpretation of the applicable norms.
III. EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPEAL
That below, it proceeds to analyze the arguments formulated by Coril SAB; That, regarding that the custody service provided to the Trust complies with what is established in Article 82 of the RAI, it is precise that the non-compliance with Article 82 has not been questioned; however, it must be taken into consideration that said article establishes the definition of the service of custody, while Article 83 of the RAI complements said definition by establishing the basic rules that the intermediation agent must follow at the time of providing said service. In the present case, Coril SAB has been sanctioned for having failed to comply with Article 83 of the RAI and consequently having committed the infraction of Annex I, numeral 1, item 1.2 of the Sanctions Regulation, (as stated in Article 1 of the Sanction Resolution), 11 not questioning the non-compliance with Article 82 of the RAI, as previously mentioned;

8 Established in numeral 1.7 of Article IV of the LPAG, which states:
“Principle of Presumption of Veracity:
In the processing of the administrative procedure, it is presumed that the documents and declarations formulated by the regulated parties in the form prescribed by this Law, respond to the truth of the facts they affirm. This presumption admits contrary proof”. 9 Notice No. 2558-2024-SMV/10.3. 10 Established in numeral 1.7 of Article IV of the LPAG, which states:
“Principle of Predictability or of Legitimate Trust:
The administrative authority provides the regulated parties or their representatives with true, complete and reliable information on each procedure under its charge, so that, at all times, the regulated party can have a certain understanding about the requirements, procedures, estimated duration and possible results that could be obtained. The actions of the administrative authority are congruent with the legitimate expectations of the regulated parties reasonably generated by the practice and the administrative antecedents, unless for the reasons that are explicit, in writing, it decides to depart from them. The administrative authority submits to the current legal order and cannot act arbitrarily. In this sense, the administrative authority cannot vary unreasonably and unmotivatedly the interpretation of the applicable norms”. 11 “Article 1st.- Declare that Grupo Coril Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. has committed one (1) infraction qualified as very serious, typified in Annex I, numeral 1, item 1.2 of the Sanctions Regulation, approved by Resolution SMV No. 035-2018-SMV/01, since it failed to comply with what is established in Article 83 of the RAI because the resources of the TRUST received in custody in its intermediation account were used, with the authorization of this client, for a purpose that is not related to any of the operations on behalf of this client defined in Article 190 of the LMV.” (the underline is ours)

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
"Decade of Equal Opportunities for Women and Men" "Year of recovery and consolidation of the Peruvian economy" 6 Electronically signed document in the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml That, regarding the argument referring to clause fourth of the Contract, it is not observed that said clause 12 infringes the regulations, but that Coril SAB when executing the operations under analysis had to carry them out within the framework of the functions that are permitted to it by the regulations, that is, respecting what is established in Article 83 of the RAI and 190 of the TUO of the LMV, which are norms of public order; That, regarding the argument referred to having implemented preventive and corrective measures for regulatory compliance, it is worth noting that, in developing the same, it does not manifest how said measures will avoid the non-compliance with Article 83 of the RAI, even more if in its appeal it maintains its position of not having committed an infraction. In that sense, the argument formulated by Coril SAB does not disprove the commission of the infraction nor does it remedy it; That, regarding the argument of Coril SAB, that it acted exclusively within the framework of the express instructions of the client, the Contract and the applicable regulations; and that the operation does not exceed the powers comprised within the service of custody defined in the regulations, it is worth stating what is provided by Article 83 of the RAI:
“Article 83.- Basic Rules
The assets mentioned in the preceding article, which have been delivered in custody to the Agent, cannot be used for a different purpose, unless there is express authorization from the client and always that such

12 Clause fourth of the Contract states:
“FOURTH: OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRUPO CORIL SAB For the provision of the services established in this CONTRACT, GRUPO CORIL SAB assumes the following obligations:
4.1. Take charge of the custody of the securities issued by THE CLIENT, carrying out the corresponding monthly periodic reconciliations, with the information provided by THE CLIENT.
4.2. GRUPO CORIL SAB will receive in accordance with ANNEX 1: ENTRY OR EXIT OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS of
THE CLIENT the securities and will keep them in an orderly manner. Likewise, it undertakes to have a centralized file in which it will keep updated the detailed information of the securities that THE CLIENT delivers to it.
4.3. Carry out the transfer of securities in a timely manner, only when THE CLIENT instructs and in
accordance with the established rules, having to send to THE CLIENT the confirmation of the execution of the same.
4.4. Keep in strict confidence the information about the securities that by reasons of its functions it comes to know.
4.5. Send in writing to THE CLIENT, according to the agreed periodicity, the account statements on the balances
and other information that the PARTIES establish. The referred periodicity cannot be greater than once a month. Responsibility of GRUPO CORIL SAB:
4.6 Contractually GRUPO CORIL SAB is governed by the Peruvian Civil Code.
4.7 It is limited to the eventual damage that could be directly caused in case that the action of GRUPO CORIL
SAB was dolous or gravely negligent before the non-compliance of its obligations and up to the amount of the fees received by reason of the services contained in the present contract, exonerating for fortuitous case or force majeure.
4.8 Communicate to the SMV and to THE CLIENT any irregularity that it detects in the exercise of its functions.
4.9 Replace the assets granted in custody by THE CLIENT in name of the securities in case that these result
missing, for which it must assume the administrative costs in which THE CLIENT can incur for the replacement of the same, for this THE CLIENT must present the act of conformity of entry of the securities with the view of the custody manager and view of the General Manager of GRUPO CORIL SAB.
4.10 Intermediary the verification of the due inscription of the assets of THE CLIENT.
4.11 Deliver in a timely manner to THE CLIENT the securities kept in CUSTODY when this requires it through
ANNEX 1: ENTRY OR EXIT OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS, which must not exceed (02) business
days following after having been requested in writing with receipt acknowledgment.
4.12 Restitute or indemnify THE CLIENT and its participants, for damages or harms that the custodian occasions by the
non-compliance of its obligations, whether these originated by dolus or inexcusable fault, exonerating for fortuitous case or force majeure.”

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
“Decenio de la Igualdad de Oportunidades para Mujeres y Hombres” "Año de la recuperación y consolidación de la economía peruana" 7 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 the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml purpose is related to any of the operations defined in articles 194 or 207 of the Law. The Agent must comply with the timely return of said assets when the customer requests it, within a reasonable time according to the nature of the asset and the custody." That, in this sense, in application of article 83 of the RAI it is clear that the assets delivered in custody to the brokerage society, can be used for a different purpose, provided that, two requirements are met: i) having the express authorization of the client, and ii) that such purpose is related to any of the operations defined in articles 190 13, 14 or 202 15 of the TUO of the LMV; and, in the present case it is observed that although the money movements in custody in the intermediation account of Coril SAB had the client's authorization (The Trust), these money movements were not related to operations that Coril SAB in its capacity as brokerage society could perform, according to current regulations. Thus, the money paid by The Trust was transferred to other clients of Coril SAB, not being relevant for the case under analysis the destination given to said resources. In this way, the purpose of the intermediation account 16 was desnaturalized; That, therefore, Coril SAB complied with the first requirement (having the express authorization of the client) but not with the second requirement, that is, that the assets be used for a purpose related to any of the operations defined in article 190 of the TUO of the LMV; That, regarding the fact that a restrictive interpretation is being made of the related articles, as well as that the principle of contractual autonomy and the responsibilities inherent to the settlor would be disregarded, it is worth clarifying that, in the Sanction Resolution a holistic reading of the regulations is made, which this office shares. Likewise, as already mentioned previously, for the application of The Contract, Coril SAB had to consider the regulations governing it, specifically article 83 of the RAI and article 190 of the TUO of the LMV; That, in that line, article 83 of the RAI delimits the use that can be given to the intermediation account through which a custody service is performed, with the objective of preventing its purpose from being desnaturalized and avoiding it being used for other purposes (for example, as a bank account); 17 That, therefore, although instructions from the customer were followed, the purpose was not contemplated in some of the operations defined in article 190 of the TUO of the LMV. The foregoing does not imply disregarding

13 Concorded with article 194 of Legislative Decree No. 861.
14 It is necessary to clarify that article 190 of the TUO of the LMV refers to the operations to which brokerage societies are authorized while article 202 of the TUO of the LMV refers to the operations to which intermediary societies are authorized (which are not applicable to the present case). 15 Concorded with article 207 of Legislative Decree No. 861. 16 These points are seen in detail in the considerations 19, 32 and 33 of the Sanction Resolution. 17 As stated in consideration 37 of the Sanction Resolution.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
“Decenio de la Igualdad de Oportunidades para Mujeres y Hombres” "Año de la recuperación y consolidación de la economía peruana" 8 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 the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml the contractual autonomy and the responsibilities of the settlor, but rather to safeguard compliance with public order regulations; That, for Coril SAB, having transferred the resources to a third party and that this party acquires bonds, makes it comply with what is established in letters a) and f) of article 190 of the TUO of the LMV. Regarding this, as mentioned above, for the purposes of the analysis of the present case, the destination that the third party gave to said resources once withdrawn from the intermediation account is not of interest, since what is analyzed is the compliance with the functions by Coril SAB, in accordance with current regulations. In that sense, the customer's instruction must be carried out within the framework allowed by the regulations, so that the money of The Trust received in custody in the intermediation account could only have as purpose the custody service or any of the operations indicated in article 190 of the TUO of the LMV. As already seen in the previous points, the intermediation account, whose purpose is to provide a custody service, was used to transfer funds to third parties, that is, it was used as a bank account. In that sense, it is worth highlighting that, if subsequently the resources were used by the third parties to buy bonds, this does not prevent the desnaturalization of the intermediation account; That, on the other hand, it is worth mentioning that, the position contained in the Sanction Resolution does not contradict the paragraph invoked of Superintendent Resolution No. 030-2024-SMV/02, since, in the present case, as mentioned above, a holistic reading and not isolated reading of the regulatory provisions is being made; That, regarding the argument referred to the application of the sanction criteria, it is worth highlighting that in the Sanction Resolution all the sanction criteria established in numeral 3 of article 248 of the TUO of the LPAG, the Sanctions Regulation and in the TUO of the LMV were analyzed, as detailed in considerations 48 onwards of the Sanction Resolution. In this way, the evaluation of the sanction considered all the criteria established in the regulations to grade it, evidence of this is that despite Coril SAB having committed a very serious nature infringement, it was sanctioned with a fine corresponding to a lower classification; That, regarding the accreditation of real damage to the market, the client or third parties in consideration 59 of the Sanction Resolution 18, it was stated that no economic harm caused nor a repercussion in the market has been
accredited, however it is noted that it has violated the legal good related to the integrity of the market, since the brokerage society has the obligation to manage its activity in an orderly and prudent manner, and not use the intermediation account as a bank account of the financial system. On the other hand, non-compliance or not with the AML/CFT is not a topic that should be analyzed in the present case;

18
“59. Regarding the economic harm caused and the repercussion in the market, in the present case, it has not been evidenced that the infringement under evaluation in the present administrative sanctioning procedure in which CORIL SAB has incurred has produced a concrete quantifiable harm in the market; that is, it has not been determined that it has affected in a concrete way or caused economic damage to one or more investors, so it has not been evidenced that there has been repercussion in the market;” (the underlining is ours).

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
“Decenio de la Igualdad de Oportunidades para Mujeres y Hombres” "Año de la recuperación y consolidación de la economía peruana" 9 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 the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml That, with regard to the arguments referring to the fact that Coril SAB did not proceed with intent or with the aim of obtaining benefits irregularly and that no real effect on the interests of the investors or market has occurred, the Sanction Resolution when analyzing all the criteria of sanction established in the regulations, evaluated, among others, these aspects, stating that, the intentionality or intent on the part of Coril SAB was not verified, it was not accredited that it obtained a benefit that is directly related to the infringement committed; and, no effect on the investors or the market was determined. In that sense, these three aspects were analyzed and taken into account in the Sanction Resolution, a position that this office shares; That, regarding the application of articles 25 and 26 of the Sanctions Regulation, as developed above, in the Sanction Resolution it has complied with evaluating the sanction criteria established in article 25 19 of the Sanctions Regulation; and, regarding article 26 20 of the referred legal body, which addresses the mitigating conditions of responsibility, we must state that, Coril SAB, has not substantiated the facts that would be the mitigating factors in the present case. Now, regarding the different arguments raised in this point:

19 Article 25.- SANCTION CRITERIA
The administrative sanctions imposed must take into account the following criteria:
a) Antecedents, for firm sanctions imposed by the SMV within a period of four (4) years prior to the commission of the infringement to be sanctioned. The commission of the same infringement in the year prior to the infringement to be sanctioned is not considered as antecedents. a) Recidivism, for the commission of the same infringement, that firm sanction imposed by the SMV within a period of one (1) year prior to the commission of the infringement to be sanctioned is taken into account. b) Circumstances of the commission of the infringement. c) Economic harm caused and its repercussion in the market. d) Illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infringement. e) Probability of detection of the infringement. f) Severity of the damage to the public interest and/or protected legal good. g) Existence or not of intentionality in the conduct of the infringer. h) When, from 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 lower classification than the one provided for can be imposed. 20 Article 26.- MITIGATING CONDITIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR INFRACTIONS The following constitute mitigating conditions of responsibility for infractions:
a) Recognition of responsibility by the infringer in an express and written manner, once the administrative sanctioning procedure has been initiated. When the applicable sanction is a fine, it is reduced, taking into account the following

1. If the recognition of the infringement is presented within the period granted for the presentation of defenses,
   the reduction amount will be fifty percent (50%).
2. If the recognition is presented after the expiration of the period granted for the presentation
   of defenses and before the expiration of the period granted to formulate allegations to the instruction report, the reduction amount will be thirty percent (30%).
3. If the recognition is presented after the expiration of the period granted to formulate
   allegations to the instruction report and until before the issuance of the sanction resolution, the amount of reduction will be ten percent (10%). The recognition of responsibility regarding an infringement must be made in a precise, concise, clear, express and unconditional manner, and must not contain ambiguous or contradictory expressions; otherwise, it will not be understood as a recognition. If defenses are presented, despite having made a recognition of responsibility, it will be understood as a non-recognition, proceeding with the authority to evaluate the defenses. b) Contribution of the infringer to the clarification of the infringement. c) The remediation carried out after its request or at the start of the administrative sanctioning procedure.

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
“Decenio de la Igualdad de Oportunidades para Mujeres y Hombres” "Año de la recuperación y consolidación de la economía peruana" 10 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 the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml a) Regarding the principle of reasonableness, it is evidenced in consideration 72 of the Sanction Resolution, 21 its application in imposing a sanction proportional to the infringement committed by Coril SAB, as mentioned above. Thus, a sanction lower than the one provided for has been imposed, going from a very serious infringement to a minor one. In this way, the quantum of the sanction imposed responds to what is strictly necessary to have a deterrent character. On the other hand, it is worth highlighting that, in administrative sanctioning procedures, fines for the same types of infractions can vary considering the particular characteristics of each case, which obligate the application of the sanction grading criteria in a differentiated manner. Consequently, fines of the same types of infractions do not necessarily have a quantitative relationship. b) On the other hand, it is worth clarifying that, at no time has what was stated by Coril SAB been taken as false, evidenced in the present case, a different perception of the scope of the norm. c) Likewise, it cannot be considered that a legitimate expectation has been generated for Coril SAB. In the first place, because there is no Superintendent Resolution that constitutes an administrative precedent (in the terms referred to in numeral 2.8 of Article V of the LPAG, or in the terms referred to in Article VI of the LPAG), regarding the regulatory interpretation given by the appellant. In the second place, even, as mentioned in consideration 34 of the Sanction Resolution, through Letter No. 1835-2022- SMV/10.2 of April 22, 2022, the SMV observed Coril SAB a conduct of a similar nature to that of the present case. In that opportunity it was also being used an intermediation account as an account of the financial system making only deposits and withdrawals from the client without performing operations by the latter. In that sense, it had already been exhorted with anteriority to Coril SAB to limit its activities to those that are permitted for a brokerage society and adopt the respective measures in compliance with the regulations. For all these reasons, it is evident that in the present case Coril SAB acted with negligence and therefore, cannot now allege legitimate expectations generated by the practice and administrative antecedents, this argument must be rejected. That, for the aforementioned reasons, the arguments formulated by Coril SAB, do not disprove the infringement incurred, so it does not proceed to grant its request for revocation of the Sanction Resolution nor for reduction
of the fine imposed; and, Being in accordance with what is provided in numeral 26 of article 12 of the Organization and Functions Regulation of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF and its amendments;

21
“72. However, considering what is exposed in 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 must be proportional to the non-compliance classified as an infringement, and considering the evaluated criteria, this Adjunct Superintendence considers that it is possible to impose on CORIL SAB a sanction corresponding to the lower classification than the one provided for according to what is stated in the last paragraph of article 25° of the Sanctions Regulation.”

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
“Decenio de la Igualdad de Oportunidades para Mujeres y Hombres” "Año de la recuperación y consolidación de la economía peruana" 11 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 the authorship of the signature(s) can be verified at https://apps.firmaperu.gob.pe/web/validador.xhtml RESOLVES:
Article 1°.- Declare unfounded the appeal filed
by Grupo Coril Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. against the Adjunct Superintendent Resolution SMV No. 013-2025-SMV/10.
Article 2°.- Declare the administrative route exhausted.
Article 3°.- Transcribe this resolution to Grupo
Coril Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A., to the Lima Stock Exchange S.A. and to Cavali S.A. ICLV.
Article 4°.- Order the publication of this
resolution on the Institutional Page of the Securities Market Superintendence on the Unique Digital Platform of the Peruvian State (www.gob.pe/smv). Register, communicate and publish. Zósimo Juan Pichihua Serna Superintendent of the Securities Market