Superintendent Resolution No. 093-2025-SMV/02

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship. Superintendent Resolution No. 093-2025-SMV/02 Lima, August 14, 2025 The Superintendent of the Securities Market HAVING SEEN:
The file No. 2023037487 and Report No. 1137-2024- SMV/06, from the Legal Advisory Office, through which it issues an opinion on the appeal filed by Empresa Regional de Servicio Público de Electricidad de Puno S.A.A. (hereinafter, ELECTROPUNO) against Resolution No. 019- 2025-SMV/11 (hereinafter, THE RESOLUTION); CONSIDERING:

1. That, through THE RESOLUTION, ELECTROPUNO was sanctioned
   with a fine of 20 UIT, for having committed two (02) infractions of serious nature typified in subsection 2.19 of numeral 2 of Annex I of the Regulation of Sanctions, approved by SMV Resolution No. 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATION) , for not informing the dividend registration date observing the deadlines established in the Regulation on Cut-off, Registration and Delivery, approved by Conasev Resolution No. 069-2006-EF/94.10, when communicating the material events of May 4, 2023 (Charge No. 01) and April 11, 2024 (Charge No. 2);
2. That, through a letter presented on March 31,
   2025, ELECTROPUNO filed an appeal (hereinafter the APPEAL) whose petition requests that the nullity of THE RESOLUTION be declared, the imposed fine be set aside, and the corresponding administrative sanctioning procedure be archived;
3. That, through Superintendent Resolution No. 040-
   2025-SMV/02, the present administrative sanctioning procedure was resolved to be classified as high complexity, according to numerals 2 and 3 of article 1 of Resolution SMV No. 013-2024-SMV/01;
   I. ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPEAL
4. That, from the evaluation carried out, it is observed that the
   appeal meets the requirements established in articles 113, 207, 209 and 211 of Law No. 27444, General Administrative Procedure Law 2 (in

1 2.- Serious
(...)
2.19 Inform the registration and delivery dates without observing the deadlines and other provisions established in the
regulation of the matter.
(...)
2 Article 113.- Requirements of the writings

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship hereinafter, LPAG), given that it was filed within the deadline of 15 days of notification of the administrative act 3 and is substantiated;
II. APPEAL
5. That, below are exposed succinctly the
arguments contained in the APPEAL presented by ELECTROPUNO, as well as the evaluation thereof;
6. That, ELECTROPUNO alleges that it does not issue bonds,
shares or short-term instruments, in the securities market. It adds that the information it registers in the Public Registry of the Securities Market (hereinafter, RPMV), is solely informative and does not have decisive character on third parties. Regarding this, it specifies that it is a State company that lists on the Lima Stock Exchange (hereinafter, the BVL), but does not trade and currently the National Fund for Financing of State Business Activity (hereinafter, the FONAFE) is its majority shareholder, with a participation of 99.65%; the rest are 3,360 minority shareholders, with a participation of 0.35%, with an average capital per shareholder of S/ 150. It adds that it does not register negotiation and/or trading of shares, because its shares are not for sale, since, being a State Company, it does not require third-party financing. Therefore, it considers that its actions have not generated harm to the public interest and/or protected legal good. It points out that, as derived from Consideration No. 37 of THE RESOLUTION, on the dates of the commission of the facts

Any writing that is presented before any entity must contain the following:

1. Full names and surnames, domicile and number of National Identity Document or foreigner's ID card
   of the administered party, and if applicable, the quality of representative and of the person represented.
2. The concrete expression of what is requested, the factual grounds that support it and, when possible, the legal ones.
3. Place, date, signature or digital fingerprint, in case of not knowing how to sign or being impeded.
4. The indication of the body, the entity or the authority to which it is addressed, understood thereby, as far as possible, to the
   authority of the closest degree to the user, according to the hierarchy, with competence to hear and resolve it.
5. The address of the place where notifications of the procedure are desired to be received, when it is different from the
   real domicile exposed by virtue of numeral 1. This designation of domicile produces its effects from its indication and is presumed subsistent, unless its change is expressly communicated. Likewise, the electronic mail or, if applicable, the electronic mailbox, pursuant to article 20 of this law.
6. The list of documents and attachments attached, indicated in the TUPA.
7. The identification of the matter file, regarding procedures already initiated.
   Article 207. Administrative resources
   207.1 Administrative resources are:
   a) Reconsideration resource b) Appeal resource Only in the event that by law or legislative decree it is expressly established, the filing of the administrative resource of revision is admissible.
   207.2 The term for filing the resources is fifteen (15) days peremptory (...)
   Article 209.- Appeal resource
   The appeal resource shall be filed when the challenge is based on a different interpretation of the evidence produced or when it concerns matters of pure law, and must be directed to the same authority that issued the act that is challenged so that it elevates the proceedings to the hierarchical superior.
   Article 211.- Requirements of the resource
   The resource writing must indicate the act from which the appeal is made and will comply with the other requirements provided in article 113 of the present Law 3 The appealed resolution was notified on 10/03/2025 and the appeal was filed on 31/03/2025, within the deadline established.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship subject to analysis no operations were carried out in the stock exchange round and that since 2018 to date no stock exchange round operation has been carried out either;
7. That, in order to focus the analysis, it is worth specifying that the
infractions imputed to ELECTROPUNO refer to:

• Charge 1: Through a material event of April 18, 2023,
  ELECTROPUNO communicated that the Mandatory Annual Shareholders' Meeting agreed, among other points, on the distribution of dividends corresponding to the 2022 exercise, as well as delegating on the Board of Directors of the society to determine and inform the registration and delivery dates. Subsequently, through a material event of May 4, 2023, ELECTROPUNO communicated that in board session the registration and delivery dates were set as May 17 and 18, 2023, respectively. In this sense, it is observed that ELECTROPUNO would not have complied with what established in article 7 of the Regulation on cut-off, registration and delivery (hereinafter, the RFCRE), approved by Conasev Resolution No. 069- 2006-EF/94.10, since the registration date was not informed at least twelve (12) business days.
• Charge 2: Through the material event of April 01, 2024,
  ELECTROPUNO communicated that the Mandatory Annual Shareholders' Meeting agreed, among other points, on the distribution of profits corresponding to the 2023 exercise, as well as delegating on the Board of Directors of the society to determine and inform the registration and delivery dates. Subsequently, through a material event of April 11, 2024, ELECTROPUNO communicated that it was fixed as registration and delivery dates April 26 and 29, 2024, respectively. In this sense, it is observed that ELECTROPUNO would not have complied with what established in article 7 of the RFCRE, since the registration date has not been informed at least twelve (12) business days.

8. That, regarding the obligations of issuers in the
   securities market, in the present case, it is observed that ELECTROPUNO did not comply with observing the deadline set by article 7 of the RFCRE for determining the registration and delivery dates, communicated through the material events referred to in Charge 1 and Charge 2, conduct that is typified in subsection 2.19 of numeral 2 of Annex I of the SANCTIONS REGULATION;
9. That, regarding the arguments that
   ELECTROPUNO does not issue bonds, shares or short-term instruments, in the securities market, that the information it registers in the RPMV is solely informative and does not have decisive character on third parties, since it is a State company that lists on the BVL, but does not trade and currently its majority shareholder is the FONAFE, it must be specified that the obligation to comply with securities market norms, is not subordinated to the type of issuer (whether it is a State company or not) nor to verify if the values registered in the RPMV trade or not, or if they have a volume or not of negotiation on the BVL, since what is sought with the aforementioned regulation is to guarantee the transparency of information in the securities market and the protection of investors;

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
10. That, likewise, the fact that the FONAFE is the
majority shareholder of ELECTROPUNO, with a participation of 99.65% of shareholding, and that the rest of its shareholders are minority (3,360 persons), with a participation of 0.35%, does not justify that said shareholders do not have the right to receive true, sufficient and timely information from the issuer, as such information allows them to guarantee their rights as such and adopt the decisions they deem convenient to make;
11. That, although ELECTROPUNO is a company under the
scope of the FONAFE, this does not exempt it from the responsibility of complying, like the rest of issuers, with the obligations imposed by the securities market regulations, since this would mean differentiated treatment;
12. That, for the reasons stated, it is not possible
legally to support the arguments of ELECTROPUNO, since what is expected is that compliance with the legal obligations imposed, without any exception, on every issuer whose values are inscribed in the RPMV;
13. That, regarding the determination of the sanction and the
argument that THE RESOLUTION presents vices of nullity for lack of motivation, it must be indicated, as a prior aspect to the development of ELECTROPUNO's challenge arguments, that the alleged vice refers exclusively to the determination of the quantum of the imposed fine and not to the administrative responsibility established by the administrative act subject to challenge, since ELECTROPUNO states:
"Therefore, the challenged Resolution contains vices and lacks motivation, to substantiate an exorbitant fine that will affect directly the Peruvian State of which it is also part the same SMV, as Electro Puno S.A.A. is a Public Law company."
14. That, regarding this, in order to determine if we are
or are not facing any of the causes of absolute nullity for transcendental vices, one must review the text of article 10° of the LPAG 4 ;

"Article 10 of the TUO of the LPAG.- Causes of nullity Are vices of the administrative act, which cause its absolute nullity, the following:

1. The contravention to the Constitution, to the laws or to the regulatory norms.
2. The defect or omission of any of its validity requirements, unless one of the situations of
   conservation of the act referred to in Article 14 occurs.
3. Express acts or those resulting from automatic approval or positive administrative silence,
   by which faculties, or rights, are acquired, when they are contrary to the legal system, or when the requirements, documentation or essential procedures for their acquisition are not met.
4. Administrative acts that constitute a criminal offense, or that are issued as a consequence of the same."

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
15. That, in the case at hand ELECTROPUNO requests
the nullity of the entire sanctioning procedure for the reason mentioned previously, an aspect we will evaluate to verify if we are facing the supposed vice of nullity in the extent of the determination of the administrative sanction by the sanctioning body;
16. That, regarding the motivation of THE RESOLUTION, it is
observed that the line organ in Section V. "Determination of the Sanction" has made an analysis of each of the sanction criteria (Considerations 28 to 39), which has allowed it to determine the imposed fine;
17. That, as part of the analysis on the supposed nullity
of the Resolution for lack of motivation, alleged by ELECTROPUNO, below, the foundations exposed in the APPEAL will be analyzed;
18. That, regarding the gravity of the damage,
ELECTROPUNO alleges that there is no damage to the public interest and/or protected legal good, since the company does not trade on the stock exchange and its shares are not for sale; in consequence, it does not issue bonds, shares or short-term instruments, in search of private or third-party financing, for this reason, the reported information does not influence, nor has repercussions in the securities market, being solely informative and does not have decisive character on third parties;
19. That, regarding this, this Office considers that the
actions of ELECTROPUNO did affect the transparency of the securities market, by not complying with its obligations to observe the established registration dates, which prevents the market and its minority shareholders from being duly informed;
20. That, regarding the sanctioning antecedents of the
issuer, ELECTROPUNO questions whether antecedents for a different infractor type than the one referred to in THE RESOLUTION were taken into account;
21. That, regarding this, article 25 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION,
in concordance with articles 344 of the TUO LMV and 230 of the LPAG, states that when imposing the sanction, antecedents will be taken into account, for firm sanctions imposed, by the SMV within a period of four (4) years prior to the commission of the infraction to be sanctioned. The norm does not specify that it concerns sanctions imposed for the same type of infraction. Regarding this, it is worth noting that there is another criterion, that of recidivism, which evaluates the existence of sanctions imposed on the administered party for the commission of the same infraction, for this, it takes into account those firm sanctions, imposed by the SMV within a period of one (1) year;
22. That, THE RESOLUTION takes into account the sanctions
imposed on ELECTROPUNO in the last four (4) years, to evaluate the criterion of sanctioning antecedents (Consideration No. 32); and those imposed for the same infraction in the last year, to evaluate the criterion of recidivism (Consideration No. 33). In this sense, it is not observed that the evaluation performed is contrary to the applicable norm;

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
23. That, regarding the Circumstances of the commission
of the infraction, ELECTROPUNO refers to Consideration No. 34 of THE RESOLUTION and to article 3 of Legislative Decree No. 1031, Legislative Decree that promotes the efficiency of the State business activity, which states:
"Article 3.- Scope of State Business Activity
State Business Activity develops in a subsidiary manner, authorized by Law of the Congress of the Republic and based on the reason of high public interest or manifest national convenience, in any economic sector, without that it implies an exclusive reserve in favor of the State or prevents access to private investment. State Companies are governed by the norms of State Business Activity and of the State Administrative Systems, as far as they are applicable, and subsidiarily by the norms that govern private business activity."
24. That, likewise, ELECTROPUNO alleges that, being part
of the FONAFE, it must comply with the Dividend Policy, approved by Board Agreement No. 006-2011/006-FONAFE and its amendments, which establishes:
"COMPANIES UNDER THE SCOPE OF FONAFE
The Society has as general policy to distribute as dividends 100% of the distributable profits of each exercise among its shareholders.
The delivery of dividends to the shareholders of the society will be carried out within a period of thirty (30) calendar days following the date of holding the Mandatory Annual General Shareholders' Meeting that approves the distribution of the same, being the responsibility of the Board to carry out the necessary actions to facilitate said delivery"
25. That, ELECTROPUNO adds that it is subject to
special norms of the sector (FONAFE, Ministry of Energy and Mines, etc.) which cannot be modified by norms of a general character. In this sense, it manifests that there would be an antinomy between what is stated in the FONAFE Dividend Policy and what is required by the securities market regulations, being that, in its view, the norm that must be applied is the special one, that is, that of the FONAFE;
26. That, ELECTROPUNO considers, additionally, that it has not infringed what is stated in article 7° of the Regulation on cut-off, registration and
delivery (hereinafter, the RFCRE), approved by Conasev Resolution No. 069-2006- EF/94.10 5 , because between the communication date and the registration date there is an

5 Article 7°.- The issuer must inform the registration date within a period of fifteen days from the occurrence of the corporate agreement or, if applicable, from the corresponding inscription in the Public Records. Additionally, whether it is an registrable act or a non-registrable act, the registration date must be informed at least twelve days before the day determined by the issuer as the registration date. This deadline does not include the day of the communication as a material event nor the day established as the registration date. The delivery date that is not related to a registration date must be informed within a period of fifteen days after the corresponding inscription in the Public Records.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendency
Electronically signed document under the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship interval of 12 previous days (Sic.) They state that the aforementioned norm does not establish that the deadline is counted in business days; however, the first instance organ of the SMV considered so, to the detriment of ELECTROPUNO;
27. That, finally it alleges that the facts were indeed
communicated to the SMV, having acted under the principle of good faith and transparency, having been, moreover, diligent in the deadlines because the deadline in business days is shorter;
28. That, regarding this, it is worth keeping in mind that the FONAFE Dividend Policy and the RFCRE regulate distinct legal obligations. The first regulates "the delivery of dividends to the shareholders of the society, while the second regulates "the deadlines that every Issuer must observe to communicate as a material event the registration date", that is, the advance deadline to communicate as a material event the registration date (which will be the day established to determine the holders of the dividends). Therefore, there is no antinomy between said norms;
29. That, without prejudice to this, it is worth noting that article 1
of the TUO LMV states:
"Article 1.- Purpose and Scope of the Law.- The purpose of the present law is to promote orderly development and the transparency of the securities market, as well as adequate protection of the investor. Public offers of securities and their issuers (...) are included in this law"
30. That, as can be observed, the norm that governs the
securities market is the TUO LMV, which specifically states that they are included within its scope public offers of securities (such as the values of ELECTROPUNO, inscribed in the RPMV) and their issuers, that is, ELECTROPUNO;
31. That, for its part, article 7 of the same norm
states:
"Article 7.- Control and Supervision.- The Securities Market Superintendency (SMV) is the public institution responsible for the supervision and control of compliance with this law. The named institution is empowered to, adhering to common law norms and general principles of law, interpret administratively the scope of the legal provisions relative to the matters addressed in this law. It is also empowered to issue the corresponding regulations."

The delivery date referred to in the preceding paragraph must be informed as a material event at least five days before the day determined by the issuer as the delivery date. This deadline does not include the day of the communication as a material event nor the day established as the delivery date.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Documento electrónico firmado digitalmente en el marco de la Ley N° 27269, Ley de Firmas y Certificados Digitales, su Reglamento y modificatorias. La integridad del documento y la autoría
32. That, as can be observed, the SMV and the regulations it issues are mandatory for those participating in the securities market, including issuers such as ELECTROPUNO. The RFCRE is a general norm, issued by a state entity exercising its regulatory power to ensure transparency, proper price formation, and investor protection, and is mandatory compliance for all market actors;
33. That, regarding the alleged arbitrary application of business days, it is necessary to mention that this deadline was expressly communicated through Circular No. 099-2018-SMV/11.1, Circular "Cut-off Date, Registration and Delivery"6, in whose table "Minimum disclosure deadline for Registration Date" (page No. 5), reference is made to business days, reflecting what is stated in letter f) of article 8 of the TUO LMV, which defines the term 'days' as useful (business);
34. That, as can be observed, the conduct of ELECTROPUNO has not been diligent in failing to observe the provisions and deadlines established to communicate the registration date as a material event, which constitutes an infraction;
35. That, regarding the economic damage caused and its repercussion on the market, from the actions in the file, it has not been evidenced that the conduct of ELECTROPUNO has caused economic damage, understood as economic damage occasioned to one or more investors, an aspect that ELECTROPUNO does not question;
36. That, regarding the illicit benefit resulting from the commission of the infraction, ELECTROPUNO alleges that, as derived from Consideration No. 36 of the RESOLUTION, no illegal benefit is proven and this is because 100% of the dividends corresponding to its main shareholder FONAFE have been paid. In this regard, it should be noted that, although no illegal benefit obtained has been proven, this does not bypass the responsibility of the issuer;
37. That, regarding the probability of detection of the infraction, it should be clarified that the probability of detection of this infraction is high, since the SMV carries out periodic control actions, an aspect that ELECTROPUNO does not question;
38. That, regarding the existence or non-existence of intent in the conduct of the offender, ELECTROPUNO alleges that, according to Consideration No. 38 of the RESOLUTION, it is not proven that it acted with intent, so this criterion would not have been configured;
39. That, on this particular point, it should be noted that although there are not sufficient elements to prove that ELECTROPUNO acted intentionally, its conduct cannot be overlooked as negligent for failing to observe the established deadlines. Additionally, it must be taken into account that we are dealing with an issuer whose values are registered in the Public Registry of the Securities Market for more than twenty years and, therefore, has been complying with the RFCRE since its entry into force and with Circular No. 099-2018-SMV/11.1, Circular "Cut-off Date, Registration and Delivery", since its date of dissemination;
40. That, based on the challenge formulated to the sanctioning criteria, ELECTROPUNO alleges that not all the scenarios (or they would not have been configured) exist to establish a serious sanction against it. As a consequence, it alleges i) that the imposed sanction is disproportionate and excessive; and ii) that the RESOLUTION is null ab initio due to the causes established in numerals 1) and 2) of article 10° of the LPAG, specifically regarding a supposed lack of motivation, which violates constitutional guarantees protected in the Political Constitution of Peru and the LPAG. It also alleges the supposed violation of the principles of legality and due process;
41. That, ELECTROPUNO errs in considering that the sanctioning criteria have the purpose of determining the existence of responsibility. Likewise, it errs in considering that the motivation of the resolution is limited to proving said criteria. These do not configure the infractor type, but rather these criteria are oriented towards the analysis and calculation of the sanction to be imposed for the previously established infraction;
42. That, regarding the application of the principle of reasonableness, ELECTROPUNO alleges that the imposed fine is disproportionate and excessive, due to the lack of damage to the public interest and/or protected legal good, since the company does not trade on the stock exchange and its shares are not for sale, consequently it does not issue bonds, shares or short-term instruments, in search of financing from private parties or third parties, for this reason, the reported information does not influence, nor has repercussion on the securities market, being only informative and having no decisive character in third parties, despite this it continues to comply with registering "material events". It adds that on the dates of the commission of the facts under analysis no operations were carried out in the trading room and that since 2018 to date no trading room operation has been carried out;
43. That, regarding the motivation of administrative acts, Morón 7 writes:
“Content of the duty to motivate
The content of the requirement we estimate comprises both the justification of the legal aspects –through the citation of the relevant legal sources, the synthesis of the legal arguments alleged and those followed to accept or reject them– as well as the justification of the facts –relation of real circumstances appreciated and verified by the official–. Regarding the justification of the legal aspects, the motivation implies the express citation of the pertinent normative source, the synthesis of the legal interpretation given to the provision and the expression of the sense and manner in which it is estimated that the provision applies to the case submitted for knowledge.

7 MORON URBINA, Juan Carlos (2020) Comments on the General Administrative Procedure Law. Volume I. Lima: Gaceta Jurídica. Pages 247 and 248

PERÚ Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market
Superintendence
Digitally signed electronic document within the framework of Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship The citation of the appreciated facts imposes that the Administration resolve only on real circumstances, and considered certain that serve to formulate conviction of material truth in the authority deciding the procedure. It is concretized in the relation of the relevant proven facts of the specific case. Not duly justified are non-existent assumptions, lacking reliability, unexamined or generalities that as artificial or biased pretexts hide deviations in the exercise of public function. In addition to this, the motivation of resolutions must include the citation of the main arguments of the administrator(s) and the way in which they have been taken into account at the moment of resolving, both in a dismissive and affirmative manner.”
44. That, from reading the RESOLUTION, it is observed that in section 2.2 the charges imputed to ELECTROPUNO are detailed objectively, in section 2.3 its defenses are detailed; likewise, in section 4.1 an analysis of each of the charges and defenses is performed, citing the applicable legal basis and the development of the facts and why the arguments of the administrated party are not supported;
45. That, after said analysis, the first instance body, in the RESOLUTION, determines that the conduct of ELECTROPUNO constitutes an infraction (Consideration No. 27) to which the sanction of a fine corresponds. To determine the amount, it performed the corresponding analysis on the application of the principle of reasonableness, for which reason the imposed fine is reduced to the range of minor infractions and not in the one that would correspond, that is, in the range of serious infractions. Considering the above, it is not observed that the RESOLUTION suffers from a lack of motivation;
46. That, as can be observed, in the RESOLUTION each of the sanctioning criteria has been analyzed and the principle of reasonableness has been applied, exposing the reasons for each decision;
47. That, regarding the supposed violation of the principle of legality, the duty to be founds itself in the RFCRE; likewise, the corresponding infractor type is duly reflected in the SANCTIONING REGULATION, both norms, issued by a public entity in the exercise of its functions. In that sense, all requirements of legality are met, since the action of the SMV is framed within respect for the Constitution, the law and the right, within the faculties attributed to it and according to the purposes for which they were conferred;
48. That, regarding the supposed violation of the principle of due process, it is not observed that the right of ELECTROPUNO to offer and/or produce evidence has been limited; nor its right to expose its arguments; likewise, the resolution is duly founded and the acts subject to the sanctioning procedure have been duly notified. In that sense, no violation of said principle is observed either;
49. That, regarding this topic, ELECTROPUNO adds that it does not correspond to impose a fine equivalent to a serious sanction, considering that when evaluating the facts and context a lesser sanction could have been imposed applying the regime of graduality of sanctions. Nevertheless, as can be evidenced from reading article 2 of the RESOLUTION and, as already developed in preceding paragraphs, the imposed fine (of 20 UIT) is a consequence of the reduction made in application of the last paragraph of article 25 of the SANCTIONING REGULATION, which provides that, when from the evaluation of the sanctioning criteria, it is determined that there is no proportionality between the sanction to be imposed and the imputed facts, by exception and through a duly founded resolution, a sanction corresponding to a classification lower than that provided for may be imposed; thus that notwithstanding ELECTROPUNO incurred in two (02) serious infractions, a sanction corresponding to minor infractions was applied to it;
50. That, for all the foregoing, no violation of the principle of due process is observed either; and,
Being in accordance with what is provided in numeral 26 of article 12 of the Regulation of Organization and Functions of the SMV, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF and its amendments; RESOLVES:
Article 1º.- Declare unfounded the appeal filed by Empresa Regional de Servicio Público de Electricidad de Puno S.A.A. against Superintendent Adjunct Resolution SMV No. 019-2025-SMV/11.
Article 2º.- Declare the administrative route exhausted.
Article 3º.- Notify this resolution to Empresa Regional de Servicio Público de Electricidad de Puno S.A.A.
Article 4º.- Order the dissemination 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