Superintendent's Resolution No. 098-2026-SMV/02 on Grupo Coril SAB's appeal against a sanction

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendency of Securities Market
Electronic document digitally signed under Law N° 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship Superintendent's Resolution Nº 098-2026-SMV/02 Lima, September 22, 2026 The Superintendent of the Securities Market

WHEREAS:
File N° 2022023477, which contains, among others, the appeal filed by Grupo Coril Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. against Deputy Superintendency Resolution SMV N° 030-2023-SMV/10, as well as Report N° 1482-2026-SMV/06 issued by the Legal Advisory Office;

CONSIDERING:

1. On February 27, 2020 1, Grupo Coril Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. (hereinafter, CORIL SAB) submitted, as the 2019 Control System Evaluation Audit Report (hereinafter, 2019 CONTROL SYSTEM REPORT), a document called "Letter of Recommendations on Accounting Internal Control Matters and Others December 31, 2019" (hereinafter, LETTER OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1);
2. By Official Letter N° 3554-2020-SMV/10.2, notified on October 8, 2020, CORIL SAB was informed that LETTER OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1 did not comply with the purpose and scope required by Article 139 2 of the Regulations for Intermediation Agents, approved by SMV Resolution N° 034-2015-SMV/01 and its amendments (hereinafter, RAI), and was required to submit the 2019 CONTROL SYSTEM REPORT within ten (10) business days;
3. On October 21, 2020, CORIL SAB requested a ten (10) business day extension to address Official Letter N° 3554-2020-SMV/10.2;
4. By Official Letter N° 3803-2020-SMV/10.2 notified on October 22, 2020, CORIL SAB was granted the requested extension;
5. On November 5, 2020, CORIL SAB sent a response letter to Official Letter N° 3554-2020-SMV/10.2, stating, among other things, that

1 File N° 2020008017.
2 "Article 139.- Of the audit report on the control system evaluation The Control System Evaluation Report must contain the audit firm's evaluation regarding the Agent's Control System, observing whether it meets its objectives and offers reasonable assurance in all relevant aspects of preventing or detecting errors or irregularities in the normal course of the Agent's activities. The scope of this evaluation must include at least cash operations, repo operations, operations with Financial Instruments not registered in centralized mechanisms, operations with Financial Instruments traded abroad, operations with derivative instruments, control of prudential indicators, portfolio management, information processing computer systems, as well as the main operations and areas that the audit firm considers most important for the Agent." (Underlining and emphasis added)

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendency of Securities Market
Electronic document digitally signed under Law N° 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship its external auditors Caipo y Asociados S. Civil de R.L. (hereinafter, KPMG) affirm to have included in their evaluation all points established in Article 139 of the RAI. Likewise, they attached KPMG's response letter C-0825-20 dated October 30, 2020, and the new version of LETTER OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1 called "Letter of Recommendations on Accounting Internal Control Matters and Others December 31, 2019" (hereinafter, LETTER OF RECOMMENDATIONS 2);
6. By Official Letter N° 2878-2022-SMV/10.3 of June 1, 2022, a charge was imputed to CORIL SAB for not having presented the 2019 CONTROL SYSTEM REPORT in accordance with the deadline established in Article 128, literal c) of the RAI 3;
7. Subsequently, by Deputy Superintendency Resolution SMV N° 030-2023-SMV/10 (hereinafter, SANCTION RESOLUTION), notified on June 1, 2023, the Deputy Superintendency of Prudential Supervision (SASP) resolved to sanction CORIL SAB with a fine of four (4) Tax Units (UIT), for having incurred in one (01) serious infraction typified in Annex X, item 2, numeral 2.16 of the Sanctions Regulations, approved by SMV Resolution N° 035-2018-SMV/01 (hereinafter, SANCTIONS REGULATIONS), for failing to present the 2019 CONTROL SYSTEM REPORT in accordance with the deadline established in Article 128, literal c), of the RAI;
8. On June 22, 2023, CORIL SAB filed an appeal against the SANCTION RESOLUTION;
9. That, by Report N° 1482-2026-SMV/06, the Legal Advisory Office issued an opinion on the appeal presented by CORIL SAB;

I. CORIL SAB'S DEFENSE ARGUMENTS
10. That, below, the main arguments of the appeal filed by CORIL SAB are presented:
(i) The extension requested for addressing Official Letter N° 3554-2020-SMV/10.02 of October 8, 2020, was not intended to prepare a new 2019 CONTROL SYSTEM REPORT to the one previously submitted on February 27, 2020, but rather to transfer the observations made in the aforementioned official letter to the audit firm KPMG. Therefore, the 2019 CONTROL SYSTEM REPORT was submitted in a timely manner. (ii) It is questionable to attribute to the brokerage firm the obligation to review the content of audit reports, since the independence and autonomy of the audit firm, required in literal A.16 of International Auditing Standard – ISA 200, could be compromised. Likewise, it could be aggravated in cases where such reports must be submitted to a regulatory body, as is the present case. For this reason, the audit firm's evaluation must be carried out without the intervention of the audited entity. (iii) CORIL SAB has been sufficiently diligent in observing that the title and initial scope of LETTER OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1 correspond to the evaluation of the internal control system, so that what is stated in paragraph 73 of the SANCTION RESOLUTION does not apply to the present case. Furthermore, Article 132 of the RAI states that the audit firm is solely responsible for preparing the internal control system report it issues —taking into consideration that for its preparation and result the audited entity does not intervene, in order to safeguard its independence and autonomy—; and that the intermediation agent only has the obligation to submit said report within the deadline established in Article 128 of the aforementioned regulation. (iv) The SANCTION RESOLUTION states that the imputed infraction refers to the non-presentation of the 2019 CONTROL SYSTEM REPORT, in accordance with Article 128 of the RAI. However, in paragraph 73 of the aforementioned resolution, it is concluded that it would not have been presented within the deadline established by the regulations because it does not comply with the content required by the regulations; which is contradictory. (v) The principle of typicality contemplated in numeral 4 of Article 230 of the Consolidated Text of Law N° 27444, General Administrative Procedure Law, approved by Supreme Decree N° 006-2026-JUS (hereinafter, TUO LPAG), provides that administrators cannot be imposed with obligations not provided for in a norm. In this regard, it should be noted that the RAI does not expressly contemplate that the intermediation agent is responsible for supervising the content of the internal control system report, nor for reviewing the objectives or scope established therein. Therefore, it is not possible to assume that the administrator has the obligation to review whether the report complies with the provisions of Article 139 of the RAI. Otherwise, legal certainty would be affected by the lack of certainty regarding the scope of obligations. Furthermore, other entities such as the Tribunal for the Defense of
Competition and Intellectual Property and the Constitutional Court have ruled on the principle of typicality and the prohibition of extensive interpretation, which are cited in the appeal.

II. EVALUATION OF THE APPEAL
2.1. Formal requirements of the appeal
11. That, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 109.1 of Article 109 of the TUO LPAG, against "an act that is presumed to violate, affect, disregard or injure a right or a legitimate interest, its contradiction proceeds administratively in the manner provided in this Law, so that it may be revoked, modified, annulled or its effects suspended";

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendency of Securities Market
Electronic document digitally signed under Law N° 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
12. That, in this regard, Article 207 of the TUO LPAG provides that administrative remedies are reconsideration and appeal; and that their filing must be made within fifteen (15) peremptory days. Complementarily, subsection 134.1 of Article 134 of the TUO LPAG 4 provides that when the term is indicated in days, it will be understood as consecutive business days, excluding from the calculation those non-working days of the service, and national or regional non-working holidays;
13. That, in addition to the foregoing, Articles 113 5, 209 6 and 211 7 of the TUO LPAG establish the requirements that the appeal must meet;
14. That, now, from the evaluation carried out based on said legal framework, it has been verified that the appeal filed by CORIL SAB complies with the requirements established in Articles 113, 207, 209 and 211 of the TUO LPAG, given that it was filed within fifteen (15) business days from the notification of the administrative act, it is based on pure legal issues and complies with the other requirements established by the regulations, so it is appropriate to issue an opinion on its grounds;

2.2. Evaluation of the arguments of the appeal
15. That, in the first place, CORIL SAB alleges that the 2019 CONTROL SYSTEM REPORT was presented on February 27, 2020; since the document submitted in response to Official Letter N° 3554-2020-SMV/10.2 does not constitute a new version of the original report;

4 "Article 134.- Passage of the term
134.1 When the term is indicated in days, it will be understood as consecutive business days, excluding from the calculation those non-working days of the service, and national or regional non-working holidays.
(...)"
5 "Article 113.- Requirements for writings
Every writing presented to any entity must contain the following:

1. Full names and surnames, address and National Identity Document number or foreigner's card of the administrator, and where applicable, the capacity 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 grounds.
3. Place, date, signature or fingerprint, in case of not knowing how to sign or being unable to do so.
4. The indication of the body, entity or authority to which it is addressed, understood as, as far as possible, the authority of the closest degree to the user, according to the hierarchy, with competence to know and resolve it.
5. The address of the place where notifications of the procedure are desired to be received, when different from the real address stated under numeral 1. This designation of address takes effect from its indication and is presumed to subsist, unless its change is expressly communicated. Likewise, the email or, where applicable, the electronic mailbox, in accordance with Article 20 of this law.
6. The list of documents and annexes attached, indicated in the TUPA.
7. The identification of the relevant file, in the case of already initiated procedures."
   6 "Article 209.- Appeal
   The appeal shall be filed when the challenge is based on a different interpretation of the evidence produced or when it concerns pure legal issues, and must be addressed to the same authority that issued the challenged act so that it may elevate the proceedings to the superior hierarchical authority."
   7 "Article 211.- Requirements of the appeal
   The appeal document must indicate the act being appealed and comply with the other requirements provided in Article 113 of this Law."

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendency of Securities Market
Electronic document digitally signed under Law N° 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its Regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
16. That, in this regard, it should be noted that the text in force on the date of the commission of the sanction, of literal c) of Article 128 of the RAI provided the following:
"Article 128.- Information to the SMV
Audit firms must deliver to the SMV, when required, a copy of all documentation or working papers that support the reports and opinions they issue, as appropriate.
The Agent must submit to the SMV:
(...) c) Report containing the opinion formulated as to whether the Agent's control meets its objectives and offers reasonable assurance in all relevant aspects of preventing or detecting errors or irregularities in the normal course of the Agent's activities.
This opinion and reports must be submitted to the SMV before February 28 of the following year." (Underlining and emphasis added)
17. That, complementarily, Article 139 of the aforementioned regulation contemplates the following:
"Article 139.- Of the audit report on the control system evaluation The Control System Evaluation Report must contain the audit firm's evaluation regarding the Agent's Control System, observing whether it meets its objectives and offers reasonable assurance in all relevant aspects of preventing or detecting errors or irregularities in the normal course of the Agent's activities. The scope of this evaluation must include at least cash operations, repo operations, operations with Financial Instruments not registered in centralized mechanisms, operations with Financial Instruments traded abroad, operations with derivative instruments, control of prudential indicators, portfolio management, information processing computer systems, as well as the main operations and areas that the audit firm considers most important for the Agent." (Underlining and emphasis added)
18. That, as can be seen from the aforementioned articles, the internal control system report aims for the audit firm to issue an opinion as to whether the intermediation agent's internal control meets its objectives and offers reasonable assurance in all relevant aspects of preventing or detecting errors or irregularities in the normal course of said agent's activities. Likewise, Article 139 of the RAI specifies what the scope of said evaluation must comprise;
19. That, now, from the documents in the file, it has been observed that LETTER OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1, submitted on February 27, 2020, by CORIL SAB, includes the following:
(i) Letter CCI-009-20 dated February 27, 2020
This letter was issued by KPMG to the Board of Directors and General Management of CORIL SAB. It should be noted that, in its first and last paragraph, it stated that: (a) LETTER OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1 was issued as part of the audit of CORIL SAB's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2019; (b) the evaluation of CORIL SAB's internal control system aimed for KPMG to be in a position to express an opinion on the aforementioned financial statements; and, (c) said evaluation was not intended to express an opinion on the internal control system as a whole; as cited below:
"As part of the audit of the financial statements of Grupo Coril Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. (hereinafter "the Company") for the year ended December 31, 2019, we have evaluated the Company's internal control system, to the extent we deemed necessary to determine the nature, timing and extent of the audit procedures, and thus be in a position to express an opinion on its financial statements in accordance with International Auditing Standards approved for application in Peru by the Board of Deans of the Colleges of Public Accountants of Peru." (Underlining added) "As a result of our review, we have obtained certain recommendations that we present on the following pages to assist the Company in the continuous process of improving its procedures and controls. Such recommendations do not necessarily cover all weaknesses that the existing internal control system might have, since, as explained in the preceding paragraphs, our study and evaluation is not intended to express an opinion on said system as a whole." (Underlining added) (ii) Section "Operational, accounting and internal control matters" In this section, KPMG issued recommendations to CORIL SAB on: (a) personnel with vacation periods longer than 60 days; (b) unidentified deposits older than 60 days; (c) intangible assets in use, written off by CORIL SAB; and, (d) income recognized in excess during 2019. Likewise, comments issued by CORIL SAB's Management regarding these recommendations were recorded. (iii) Section "Matters related to tax aspects" In this section, KPMG issued recommendations to CORIL SAB on non-domiciled income, and recorded Management's comments thereon.
20. That, it should be noted that, in no section of LETTER OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1 is it observed that KPMG issued an opinion as to whether CORIL SAB's internal control meets its objectives and offers reasonable assurance in all relevant aspects of preventing or detecting errors or irregularities in the normal course of said agent's activities, as required by Articles 128, literal c), and 139 of the RAI;
21. That, on the other hand, with regard to LETTER OF RECOMMENDATIONS 2, submitted on November 5, 2020, by CORIL SAB, in response to Official Letter N° 3554-2020-SMV/10.2, it is observed that it is comprised of the following:
(i) Letter CCI-009-20 dated February 27, 2020

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores
Electronically signed document under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship This letter is a new version of the one presented in RECOMMENDATION LETTER 1; since, it replaced its last paragraph with the following text:
"(...)
This report has been reviewed as of October 30, 2020, in accordance with specific requirements made by the Securities Market Superintendence and has been clarified in order to explicitly visualize the components provided for by the Intermediary Agents Regulation (SMV Resolution No. 034-2015-SMV/01 and amendments): (i) activities carried out and audit procedures applied, (ii) criteria for the selection of the evaluated sample, and (iii) the recommendations that resulted, if applicable, in compliance with what is established in article 139 of the Intermediary Agents Regulation, carried out according to the procedures described in Section I. Based on the audit procedures we performed and that are described in detail in Section I of this report, we have not identified internal control deficiencies and significant non-compliance related to the requirements of the Intermediary Agents Regulation. Section II includes recommendations for the continuous improvement of the Company's processes". (Underline added) As noted, in this last paragraph it was recorded that: (a) RECOMMENDATION LETTER 2 is a revised version as of October 30, 2020 of RECOMMENDATION LETTER 1, in order to visualize the components of the IAR; and, (b) in KPMG's opinion, no internal control deficiencies and significant non-compliance related to the IAR requirements were identified. (ii) Section "Matters related to compliance with what is established in article 139 of the Intermediary Agents Regulation" This section was added, detailing the procedures applied, the criteria for the selection of the sample and the results obtained regarding: (a) the evaluation of intermediation operations; (b) the evaluation of special aspects; and, (c) the evaluation of other aspects Likewise, the following was clarified, among others:
"Based on the sample of operations determined according to the criteria indicated below, we have executed procedures to review the Company's compliance with the operational and control procedures established in their respective manuals, in accordance with the Intermediary Agents Regulation approved by SMV Resolution No. 034-2015-SMV/01, and its amendments (hereinafter the "Regulation") and other applicable provisions". (Underline added) (iii) Section "Operational, accounting and internal control matters" The recommendations contained in the sections "Operational, accounting and internal control matters" and "Matters related to tax aspects" of RECOMMENDATION LETTER 1 were maintained, as well as the comments of CORIL SAB Management.
22. That, based on the aforementioned, it is observed that RECOMMENDATION LETTER 1 and RECOMMENDATION LETTER 2 are different documents. Furthermore, it is in the latter that KPMG issues its opinion on

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market Superintendence
Electronically signed document under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship the internal control system of CORIL SAB, as well as the results of the procedures applied. Consequently, it is not possible to sustain that RECOMMENDATION LETTER 1 qualifies as the 2019 CONTROL SYSTEM REPORT 2, since it does not meet the purpose and scope required by articles 128, letter c), and 139 of the IAR;
23. That, in that sense, the position exposed in the SANCTION RESOLUTION is shared, regarding that the 2019 CONTROL SYSTEM REPORT was only presented on November 05, 2020, that is, outside the deadline established by article 28 of the IAR. Therefore, it corresponds to dismiss the arguments of CORIL SAB on this point of its appeal;
24. That, in the second place, CORIL SAB alleges that it is not possible to attribute to it the obligation to review the content of the audit reports, since it could compromise the independence and autonomy of the audit firm, required in ISA 200;
25. That, regarding this, it must be taken into account that, the development in the securities market is based on the confidence that investors, potential investors and the market in general can have in the diligent work that the different entities participating in it can have, among which are the stockbroker companies. In that sense, it is necessary that market participants proceed responsibly and carefully in the presentation of eventual and periodic information - such as the Control System Report - deploying the necessary measures that allow them to corroborate that such information is the one required by the regulations;
26. That, in the present context, it would not be justifiable to sustain that a stockbroker company, such as CORIL SAB, has fulfilled its duty to send the Control System Report simply by sending any document or report that differs in nature, purpose and/or scope from what is required by the relevant regulation. Such an approach would undermine the importance of said obligation, compromising the protection of the legal interest that is sought to be ensured through this measure;
27. That, however, this should not mean, under any context, that the intermediary agent is being required to validate the content of the Control System Report or that said entity is being allowed the faculty to interfere with the content of said report, as CORIL SAB alleges; but, only, it is being required to observe if the mentioned document coincides with that whose presentation is required of stockbroker companies, by virtue of what is provided for in articles 128, letter c), and 139 of the IAR. In such a way, said conduct should not generate an impact on the independence and autonomy of the audit firm. Consequently, it corresponds to dismiss the arguments of CORIL SAB on this point of its appeal;
28. That, in the third place, CORIL SAB argues that it has acted diligently by observing that the title and initial scope of RECOMMENDATION LETTER 1 correspond to the evaluation of the control system; so that, under its understanding, what is stated in foundation 73 of the SANCTION RESOLUTION does not correspond:
"73. Regarding this, it must be reiterated what was stated previously, that is, that what was sent by Coril SAB on February 27, 2020 did not comply with what

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market Superintendence
Electronically signed document under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship provided for in article 139 of the IAR, so it was concluded that the intermediary did not comply with presenting the 2019 Control System Report on time. As previously noted, if an intermediary submitted a report on computer or regulatory compliance matters under the name of internal control system evaluation report, it would not be valid to accept that it fulfilled its obligation to remit the latter report according to the purpose and scope of article 139 of the IAR, otherwise, we would be facing a situation in which intermediaries, in order to comply with some obligation to remit specific information, whose scope and purpose are defined by the regulations, could remit any document or report of a different nature, purpose and scope than the one they are obliged to remit, and according to Coril SAB's arguments, the SMV should consider that stockbroker companies fulfilled presenting the specific information on time; which would entail an impact on market transparency, investor protection and market integrity. Likewise, it must be reiterated that the present procedure is not referred to an SMV review regarding the work of the audit for the preparation of the Control System Report;"
29. That, likewise, it alleges that, in the SANCTION RESOLUTION it is stated that the imputed infringement is referred to the non-presentation of the 2019 CONTROL SYSTEM REPORT, in accordance with what is established in article 128, letter c), of the IAR; however, in foundation 73 it is concluded that this was not presented within the deadline established by the regulations because it does not comply with the content required by the regulations; which is contradictory. In addition, it states that, the audit firm is the only responsible for the preparation of the internal control system report and that, the intermediary agent only has the obligation to remit it within the deadline required by the regulations;
30. That, regarding this topic, it is important to point out that the SANCTION RESOLUTION has not addressed the issue of whether the 2019 CONTROL SYSTEM REPORT really reflects the situation of CORIL SAB's control system, nor if it complies with its objectives of providing reasonable assurance in the prevention or detection of errors or irregularities, as established in article 139 of the IAR. Instead, it has focused exclusively on determining if said report was presented within the deadline required by the regulations, that is, before February 28, 2020, as stipulated in article 128, letter c), of the IAR;
31. That, in that sense, as previously exposed, in RECOMMENDATION LETTER 1 it is not observed that KPMG has issued its opinion regarding the internal control system of CORIL SAB, which could have been noticed with the reading of it. Likewise, in the first paragraph of said document, it was stated, expressly, that it was issued as part of the audit of the annual financial statements of CORIL SAB corresponding to 2019, in order for the audit firm to be in a position to express an opinion on said financial information. Consequently, from the scope of RECOMMENDATION LETTER 1, CORIL SAB was in a position to warn that it did not qualify as the 2019 CONTROL REPORT;
32. That, therefore, it corresponds to dismiss the arguments exposed by CORIL SAB on this point of its appeal;

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market Superintendence
Electronically signed document under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
33. That, in the fourth place, CORIL SAB alleges that the IAR does not expressly contemplate that the intermediary agent is responsible for supervising the content of the internal control system report, nor for reviewing the objectives or scopes established in it; so that the principle of legality would be violated and legal security would be affected due to the lack of certainty of the scope of the obligations;
34. That, regarding this matter, it corresponds to point out that the principle of legality contemplated in numeral 4 of article 230 of the TUO LPAG, provides as follows:
"Article 230.- Principles of administrative sanctioning power The sanctioning power of all entities is additionally governed by the following special principles:
(...)
4. Legality (Tipicidad).- Only conduct that constitutes administratively sanctionable infractions are those expressly provided for in norms with the rank of law by their typification as such, without admitting extensive interpretation or analogy. The regulatory development provisions may specify or grade those directed to identify the conduct or determine sanctions, without constituting new sanctionable conduct from those legally provided, except in cases where the law or Legislative Decree allows typifying infractions by regulatory norm.
Through the typification of infractions, the fulfillment of obligations not previously provided in a legal or regulatory norm, as appropriate, cannot be imposed on the regulated parties.
In the configuration of sanctioning regimes, the typification of infractions with the same factual premise and identical basis with respect to those crimes or offenses already established in penal laws or with respect to those infractions already typified in other administrative sanctioning norms is avoided".
35. That, as can be seen from the aforementioned text, only conduct that constitutes sanctionable infractions are those expressly provided for by norms with the rank of law, or regulatory norms - always that authorized by Law or Legislative Decree - by their typification as such, without admitting extensive or analogical interpretation;
36. That, the Constitutional Tribunal 8 has exposed, regarding the principle of legality, the following:
"This requirement derives from two specific legal principles; that of freedom and that of legal security. According to the first, conduct must be exactly delimited, without indeterminations, while in relation to the second, citizens must be in a position to be able to predict, in a sufficient and adequate manner, the consequences of their acts, so that general or indeterminate clauses of infringement that allow

8 Constitutional Tribunal (2010). Foundation 12, letter b, of the Sentence issued in file No.
01873-2009-PA/TC. Lima: September 03, 2010.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market Superintendence
Electronically signed document under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship an action left to the "arbitrariness" of the administration, but that it be prudent and reasoned."
37. That, in addition, it has clarified 9
the following:
"[n]ot the principle of legality should be identified with the principle of legality (Tipicidad).
The first, guaranteed by the ordinal "d" of paragraph 24) of article 2° of the Constitution, is satisfied when the provision of infractions and sanctions in the law is met. The second, on the other hand, constitutes the precise definition of the conduct that the law considers as a fault. Such precision of what is considered unlawful from an administrative point of view, therefore, is not subject to an absolute reserve of law, but can be complemented through the respective regulations, as inferred from article 168° of the Constitution (...)" (Underline added).
38. That, in that framework, it has been observed that in the SANCTION RESOLUTION CORIL SAB was sanctioned for having incurred in a serious nature infringement typified in Annex X, paragraph 2, numeral 2.16 of the SANCTIONS REGULATION, according to which it constitutes infringement: "Not present, or not present it on time, the reports, the annual work plan or the documentation related to the internal control system, in accordance with what the regulations establish";
39. That, this is because it did not comply with presenting its 2019 INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEM REPORT within the deadline established in article 128, letter c), of the IAR, that is, until February 28, 2020;
40. That, from the reading of the mentioned infraction type, it is clear that the non-compliance of presenting reports, such as the Control System Report, within the deadline established by the regulations constitutes a serious administrative infraction, is sanctioned with the corresponding fine. Therefore, said infraction conduct is defined sufficiently and appropriately, allowing any regulated party, including CORIL SAB, to foresee the possible consequences of its action or omission. Consequently, this office considers that the infraction type imputed to CORIL SAB meets the requirements of the principle of legality and, therefore, does not violate the legal security alleged;
41. That, notwithstanding the above, it is worth reiterating that the fact that CORIL SAB reviews, prior to the presentation to the SMV, that its Control System Report corresponds to the one required by articles 128, letter c), and 139 of the IAR does not suppose an unjustified burden on the regulated party; on the contrary, this conduct is framed within the responsibility and diligence expected in the compliance with regulatory provisions, which are aligned with the principles that govern stockbroker companies and the securities market in general. In this way, a culture of compliance and corporate responsibility is promoted that benefits both the intermediary agent and its stakeholders. Therefore, it corresponds to dismiss the arguments exposed by CORIL SAB on this point of its appeal;

9 Constitutional Tribunal (2003). Foundation 9 of the Sentence issued in file No. 2050-2002- AA/TC. Lima: April 16, 2003.

PERU Ministry of Economy and Finance

SMV
Securities Market Superintendence
Electronically signed document under Law No. 27269, Law of Digital Signatures and Certificates, its regulations and amendments. The integrity of the document and authorship
42. That, according to what developed and analyzed
above, the appeal filed by CORIL SAB is dismissed and, therefore, the SANCTION RESOLUTION is confirmed; and, Being in accordance with what is provided for in numeral 26 of article 12° of the Regulation of Organization and Functions of the Securities Market Superintendence, approved by Supreme Decree No. 216-2011-EF and its amendments; RESOLVES:
Article 1°.- To DECLARE UNFOUNDED the appeal filed by Grupo Coril Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A. against the Superintendent Adjunct Resolution SMV No. 030-2023-SMV/10.
Article 2°.- To Consider the administrative route exhausted.
Article 3°.- To Transcribe this resolution to Grupo Coril Sociedad Agente de Bolsa S.A.
Article 4°.- To Order the dissemination of this resolution on the Institutional Page of the Securities Market Superintendence – SMV on the Single Digital Platform of the Peruvian State (www.gob.pe/smv).
Register, communicate and publish.
Zósimo Juan Pichihua Serna
Superintendent of the Securities Market