← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00050-2010 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VIII · Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VIII · 31/05/2010
OutcomeResultado
The fine imposed by SUPEN on BN VITAL OPC S.A. is upheld in all respects, rejecting the complaints of lack of jurisdiction, nullity, lack of statute coverage, and disproportionality.Se confirma en todos sus extremos la sanción impuesta por SUPEN a BN VITAL OPC S.A., rechazando los agravios de incompetencia, nulidad, falta de tipicidad y desproporción.
SummaryResumen
The Administrative Appeals Court, Section VIII, holds that the pension operator BN VITAL OPC S.A. has no right to challenge the fine imposed by the Superintendency of Pensions (SUPEN) through Resolution SP-1096-2005. The sanction was based on the operator's failure, in April and May 2004, to have minimum policies and procedures for adequate internal control of the investment process, and for not providing documents and recordings of authorizations to the brokerage house. The appellant argued lack of SUPEN's jurisdiction, absolute nullity due to inconsistency between the statement of charges and the final decision, violation of proportionality and rationality, and that the conduct was not classified under Law 7523. The Court rejects all complaints: it confirms SUPEN's jurisdiction under Articles 46(g) and 47(b) of Law 7523 and the Investments Regulation; finds no nullity because the charges were clear from the outset; holds that the additional reference to the General Internal Control Act does not vitiate the decision; and that the fine (the lowest end of 5% of equity) is proportionate given the seriousness of the offense over workers' savings.El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VIII resuelve que no le asiste el derecho a la operadora de pensiones BN VITAL OPC S.A. en sus alegatos contra la multa impuesta por la Superintendencia de Pensiones (SUPEN) mediante resolución SP-1096-2005. La sanción se originó por carecer en abril y mayo de 2004 de políticas y procedimientos mínimos para un adecuado control interno del proceso de inversiones y por no proporcionar documentos y grabaciones de autorizaciones al Puesto de Bolsa. La impugnante alegó incompetencia de SUPEN, nulidad absoluta del acto por incongruencia entre el traslado de cargos y la resolución final, violación al principio de proporcionalidad y racionalidad, y que las conductas no estaban tipificadas en la Ley 7523. El Tribunal rechaza todos los agravios: confirma que SUPEN era competente con base en los artículos 46 inciso g) y 47 inciso b) de la Ley 7523 y el Reglamento de Inversiones; que no hubo nulidad porque los cargos fueron claros desde el inicio; que la referencia adicional a la Ley General de Control Interno no vicia el acto; y que la multa (extremo menor del 5% del patrimonio) es proporcionada dada la gravedad de la infracción sobre ahorros de trabajadores.
Key excerptExtracto clave
the conduct incurred by the plaintiff of lacking, for April and May 2004, minimum policies and procedures for an adequate internal control of the investment process and of not providing the Superintendency with the documents and recordings of authorizations to the brokerage house for the purchase and sale of securities, are conducts classified in Articles 46(g), 47(b) and section 50 of Law 7523, which provide as a very serious sanction the failure to keep legally required accounting or records or keeping them in a flawed or irregular manner, thus hindering the knowledge of the entity's financial or equity situation or the operations in which it participates, and establishes the obligation that trading orders made with the resources of funds managed by authorized entities must be supported by recording if made by telephone or safeguarded by electronic means when appropriate, relating to the reproached and sanctioned fact of lacking minimum policies and procedures for an adequate internal control of the investment process, because such conduct proves that the sanctioned entity does not exercise adequate oversight of the investment process, lacking documented processes, which is corroborated by the non-presentation of the trading orders. the challenged fine was imposed based on sections 46(g) and 47(b) of Law 7523, noting that according to the sanctioned conduct a fine of up to five percent of the company's equity could be imposed, yet the lowest end was chosen, therefore no disproportion or abuse by the sanctioning body is perceived.las conductas en que incurrió la actora de carecer para abril y mayo del 2004 de políticas y procedimientos mínimos para un adecuado control interno del proceso de inversiones y no proporcionar a la Superintendencia los documentos y grabaciones con las autorizaciones al Puesto de Bolsa de la compra y venta de valores, son conductas tipificadas en los artículos 46 inciso g), 47 inciso b) y ordinal 50 de la Ley 7523, en los que se contempla como sanción muy grave el no llevar la contabilidad o los registros legalmente exigidos o tenerlos en forma viciada o irregular dificultándose así el conocer la situación patrimonial o financiera o las operaciones que realiza, y se dispone la obligación de que las órdenes de negociación que se realicen con los recursos de los fondos administrados por las entidades autorizadas deben respaldarse por medio de grabación si es por vía telefónica que se realizan o resguardarse por medios electrónicos cuando así corresponda, teniendo relación con el hecho reprochado y sancionado de carecer de políticas y procedimientos mínimos para un adecuado control interno del proceso de inversiones, debido a que tales conductas acreditan que la entidad sancionada no lleva una adecuada fiscalización del proceso de inversiones, teniendo ausencia de procesos documentados, lo que se corrobora con la no presentación de las órdenes de negociación. la multa cuestionada se impuso con base en los ordinales 46 inciso g) y 47 inciso b) de la ley 7523, observándose que de conformidad con la conducta sancionada era viable imponer una multa de hasta un cinco por ciento del patrimonio de la sociedad, sin embargo se optó por el extremo menor, en razón de lo cual no se aprecia desproporción o abuso alguno por parte del órgano sancionador.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"las conductas en que incurrió la actora de carecer para abril y mayo del 2004 de políticas y procedimientos mínimos para un adecuado control interno del proceso de inversiones y no proporcionar a la Superintendencia los documentos y grabaciones con las autorizaciones al Puesto de Bolsa de la compra y venta de valores, son conductas tipificadas en los artículos 46 inciso g), 47 inciso b) y ordinal 50 de la Ley 7523"
"the conduct incurred by the plaintiff of lacking, for April and May 2004, minimum policies and procedures for an adequate internal control of the investment process and of not providing the Superintendency with the documents and recordings of authorizations to the brokerage house for the purchase and sale of securities are conducts classified in Articles 46(g), 47(b) and section 50 of Law 7523"
Considerando IV
"las conductas en que incurrió la actora de carecer para abril y mayo del 2004 de políticas y procedimientos mínimos para un adecuado control interno del proceso de inversiones y no proporcionar a la Superintendencia los documentos y grabaciones con las autorizaciones al Puesto de Bolsa de la compra y venta de valores, son conductas tipificadas en los artículos 46 inciso g), 47 inciso b) y ordinal 50 de la Ley 7523"
Considerando IV
"la multa cuestionada se impuso con base en los ordinales 46 inciso g) y 47 inciso b) de la ley 7523, observándose que de conformidad con la conducta sancionada era viable imponer una multa de hasta un cinco por ciento del patrimonio de la sociedad, sin embargo se optó por el extremo menor, en razón de lo cual no se aprecia desproporción o abuso alguno por parte del órgano sancionador."
"the challenged fine was imposed based on sections 46(g) and 47(b) of Law 7523, noting that according to the sanctioned conduct a fine of up to five percent of the company's equity could be imposed, yet the lowest end was chosen, therefore no disproportion or abuse by the sanctioning body is perceived."
Considerando IV
"la multa cuestionada se impuso con base en los ordinales 46 inciso g) y 47 inciso b) de la ley 7523, observándose que de conformidad con la conducta sancionada era viable imponer una multa de hasta un cinco por ciento del patrimonio de la sociedad, sin embargo se optó por el extremo menor, en razón de lo cual no se aprecia desproporción o abuso alguno por parte del órgano sancionador."
Considerando IV
"constituye sin duda un hecho muy grave el que se haya constatado la inexistencia de registros y controles eficientes, así como de un procedimiento de inversiones, en mérito a que tales operaciones se rigen por los principios de la búsqueda del provecho primordial de los afiliados y del equilibrio entre seguridad, incremento de su valor, rendimientos reales, rentabilidad real, y liquidez."
"it undoubtedly constitutes a very serious fact that the non-existence of efficient records and controls, as well as of an investment procedure, has been verified, given that such operations are governed by the principles of seeking the primary benefit of members and the balance between security, increase in value, real returns, real profitability, and liquidity."
Considerando IV
"constituye sin duda un hecho muy grave el que se haya constatado la inexistencia de registros y controles eficientes, así como de un procedimiento de inversiones, en mérito a que tales operaciones se rigen por los principios de la búsqueda del provecho primordial de los afiliados y del equilibrio entre seguridad, incremento de su valor, rendimientos reales, rentabilidad real, y liquidez."
Considerando IV
Full documentDocumento completo
On the other hand, it must be taken into consideration that we are dealing with very serious infractions because we are in the presence of, as stated in the third whereas clause, and taking into consideration the criterion of gravity of the infraction (subsection 58 Law 7523), savings of workers that must be invested in a safe and reliable manner, minimizing risks so as not to expose them, and seeking that investments are made correctly, giving adequate destination to the resources obtained from the members.
III)- ATTRIBUTIONS OF THE SUPERINTENDENCY OF PENSIONS TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON THE OPERATING COMPANIES OF PENSION PLANS: Law number 7523 of July 7, 1995, regulating the Private Regime of Complementary Pensions, provides in its subsection 33, that the Superintendency of Pensions shall be in charge of the regulation and oversight of the Pension Regime, having within its attributions the authorization, supervision and oversight of the plans, funds, as well as the activity of the pension operating companies. For its part, regarding the sanctioning regime, it is contemplated in subsections 45 to 57 ibid, providing that infractions are classified as minor, serious and very serious. The very serious infractions consist of those in which “a) The regulated entity that impedes or obstructs the supervision of the Superintendency. b) The regulated entity that does not provide the Superintendency with the information required by it within the time period granted for that purpose, or provides false data. c) The regulated entity that allocates the resources of a fund to purposes other than those provided in Article 55 of the Law for the protection of the worker. d) The regulated entity that invests the resources of a fund in contravention of Articles 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 of the Law for the protection of the worker. e) The regulated entity that fails to comply with the rules relating to the custody of titles and securities, provided in Article 66 of the Law for the protection of the worker. f) The regulated entity that engages in activities outside the legally authorized purpose. g) The regulated entity that does not keep the legally required accounting or records or keeps them with essential defects or irregularities that make it difficult to know the patrimonial or financial situation of the entity or the operations in which it participates. h) The regulated entity that, for a continuous period exceeding six months, reduces its minimum capital to levels below eighty percent (80%) of the legal minimum or the required minimum in accordance with the directives issued by the Superintendency. i) The regulated entity that fails to comply with the obligation to submit to external audits in the terms established in subsection n) of Article 42 of the Law for the protection of the worker, or presents external audit reports with substantial defects or irregularities. j) The persons, physical or legal, who carry out external audits with substantial defects or irregularities, of the entities subject to the oversight of the Superintendency, or fail to comply with the rules set forth in subsection q) of Article 42 of the Law for the protection of the worker. k) The regulated entity that fails to comply with the principle of non-discrimination provided in Article 45 of the Law for the protection of the worker.” (subsection 46 ibid). The very serious infractions are sanctioned (Article 47 ibid) with “a) Fine in an amount up to five times the pecuniary benefit obtained as a direct consequence of the infraction committed. b) Fine up to five percent (5%) of the entity’s equity (patrimonio). c) Fine up to two hundred base salaries, as defined in Law No. 7337, of May 5, 1993. d) Suspension of the authorization for up to one year. e) Revocation of the operating authorization of the regulated entity. ”. For their part, serious infractions (subsection 48 ibid) refer to conduct in which “a) It does not notify the Superintendency of the non-compliance with the investment requirements or does not present the risk reduction plan, in accordance with Article 38 of the Law for the protection of the worker. b) It does not send the members the information indicated by the Superintendency. c) It reduces, for a period exceeding two months and less than six continuous months, its minimum capital to levels below eighty percent (80%) of the legal minimum or the required minimum in accordance with the provisions issued by the Superintendency. d) It carries out advertising contrary to the provisions of the Superintendency. e) It delays the updating of its accounting books or mandatory records, for a period greater than five days. f) It does not observe the accounting standards set forth by the Superintendency. g) It fails to comply with the terms of the retirement savings plans under the conditions authorized by the Superintendency and agreed upon with the members. h) It does not timely publish the information that, in accordance with the Law for the protection of the worker and other rules established by the Superintendency, is of interest to the members, contributors and the general public. i) It obstructs the transfer right ordered in Article 10 of the Law for the protection of the worker. j) It does not credit the resources to the individual accounts, or credits the product of the investments in a manner different from that ordered by the Law for the protection of the worker or outside the time periods provided therein. k) It charges commissions not authorized in the Law for the protection of the worker or in the regulatory rules issued by the Superintendency. l) It uses or allows its officials to use confidential information so that they obtain, for themselves or for others, advantages from the managed funds, through the purchase or sale of securities.”. Conduct that shall be sanctioned (Article 49 ibid) with “a) Public reprimand to be published in La Gaceta and a nationally circulated newspaper. b) Fine in an amount up to three times the pecuniary benefit obtained as a direct consequence of the infraction committed. c) Fine up to two percent (2%) of the entity’s equity (patrimonio). d) Fine up to one hundred times the base salary defined in Law No. 7337, of May 5, 1993. e) Suspension of the authorization for up to one year.”. In that sense, as indicated, minor infractions are contemplated (Article 50 ibid), referring to “the acts or omissions of the regulated entities that violate the provisions of the Law for the protection of the worker and the directives issued by the Superintendency and that are not typified as serious or very serious infractions (...)”; to which a private reprimand is applied (numeral 51 ibid), consisting of a written communication addressed to the offender. For its part, in the exercise of the oversight and sanction powers (Article 58 ibid) the officials of the Superintendency may carry out direct actions of supervision, verification, inspection or surveillance over the regulated entities, which must provide the due collaboration. Furthermore, in the imposition of the indicated sanctions, the Superintendency shall apply sanction or assessment criteria (subsection 60 ibid) in accordance with “a) The gravity of the infraction, b) The threat or damage caused, c) The indications of intentionality, d) The duration of the conduct, e) The recidivism of the offender and f) The payment capacity of the offender”. In turn, regarding investments, the Superintendent of Pensions has the attribution (subsection 8 ibid, paragraphs b) and p) to “b) Supervise the investment of the managed resources and dictate policies regarding the composition and valuation of the investment portfolio (...) p) Oversee the investment of the resources of the funds managed by the supervised entities and the composition of their investment portfolio.”. The supervised entities thereby incurring in serious infractions (subsection 48 ibid) by not notifying the Superintendency regarding the non-compliance with the investment requirements or the failure to present the risk reduction plan according to numeral 38 of the Law for the Protection of the Worker. In turn, the Regulation of the Law on the Private Regime of Complementary Pensions, number 25593 of October 8, 1996, indicates to us regarding regulation of investments made by pension operating companies that when their volume reports accelerated and significant growth (Article six of the Regulation), a capital increase to support it shall be ordered. For its part, regarding reserves, investment and risk criteria, it is maintained that the operating companies shall be subject to the directives and resolutions issued by said dependency (Article nine of the regulation). It is also established that the resources of the fund they manage must be invested seeking the primary benefit of the members (numeral 23 of the regulation) “seeking the necessary balance between security, increase in value, real returns, real profitability, and liquidity.”, for which purpose a minimum constitution and operating capital, investment ceilings, reserves, prohibitions and specific conditions are established to remedy them if applicable and thereby protect the members (subsections 23 to 29 of the regulation). In relation to the foregoing, it is worth indicating that the Law for the Protection of the Worker number 7983 of February 16, 2000, provides in its subsection 30, that the Superintendency of Pensions shall be in charge of applying to the pension operating companies the requirements and controls for their operation, authorizing the same and establishing additional requirements for them in order to protect the workers' savings and seek the efficiency of the system, ensuring that investments are made correctly, the risk of capital management is determined (subsection 37 Law 7983) and the appropriate destination is given to the resources obtained from the members, jointly and severally liable over the totality of the contributions made by the workers and contributors with its own equity (patrimonio) for the losses that the contributions and the returns may suffer. On the subject of investments, subsections 59 to 67 of Law 7983 for the Protection of the Worker, stipulate that those made by the pension operating companies (Article 60) “b) Must be invested for the benefit of the members, seeking the necessary balance between security, profitability and liquidity, in accordance with their purpose and respecting the limits set by law and the regulatory rules that the Superintendency dictates on the matter.”, making them in securities registered in the National Registry of Securities and Intermediaries or in financial entities supervised by the General Superintendency of Financial Entities, and must be qualified and executed in authorized markets, ensuring that the fund resources are invested in instruments that allow members to participate directly in the returns and excluding, if applicable, the acquisition of certain risky securities, also establishing investment limits (subsection 61 Law 7983) to diversify risk and achieve an adequate return. By virtue of the foregoing, due to the funds managed by the pension operating companies, the General Law of Internal Control, number 8292 of July 31, 2002, is applicable to them, which in its Article four establishes that it shall be applicable to entities and bodies that manage public funds, which must have a complete, reasonable, integrated internal control system congruent with their constitutional competences and attributions (subsection seven Law 8292), assess, analyze, and minimize risk (Article 14 Law 8292) and carry out control activities (numeral 15) with the purpose of documenting and disseminating the pertinent policies, norms and procedures that guarantee compliance with the institutional internal control system and the prevention of any aspect that leads to deviating from the objectives and goals set by the institution in the performance of its functions, requiring an adequate, documented and registered notation of the significant events that occur. For its part, Regulation number 355 of February 11, 2003, called Regulation on Investments of Regulated Entities, in which an Investment and Risk Committee is established, provides that a Manual of Policies and Procedures for Comprehensive Risk Management (Administración Integral de Riesgos) shall be established, carrying out an audit in that sense (numeral 20 of Regulation 355) and establishing an investment procedure (subsection 50 of Regulation 355 in force as of 2005) which provides that “a) They must be registered in the name of each fund, whether in electronic records, on physical securities or in account statements as applicable. The acquisition of physical securities in the case of foreign securities is not permitted. b) The payment or collection operations for transactions of instruments negotiated by the entities, with the resources of the managed funds, shall be carried out via delivery versus payment. c) The negotiation orders made with the resources of the funds managed by the authorized entities must be supported by recording, in the case that they are made by telephone, or safeguarded by electronic means when applicable. In the event that said purchases are made through OTC markets, the negotiation orders must be preceded by at least three different offers or bids. All documentation supporting the negotiation must be kept for a period of five years. At the time of closing the operation, the intermediary must send a written confirmation to the authorized entity of the transaction carried out. In case a system is used where confirmations are sent via tickets, they must be printed in order to be filed.”. In addition to the foregoing, the obligation is contemplated for authorized operating companies to send the Superintendency of Pensions the required information on their investments with the characteristics and time periods established.
IV)- RESOLUTION OF THE GRIEVANCES OF THE APPELLANT: Subsuming the foregoing to the appeal lodged by the defendant, we must confirm what was decided in first instance, such that she does not have the right in her allegations, insofar as she argues that the sixth whereas clause omits analyzing the reasons alleged in the lawsuit, by which the lack of standing (incompetencia) of the Superintendency of Pensions was alleged to apply the imposed sanction based on the General Law of Internal Control, which corresponded to the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), in accordance with subsection 42 of the General Law of Internal Control, thus violating numeral 155 of the Code of Civil Procedure by not resolving all the points under debate. In relation to this, it must be indicated that in the judgment on the merits no nullity is observed because the reasons that the appellant misses are developed profusely in the sixth whereas clause, in which the sanctioning power held by the Superintendency of Pensions in the legal system is analyzed. In said section, the a-quo adequately supports the reasons why the sanctioning competence in this matter corresponds to the Superintendency of Pensions and not to the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, because we are dealing with conduct typified in subsections 46 paragraph g) and 47 paragraph b) of Law 7523 of July 7, 1995, regulating the Private Regime of Complementary Pensions, as well as in subsection 50 of Regulation number 355 of February 11, 2003, on Investments of Regulated Entities, which is also determined in the present ruling in what is expressed in the third whereas clause, in which it is corroborated that the Superintendency of Pensions is the competent administrative body to impose the fine based on the factual framework that served as its basis. For which reason, the alleged defects of nullity are not observed, nor inconsistency in the contested ruling between what was requested and what was decided. The appellant also alleges that the General Law of Internal Control applies to infractions by officials in their personal capacity, not to the entities, which is rejected, because the citations made in resolution SP-1096 of fifteen hours of June 14, 2005, issued by the Superintendency of Pensions, referring to the Law of Internal Control, serve as a basis to reinforce the obligations and duties to which the entities that safeguard or manage public funds are subject, but without it being the sole basis for the imposed fine, which as indicated, was based on the regulations governing the pension operating companies that are under the supervision of the Superintendency of Pensions, which itself adduced for further abundance of reasons the obligations contemplated in the Law of Internal Control, which also result applicable to the investigated facts given the demonstrated omission of the pension operating company BN VITAL OPC S.A. for April and May 2004 of lacking minimum policies and procedures for adequate internal control of the investment process and without having provided the Superintendency with the documents and recordings with the authorizations to the Stock Exchange for the purchase and sale of securities. It also alleges shortcomings in the seventh whereas clause by not observing the inconsistency between the notice of charges (traslado de cargos) and the final resolution, which implies the absolute nullity of the imposed sanction, which are not shared because the judgment on the merits reasonably denies the defect of nullity alleged in resolution SP-1096 of fifteen hours of June 14, 2005. This being so because in the seventh whereas clause it is clearly established that the alleged defects are not observed in that it explains that in the initial act it was indicated to the plaintiff “with great clarity the actions for which she would be investigated (which was accredited in the case file) having clarity that she could eventually be imposed a sanction based on Law No. 7523 and on the Investments Regulation of Authorized Entities, which indeed happened, additionally it was indicated in the final resolution that conduct contrary to the provisions of the General Law of Internal Control was incurred which does not constitute an impediment so that by not being expressly indicated in the notice of charges (traslado de cargos) they could not be expressed in the final act as part of the legal support”. An argument that is endorsed because indeed, from the study of the case file it is observed that such nullity is not present in the contested act. In that sense, the aggrieved party states that in the opening act or initial resolution of the administrative proceeding, the Superintendency of Pensions does not cite the regulations that were alleged as violated for the purposes of the imposed sanction, which she indicates affects her right of defense and generates inconsistency between the accusation formulated in the initial act and the final decision.
However, this is not acceptable because from the study of the initial order or notice of charges (auto inicial o intimatorio de cargos), issued under resolution number SP-1793 at twelve o'clock on August 19, 2004 (folios 2 to 5 of the administrative file), it is clearly observed that the pension operator (operadora de pensiones) was expressly informed of the same charges for which it was sanctioned, and the norms on which that resolution, the basis of the infraction, was grounded (Article 46, subsection g) and 47 of the Law), these being the same ones on which the Superintendence (Superintendencia) based its "Por tanto" to impose the challenged fine. The appellant (impugnante) also maintains that the sanction is supported by the General Law of Internal Control (Ley General de Control Interno), but that it is not even mentioned in the transfer of charges (traslado de cargos), which affected its right of defense, **an argument that is not admitted**, because as already indicated, the cited regulations of the Law of Internal Control in the recitals (resultandos) of the challenged act are set forth as additional support or reasons to deem the infractions and conducts specifically contemplated in Law 7523 for pension operators to be established, and it is these that grant the specific and determined competence to the Superintendence of Pensions for the imposition of the fine imposed, all without prejudice to the regulatory citations that, for greater abundance of reasons, were set forth in the administrative resolution regarding the Law of Internal Control, which do not detract in any way, nor reduce the effectiveness of the challenged administrative acts. The pension operator also alleges that the omission attributed to BN VITAL consisting of not having put in writing the minimum policies and procedures for adequate internal control of investments does not follow, nor is it contemplated in ordinals 46, subsections b) and g), nor in Article 50 of the Regulation of Investments of Authorized Entities (Reglamento de Inversiones de las Entidades Autorizadas), norms that do not contemplate such an obligation, **which is not obtained from the merits of the proceedings (autos)**, because the conducts incurred by the plaintiff (actora) of lacking, for April and May 2004, minimum policies and procedures for adequate internal control of the investment process and not providing the Superintendence with documents and recordings with authorizations to the Brokerage House (Puesto de Bolsa) for the purchase and sale of securities, are conducts classified in Articles 46, subsection g), 47, subsection b), and ordinal 50 of Law 7523, in which it is contemplated as a very serious sanction not keeping the legally required accounting or records or keeping them in a flawed or irregular manner, thus hindering the knowledge of the patrimonial or financial situation or the operations carried out, and the obligation is established that the trading orders (órdenes de negociación) made with the resources of the funds administered by authorized entities must be backed by means of recording if made by telephone or safeguarded by electronic means when appropriate, being related to the reproached and sanctioned fact of lacking minimum policies and procedures for adequate internal control of the investment process, because such conducts prove that the sanctioned entity does not maintain adequate supervision (fiscalización) of the investment process, having an absence of documented processes, which is corroborated by the non-presentation of the trading orders. In that sense, it undoubtedly constitutes a very serious fact that the non-existence of efficient records and controls, as well as an investment procedure, has been verified, on the merits that such operations are governed by the principles of seeking the primary benefit (provecho primordial) of the affiliates (afiliados) and of the balance between security, increase in their value, real returns (rendimientos reales), real profitability (rentabilidad real), and liquidity. Finally, the appellant affirms that the judgment on the merits does not carry out an adequate analysis of the violation of the principle of proportionality (principio de proporcionalidad) and rationality (racionalidad) incurred by the quantum of the fine imposed, especially since no damage was caused, and that it should have proceeded by means of corrective measures so that the policies and procedures found lacking were issued, for which the annulment action (acción anulatoria) of the questioned administrative act should have been accepted or the quantum of the sanction reduced, **which is denied**, because in view of the questioned judgment, a correct assessment is made of the principles of proportionality and rationality that the appellant estimates were violated in the questioned administrative act, because from the study of the analysis of the eighth recital (considerando octavo), it is observed in this regard that the questioned fine was imposed based on ordinals 46, subsection g) and 47, subsection b) of Law 7523, observing that in accordance with the sanctioned conduct it was feasible to impose a fine of up to five percent of the company's equity (patrimonio), however the lower extreme was opted for, for which reason no disproportion or abuse on the part of the sanctioning body is appreciated. On the other hand, it must be taken into consideration that we are facing very serious infractions by reason of being in the presence, as set forth in the third recital (considerando tercero), and taking into consideration the criterion of gravity of the infraction (ordinal 58 Law 7523), of workers' savings that must be invested in a safe and reliable manner, minimizing risks so as not to expose them, and seeking that investments are made correctly, giving adequate destination to the resources obtained from the affiliates.
<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> </body> </html> h) The regulated entity that, for a period exceeding six continuous months, reduces its minimum capital to levels below eighty percent (80%) of the legal minimum or the minimum required in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Superintendency (la Superintendencia). i) The regulated entity that fails to comply with the obligation to undergo external audits in the terms established in subsection n) of Article 42 of the Law (la Ley) for the protection of workers, or submits external audit reports with substantial flaws or irregularities. j) Individuals or legal entities that perform external audits with substantial flaws or irregularities for entities subject to the oversight of the Superintendency (la Superintendencia), or that fail to comply with the rules set forth in subsection q) of Article 42 of the Law (la Ley) for the protection of workers. k) The regulated entity that violates the principle of non-discrimination provided for in Article 45 of the Law (la Ley) for the protection of workers." (ordinal 46 ibid). The very serious offenses are sanctioned (Article 47 ibid) with "a) A fine up to five times the financial benefit obtained as a direct consequence of the committed infraction. b) A fine of up to five percent (5%) of the company's equity (patrimonio). c) A fine of up to two hundred base salaries, as defined in Law No. 7337, of May 5, 1993. d) Suspension of the authorization for up to one year. e) Revocation of the operating authorization of the regulated entity.". For its part, the serious offenses (ordinal 48 ibid) refer to conduct in which "a) It fails to notify the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) of non-compliance with investment requirements or fails to submit the risk reduction plan, in accordance with Article 38 of the Law (la Ley) for the protection of workers. b) It fails to send the information indicated by the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) to the affiliates. c) It reduces, for a period exceeding two months and less than six continuous months, its minimum capital to levels below eighty percent (80%) of the legal minimum or the minimum required in accordance with the provisions issued by the Superintendency (la Superintendencia). d) It engages in advertising contrary to the provisions of the Superintendency (la Superintendencia). e) It delays the updating of its accounting books or mandatory records for a period exceeding five days. f) It fails to observe the accounting standards set forth by the Superintendency (la Superintendencia). g) It breaches the terms of the retirement savings plans under the conditions authorized by the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) and agreed upon with the affiliates. h) It fails to timely publish information that, in accordance with the Law (la Ley) for the protection of workers and other rules established by the Superintendency (la Superintendencia), is of interest to affiliates, contributors, and the general public. i) It obstructs the right of transfer ordered in Article 10 of the Law (la Ley) for the protection of workers. j) It fails to credit resources to individual accounts, or credits the proceeds of investments in a manner different from that ordered by the Law (la Ley) for the protection of workers or outside the periods provided for therein. k) It charges commissions not authorized in the Law (la Ley) for the protection of workers or in the regulatory rules issued by the Superintendency (la Superintendencia). l) It uses or allows its employees to use confidential information so that they obtain, for themselves or for others, advantages from the managed funds through the purchase or sale of securities.". Conduct that shall be sanctioned (Article 49 ibid) with "a) Public reprimand to be published in La Gaceta and a nationally circulated newspaper. b) A fine up to three times the financial benefit obtained as a direct consequence of the committed infraction. c) A fine of up to two percent (2%) of the company's equity (patrimonio). d) A fine of up to one hundred times the base salary defined in Law No. 7337, of May 5, 1993. e) Suspension of the authorization for up to one year.".
In that sense, as indicated, minor infractions are contemplated (Article 50 ibid), referring to "the acts or omissions of the regulated entities that violate the provisions of the Law (la Ley) for the protection of workers and the guidelines issued by the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) and that are not classified as serious or very serious infractions (...)"; to which a private reprimand is applied (numeral 51 ibid), consisting of a written communication addressed to the offender. For its part, in the exercise of oversight and sanctioning powers (Article 58 ibid), the officials of the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) may carry out direct actions of supervision, verification, inspection, or surveillance over the regulated entities, which must provide due collaboration. Furthermore, in imposing the indicated sanctions, the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) shall apply sanctioning or assessment criteria (ordinal 60 ibid) in accordance with "a) The severity of the infraction, b) The threat or damage caused, c) The indications of intentionality, d) The duration of the conduct, e) The repeat offenses of the infractor, and f) The payment capacity of the infractor". In turn, in matters of investments, the Superintendent of Pensions has the power (ordinal 8 ibid, subsections b) and p)) to "b) Supervise the investment of managed resources and issue policies regarding the composition and valuation of the investment portfolio (...) p) Oversee the investment of the resources of the funds managed by the supervised entities and the composition of their investment portfolio.". Thus, the supervised entities incur serious infractions (ordinal 48 ibid) by failing to notify the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) regarding the non-compliance with investment requirements or failing to submit the risk reduction plan according to numeral 38 of the Worker Protection Law (Ley de Protección al Trabajador). In turn, the Regulation of the Law (la Ley) on the Private Regime of Complementary Pensions, number 25593 of October eight, 1996, indicates in matters of regulating investments made by pension operators that when their volume reports accelerated and significant growth (Article six of the Regulation), an increase in the capital backing them shall be ordered. For its part, regarding reserves, investment criteria, and risk, it is held that the operators shall be subject to the guidelines and resolutions issued by said agency (Article nine of the regulation). It is also established that the resources of the fund they manage must be invested seeking the primary benefit of the affiliates (numeral 23 of the regulation), "seeking the necessary balance between security, increase in value, real returns, real profitability, and liquidity.", for which a minimum capital for incorporation and operation, investment caps, reserves, prohibitions, and certain conditions are established to rectify them if necessary and thus protect the affiliates (ordinals 23 to 29 of the regulation). In relation to the foregoing, it is feasible to indicate that the Worker Protection Law (Ley de Protección al Trabajador) number 7983 of February 16, 2000, provides in its ordinal 30 that the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) of Pensions shall be responsible for applying to the pension operators the requirements and controls for their operation, authorizing the same and establishing additional requirements for them with the aim of protecting workers' savings and seeking the efficiency of the system, ensuring that investments are made correctly, that the risk of capital management is determined (ordinal 37 Law 7983), and that the resources obtained from the affiliates are given the appropriate destination, responding jointly and severally with its own equity (patrimonio) for the total contributions made by workers and contributors for any losses that the contributions and yields may suffer. Regarding the topic of investments, ordinals 59 to 67 of the Law (la Ley) 7983 for the Protection of Workers stipulate that those made by the pension operators (Article 60) "b) Must be invested for the benefit of the affiliates, seeking the necessary balance between security, profitability, and liquidity, in accordance with their purpose and respecting the limits set by law and the regulatory norms that the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) may issue on the matter.", making them in securities registered in the National Registry of Securities and Intermediaries (Registro Nacional de Valores e Intermediarios) or in financial entities supervised by the Superintendency General of Financial Entities (Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras), and must be rated and finalized in authorized markets, seeking to invest the resources of the funds in instruments that allow the affiliates to participate directly in the income and, if necessary, excluding the acquisition of certain risky securities, also establishing investment limits (ordinal 61 Law 7983) to diversify risk and achieve an adequate return. By virtue of the foregoing, due to the funds managed by the pension operators, the General Law of Internal Control (Ley General de Control Interno), number 8292 of July 31, 2002, applies to them, which in its fourth article establishes that it shall be applicable to entities and bodies that manage public funds, which must have a complete, reasonable, integrated internal control system congruent with their competencies and constitutional powers (ordinal seventh Law 8292), that risk must be assessed, analyzed, and minimized (Article 14 Law 8292), and that control activities (numeral 15) must be carried out with the aim of documenting and disseminating the pertinent policies, norms, and procedures that guarantee compliance with the institutional internal control system and the prevention of any aspect that leads to deviating from the objectives and goals set by the institution in the performance of its functions, and an adequate, documented, and recorded annotation of the significant events carried out must be kept. For its part, Regulation number 355 of February 11, 2003, called the Investments of Regulated Entities Regulation, in which an Investment and Risk Committee is established, provides that a Manual of Policies and Procedures for the Integral Risk Management (Administración Integral de Riesgos) shall be established, an audit shall be performed in that sense (numeral 20 of Regulation 355), and an investment procedure shall be established (ordinal 50 of Regulation 355 in force in 2005) in which it is provided that "a) They must be registered in the name of each fund, whether in electronic records, on physical certificates, or in account statements, as appropriate. The acquisition of physical certificates in the case of foreign securities is not permitted. b) The payment or collection operations of the transactions of the instruments traded by the entities with the resources of the managed funds shall be carried out through the delivery versus payment modality. c) The trading orders made with the resources of the funds managed by the authorized entities must be backed up by means of recording, in the case that they are made by telephone, or safeguarded by electronic means when appropriate. In the event that such purchases are made through OTC markets, the trading orders must be preceded by at least three different offers or bids. All documentation supporting the negotiation must be kept for a period of five years. At the closing of the operation, the intermediary must send a written confirmation to the authorized entity of the transaction carried out. In case a system is used where confirmations are sent via tickets, they must be printed in order to be filed.". In addition to the foregoing, the obligation of the authorized operators to send the required information on their investments to the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) of Pensions is contemplated, with the characteristics and within the periods established.
IV)- RESOLUTION OF THE GRIEVANCES OF THE APPELLANT (LA IMPUGNANTE): Having subsumed the foregoing to the challenge brought by the defendant, we find that what was resolved in the first instance must be confirmed, such that she is not assisted by the right in her allegations, insofar as she maintains that the sixth whereas clause fails to analyze the reasons alleged in the lawsuit, for which the incompetence of the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) of Pensions to apply the imposed sanction based on the General Law of Internal Control (Ley General de Control Interno) was alleged, which corresponded to the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), under the terms of ordinal 42 of the General Law of Internal Control (Ley General de Control Interno), thus violating numeral 155 of the Civil Procedure Code by not resolving all the points under debate. In relation to this, it must be indicated that no nullity is observed in the judgment on the merits because the reasons that the appellant misses are profusely developed in the sixth whereas clause, in which the sanctioning power held by the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) of Pensions in the legal system is analyzed. In that section, the lower court adequately supports the reasons why the sanctioning competence in this matter corresponds to the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) of Pensions and not to the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), because we are faced with conduct classified in ordinals 46 subsection g) and 47 subsection b) of the Law (la Ley) 7523 of July seven, 1995, regulating the Private Regime of Complementary Pensions, as well as in ordinal 50 of Regulation number 355 of February 11, 2003, on Investments of Regulated Entities, which is also determined in this judgment by what is expressed in the third whereas clause, in which it is corroborated that the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) of Pensions is the competent administrative body to impose the fine based on the factual scenario that served as its basis. For this reason, the alleged defects of nullity are not observed, nor is there any incongruence in the appealed judgment between what was requested and what was resolved. The appellant also alleges that the General Law of Internal Control (Ley General de Control Interno) applies to infractions by officials in their personal capacity, not those of the entities, which is rejected, because the citations made in resolution SP-1096 at three o'clock in the afternoon on June fourteen, 2005, issued by the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) of Pensions, referring to the Internal Control Law (Ley de Control Interno), serve as a basis to reinforce the obligations and duties to which entities that safeguard or manage public funds are subject, but without it being the sole basis for the imposed fine, which, as indicated, was based on the regulations governing pension operators that are under the tutelage of the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) of Pensions, which itself invoked, for greater abundance of reasons, the obligations contemplated by the Internal Control Law (Ley de Control Interno), which are also applicable to the investigated facts given the demonstrated omission by the pension operator BN VITAL OPC S.A. for April and May 2004 of lacking minimum policies and procedures for an adequate internal control of the investment process and without having provided the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) with the documents and recordings with the authorizations to the Brokerage House for the purchase and sale of securities. She also alleges flaws in the seventh whereas clause by not observing the incongruence between the notification of charges and the final resolution, which implies the absolute nullity of the imposed sanction, which are not shared because the judgment on the merits reasonably denies the alleged defect of nullity in resolution SP-1096 at three o'clock in the afternoon on June fourteen, 2005. This is so because the seventh whereas clause clearly establishes that the attributed defects are not observed, as it is explained that in the initial act, the plaintiff was indicated "with utmost clarity the actions for which she would be investigated (which was accredited in the proceedings) having clarity that a sanction could eventually be imposed based on Law No. 7523 and on the Regulation of Investments of Authorized Entities, which indeed happened; additionally, it was indicated in the final resolution that conduct contrary to the provisions of the General Law of Internal Control (Ley General de Control Interno) was incurred, which does not constitute an impediment for them, not being expressly indicated in the notification of charges, to not be able to be expressed in the final act as part of the legal basis". An argument that is endorsed because, in effect, from the study of the proceedings, it is observed that such nullity is not present in the challenged act. In that sense, the aggrieved party states that in the opening act or initial resolution of the administrative procedure, the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) of Pensions does not cite the regulations that were alleged to be violated for the purposes of the imposed sanction, which she indicates affects her right of defense and generates incongruence between the accusation formulated in the initial act and the final decision. However, this is not acceptable because from the study of the initial order or notification of charges, issued under resolution number SP-1793 at twelve o'clock noon on August 19, 2004 (folios 2 to 5 of the administrative file), it is clearly observed that the pension operator is expressed the same charges for which she was sanctioned, and the norms on which such resolution was based, the basis of the infraction, (Article 46 subsection g) and 47 of the Law (la Ley)), being the same ones on which the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) based its operant part to impose the challenged fine. The appellant also maintains that the sanction is based on the General Law of Internal Control (Ley General de Control Interno), but which is not even mentioned in the notification of charges, which affected her right of defense, an argument that is not admitted, because as already indicated, the regulations of the Internal Control Law (Ley de Control Interno) cited in the results clauses of the challenged act are stated as support or additional reasons to consider the infractions and conduct specifically contemplated in the Law (la Ley) 7523 for pension operators as configured, and which are those that give the specific and determined competence to the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) of Pensions for the imposition of the imposed fine, all without prejudice to the regulatory citations of the Internal Control Law (Ley de Control Interno) which, for greater abundance of reasons, were set forth in the administrative resolution, which do not detract in any way, nor detract from the effectiveness of the challenged administrative acts. The pension operator also alleges that the omission attributed to BN VITAL, consisting of not having put in writing the minimum policies and procedures for an adequate internal control of investments, is not derived from, nor is it contemplated in ordinals 46 subsections b) and g), nor in Article 50 of the Regulation of Investments of Authorized Entities, norms that do not contemplate such an obligation, which does not emerge from the merits of the proceedings, because the conduct in which the plaintiff incurred, of lacking minimum policies and procedures for an adequate internal control of the investment process for April and May 2004 and of not providing the Superintendency (la Superintendencia) with the documents and recordings with the authorizations to the Brokerage House for the purchase and sale of securities, is conduct classified in Articles 46 subsection g), 47 subsection b), and ordinal 50 of the Law (la Ley) 7523, in which failure to keep the legally required accounting or records or keeping them in a flawed or irregular manner, thus making it difficult to know the equity (patrimonial) or financial situation or the operations carried out, is contemplated as a very serious sanction, and the obligation is provided that the trading orders made with the resources of the funds managed by the authorized entities must be backed up by means of recording if they are made by telephone or safeguarded by electronic means when appropriate, being related to the reproached and sanctioned fact of lacking minimum policies and procedures for an adequate internal control of the investment process, because such conduct accredits that the sanctioned entity does not carry out adequate oversight of the investment process, having an absence of documented processes, which is corroborated by the non-presentation of the trading orders. In that sense, it undoubtedly constitutes a very serious fact that the non-existence of efficient records and controls, as well as an investment procedure, has been verified, given that such operations are governed by the principles of seeking the primary benefit of the affiliates and the balance between security, increase in value, real returns, real profitability, and liquidity. Finally, the appellant affirms that the judgment on the merits does not carry out an adequate analysis of the violation of the principle of proportionality and rationality in which it was incurred due to the quantum of the imposed fine, especially since no damage was caused, and corrective measures should have been taken so that the missing policies and procedures were issued, and therefore the nullifying action of the questioned administrative act should have been accepted or the quantum of the sanction reduced, which is denied, because in view of the questioned judgment, a correct assessment of the principles of proportionality and rationality that the appellant believes were violated in the questioned administrative act is carried out, because from the study of the analysis of the eighth whereas clause, it is observed in this regard that the questioned fine was imposed based on ordinals 46 subsection g) and 47 subsection b) of Law 7523, observing that in accordance with the sanctioned conduct, it was viable to impose a fine of up to five percent of the company's equity (patrimonio); however, the lesser extreme was chosen, and for this reason, no disproportion or abuse by the sanctioning body is appreciated. On the other hand, it must be taken into consideration that we are facing very serious infractions due to being in the presence, as stated in the third whereas clause, and taking into consideration the criterion of severity of the infraction (ordinal 58 Law 7523), of workers' savings that must be invested in a safe and reliable manner, minimizing risks so as not to expose them, and seeking that investments are made correctly, giving the appropriate destination to the resources obtained from the affiliates.
III)- ATRIBUCIONES DE LA SUPERINTENDENCIA DE PENSIONES PARA IMPONER SANCIONES A LA S OPERADORAS DE PLANES DE PENSIONES: Dispone la Ley número 7523 del siete de julio de 1995, reguladora del Régimen Privado de Pensiones Complementarias, en su ordinal 33, que la Superintendencia de Pensiones se encargará de la regulación y fiscalización del Régimen de Pensiones, teniendo dentro de sus atribuciones la autorización, supervisión y fiscalización de los planes, fondos, así como de la actividad de las operadoras de pensiones. Por su parte en cuanto al régimen sancionatorio, el mismo se contempla en los ordinales 45 al 57 ibid, disponiéndose que las infracciones se clasifican en leves, graves y muy graves. Consistiendo las muy graves aquellas en las que "a) El ente regulado que impida u obstaculice la supervisión de la Superintendencia. b) El ente regulado que no suministre a la Superintendencia la información requerida por ella dentro del plazo otorgado al efecto, o suministre datos falsos. c) El ente regulado que destine los recursos de un fondo a fines distintos de los previstos en el artículo 55 de la Ley de protección al trabajador. d) El ente regulado que invierta los recursos de un fondo contraviniendo los artículos 61, 62, 63, 64 y 65 de la Ley de protección al trabajador. e) El ente regulado que incumpla con las normas relativas a la custodia de títulos y valores, previstas en el artículo 66 de la Ley de protección al trabajador. f) El ente regulado que practique actividades ajenas al objeto legalmente autorizado. g) El ente regulado que no lleve la contabilidad o los registros legalmente exigidos o los lleve con vicios o irregularidades esenciales que dificulten conocer la situación patrimonial o financiera de la entidad o las operaciones en que participa. h) El ente regulado, que por un período superior a seis meses continuos, reduzca su capital mínimo a niveles inferiores al ochenta por ciento (80%) del mínimo legal o el exigible de acuerdo con las directrices emitidas por la Superintendencia. i) El ente regulado que, incumpla la obligación de someterse a las auditorías externas en los términos fijados en el inciso n) del artículo 42 de la Ley de protección al trabajador, o presente informes de auditorías externas con vicios o irregularidades sustanciales. j) Las personas, físicas o jurídicas, que realicen auditorías externas con vicios o irregularidades sustanciales, a las entidades sujetas a la fiscalización de la Superintendencia, o incumplan con las normas dispuestas en el inciso q) del artículo 42 de la Ley de protección al trabajador. k) El ente regulado que incumpla el principio de no discriminación previsto en el artículo 45 de la Ley de protección al trabajador." (ordinal 46 ibid). Sancionándose las muy graves (artículo 47 ibid) con "a) Multa por un monto hasta de cinco veces el beneficio patrimonial, obtenido como consecuencia directa de la infracción cometida. b) Multa hasta de un cinco por ciento (5%) del patrimonio de la sociedad. c) Multa hasta de doscientos salarios base, según se define en la Ley No. 7337, de 5 de mayo de 1993. d) Suspensión de la autorización hasta por un año. e) Revocación de la autorización de funcionamiento del ente regulado. ". Por su parte, las muy graves (ordinal 48 ibid) se refieren a conductas en las que "a) No notifique a la Superintendencia el incumplimiento de los requisitos de la inversión o no presente el plan de reducción de riesgos, de conformidad con el artículo 38 de la Ley de protección al trabajador. b) No remita a los afiliados la información indicada por la Superintendencia. c) Reduzca, por un período superior a dos meses e inferior a seis meses continuos, su capital mínimo a niveles inferiores al ochenta por ciento (80%) del mínimo legal o el exigible de acuerdo con las disposiciones emitidas por la Superintendencia. d) Realice publicidad contraria a las disposiciones de la Superintendencia. e) Atrase la actualización de sus libros de contabilidad o los registros obligatorios, por un plazo mayor de cinco días. f) No observe las normas contables dispuestas por la Superintendencia. g) Incumpla los términos de los planes de ahorro para la jubilación en las condiciones autorizadas por la Superintendencia y pactadas con los afiliados. h) No publique oportunamente la información que, de acuerdo con la Ley de protección al trabajador y demás normas que establezca la Superintendencia, sea de interés para los afiliados, aportantes y público en general. i) Obstaculice el derecho de transferencia ordenado en el artículo 10 de la Ley de protección al trabajador. j) No acredite los recursos en las cuentas individuales, o acredite el producto de las inversiones en forma distinta de la ordenada por la Ley de protección al trabajador o fuera de los plazos previstos en ella. k) Cobre comisiones no autorizadas en la Ley de protección al trabajador o en las normas reglamentarias emitidas por la Superintendencia. l) Utilice o permita que sus funcionarios usen información reservada a fin de que obtengan, para sí o para otros, ventajas de los fondos administrados, mediante la compra o venta de valores.". Conductas que se sancionarán (artículo 49 ibid) con "a) Amonestación pública que se divulgará en La Gaceta y un diario de circulación nacional. b) Multa por un monto hasta de tres veces el beneficio patrimonial, obtenido como consecuencia directa de la infracción cometida. c) Multa hasta de un dos por ciento (2%) del patrimonio de la sociedad. d) Multa hasta de cien veces el salario base definido en la Ley No. 7337, de 5 de mayo de 1993. e) Suspensión de la autorización hasta por un año.". En ese sentido, se contemplan, como se indicó, las infracciones leves (artículo 50 ibid), referidas a " los actos o las omisiones de los entes regulados, que violen las disposiciones de la Ley de protección al trabajador y las directrices emitidas por la Superintendencia y que no estén tipificadas como infracciones graves o muy graves (...)"; mismas a las que se les aplica (numeral 51 ibid) amonestación privada, consistente en una comunicación escrita dirigida al infractor. Por su parte en el ejercicio de las potestades de fiscalización y sanción (artículo 58 ibid) los funcionarios de la Superintendencia podrán efectuar acciones directas de supervisión, verificación, inspección o vigilancia sobre las entidades reguladas, las cuales deberán de prestar la colaboración debida. Además, en la imposición de las sanciones indicadas aplicará la Superintendencia criterios de sanción o de valoración (ordinal 60 ibid) de conformidad con la " a) La gravedad de la infracción, b) La amenaza o el daño causado, c) Los indicios de intencionalidad, d) La duración de la conducta, e) La reincidencia del infractor y la f) La capacidad de pago del infractor". A su vez en materia de inversiones el Superintendente de Pensiones tiene la atribución (ordinal 8 ibid, inciso b) y p) de "b) Supervisar la inversión de los recursos administrados y dictar políticas respecto de la composición y valoración de cartera de inversiones (...) p) Fiscalizar la inversión de los recursos de los fondos administrados por los entes supervisados y la composición de su portafolio de inversiones.". Incurriendo de este modo los entes fiscalizados en infracciones graves (ordinal 48 ibid) al no notificar a la Superintendencia respecto al incumplimiento de los requisitos de inversión o no presentación del plan de reducción de riegos según el numeral 38 de la Ley de Protección al Trabajador. A su vez el Reglamento de la Ley sobre el Régimen Privado de Pensiones Complementarias, número 25593 del ocho de octubre de 1996, nos indica en materia de regulación de las inversiones realizadas por las operadoras de pensiones que cuando el volumen de las mismas reporten un crecimiento acelerado y significativo (artículo sexto del Reglamento) se ordenará el aumento de capital que lo respalde. Por su parte en lo referente a reservas, criterios de inversión y de riesgo se sostiene que las operadoras estarán sujetas a las directrices y resoluciones emitidas por dicha dependencia (artículo noveno del reglamento). Se establece además que los recursos del fondo que administran deberá de invertirse buscando el provecho primordial de los afiliados (numeral 23 del reglamento) "procurando el necesario equilibrio entre seguridad, incremento de su valor, rendimientos reales, rentabilidad real, y liquidez.", para lo cual se fija capital mínimo de constitución y de funcionamiento, topes de inversión, reservas, prohibiciones y condiciones determinadas para sanearlas si fuere el caso y así con ello proteger a los afiliados (ordinales 23 al 29 del reglamento). En relación a lo expuesto, es dable indicar que la Ley de Protección al Trabajador número 7983 el 16 de febrero del año 2000, dispone en su ordinal 30, que la Superintendencia de Pensiones se encargará de aplicar a las operadoras de pensiones los requisitos y controles para su funcionamiento, autorizando el mismo y estableciéndoles requisitos adicionales con el objeto de proteger los ahorros de los trabajadores y buscar la eficiencia del sistema, procurando que las inversiones se realicen en forma correcta, se determine el riesgo de manejo del capital (ordinal 37 Ley 7983) y se les de el adecuado destino a los recursos obtenidos de los afiliados, respondiendo sobre el total de los aportes hechos por los trabajadores y cotizantes con su patrimonio en forma solidaria ante las pérdidas que puedan sufrir las aportaciones y los rendimientos. En torno al tema de las inversiones, los ordinales 59 a 67 de la Ley 7983 de Protección al Trabajador, estatuyen que las efectuadas por las operadoras de pensiones (artículo 60) "b) Deberán ser invertidos para el provecho de los afiliados, procurando el equilibrio necesario entre seguridad, rentabilidad y liquidez, de acuerdo con su finalidad y respetando los límites fijados por la ley y las normas reglamentarias que la Superintendencia dicte sobre el particular.", realizándolas en valores inscritos en el Registro Nacional de Valores e Intermediarios o en entidades financieras supervisadas por la Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras, y debiendo calificarse y concretarse en mercados autorizados, procurándose que se inviertan los recursos de los fondos en instrumentos que permitan a los afiliados participar directamente de las rentas y excluirse si fuere el caso la adquisición de determinados valores riesgosos, estableciendo también límites de inversión (ordinal 61 Ley 7983) para diversificar el riesgo y lograr obtener un retorno adecuado. En virtud de lo expuesto, en razón de los fondos administrados por las operadoras de pensiones, es que les resulta de aplicación la Ley General de Control Interno, número 8292 del 31 de julio del 2002, la cual en su artículo cuarto establece que será aplicable a entes y órganos que administren fondos públicos, los cuales deberán de tener un sistema de control interno completo, razonable, integrado y congruente con sus competencias y atribuciones constitucionales (ordinal séptimo Ley 8292), valorarse, analizarse, y minimizarse el riesgo (artículo 14 Ley 8292) y realizando actividades de control (numeral 15) con el objeto documentar y divulgar las políticas, las normas y los procedimientos atinentes que garanticen el cumplimiento del sistema de control interno institucional y la prevención de todo aspecto que conlleve a desviar los objetivos y las metas trazadas por la institución en el desempeño de sus funciones, debiendo tenerse una anotación adecuada, documentada y registrada de los hechos significativos que se realicen. Por su parte el Reglamento número 355 del 11 de febrero del 2003, denominado de Inversiones de las Entidades Reguladas, en la cual se establece un Comité de inversiones y de riesgos, dispone que se establecerá un Manual de Políticas y Procedimientos para la Administración Integral de Riesgos, realizándose una auditoria en ese sentido (numeral 20 del Reglamento 355) y estableciéndose un procedimiento de inversión (ordinal 50 del Reglamento 355 vigente al año 2005) en los cuales se dispone que "a) Deberán registrarse a nombre de cada fondo, ya sea en registros electrónicos, en los títulos físicos o en los estados de cuenta según corresponda. La adquisición de valores físicos en el caso de valores extranjeros no está permitida. b) Las operaciones de pago o cobro de las transacciones de los instrumentos negociados por las entidades, con los recursos de los fondos administrados, se realizarán mediante la modalidad de entrega contra pago (delivery versus payment). c) Las órdenes de negociación que se realicen con los recursos de los fondos administrados por las entidades autorizadas deberán respaldarse por medio de grabación, en el caso de que sean realizadas por vía telefónica, o resguardadas por medios electrónicos cuando así corresponda. En el caso de que dichas compras sean por medio de mercados OTC las órdenes de negociación deberán estar precedidas de al menos tres ofertas o posturas distintas. Toda la documentación que respalde la negociación deberá ser conservada por un período de cinco años. Al momento del cierre de la operación el intermediario deberá enviar una confirmación escrita a la entidad autorizada de la transacción realizada. En caso de que se utilice un sistema donde las confirmaciones se remiten vía tickets se deberán imprimir a fin de ser archivados.". Aunado a lo anterior se contempla la obligación de las operadoras autorizadas de remitir a la Superintendencia de Pensiones la información requerida de sus inversiones con las características y los plazos que se establezcan.
IV)- RESOLUCION DE LOS AGRAVIOS DE LA IMPUGNANTE: Subsumido lo expuesto a la impugnación incoada por la accionada, tenemos que debe confirmarse lo resuelto en primera instancia, de modo que no le asiste el derecho en sus alegaciones, en cuanto sostiene que en el considerando sexto omite analizar los motivos alegados en la demanda, por los que se alegó la incompetencia de la Superintendencia de Pensiones para aplicar la sanción impuesta basada en la Ley General de Control Interno, la cual le correspondía a la Contraloría General de la República, al tenor del ordinal 42 de la Ley General de Control Interno, violentándose así el numeral 155 del Código Procesal Civil al no resolverse todos los puntos objetos de debate. En relación a ello, debe indicarse que en el fallo de mérito no se observa nulidad alguna debido a que los motivos que echa de menos la impugnante se encuentran desarrollados profusamente en el considerando sexto, en el cual se analiza la potestad sancionatoria que ostenta la Superintendencia de Pensiones en el ordenamiento. En dicho aparte la a-quo sustenta adecuadamente las razones por las que la competencia sancionatoria corresponde en este asunto a la Superintendencia de Pensiones y no a la Contraloría General de la República, debido a que nos encontramos bajo conductas tipificadas en los ordinales 46 inciso g) y 47 inciso b) de la Ley 7523 del siete de julio de 1995, reguladora del Régimen Privado de Pensiones Complementarias, así como en el ordinal 50 del Reglamento número 355 del 11 de febrero del 2003, de Inversiones de las Entidades Reguladas, lo cual se determina además en el presente fallo en lo expresado en el considerando tercero, en el cual se corrobora que la Superintendencia de Pensiones es el órganos administrativo competente para imponer la multa con base en el cuadro fáctico que le sirvió de sustento. En razón de lo cual no se observan los vicios de nulidad endilgados, ni incongruencia en el fallo impugnado entre lo pedido y lo resuelto. Alega la apelante también que la Ley General de Control Interno se aplica ante infracciones de los funcionarios en su condición personal, no así de las entidades, lo cual se rechaza, debido a que las citas realizadas en la resolución SP-1096 de las quince horas del catorce de junio del año 2005, dictada por la Superintendencia de Pensiones, referente a la Ley de Control Interno, sirven de sustento para reforzar las obligaciones y deberes a las que están sometidas las entidades que custodien o administren fondos públicos, pero sin que sea el único fundamento de la multa impuesta, la cual como se indicó, se basó en la normativa que rige a las operadoras de pensiones que se encuentran bajo la tutela de la Superintendencia de Pensiones, misma que adujo para mayor abundamiento de razones las obligaciones que contempla la Ley de Control Interno, que también resultan de aplicación a los hechos investigados ante la omisión demostrada de la operadora de pensiones BN VITAL OPC S.A. para abril y mayo del 2004 de carecer de políticas y procedimientos mínimos para un adecuado control interno del proceso de inversiones y sin que le haya proporcionado a la Superintendencia los documentos y grabaciones con las autorizaciones al Puesto de Bolsa de la compra y venta de valores. Alega también falencias en el considerando séptimo al no observarse la incongruencia entre el traslado de cargos y la resolución final, que implica la nulidad absoluta de la sanción impuesta, las cuales no se comparten porque el fallo de mérito en forma razonada deniega el vicio de nulidad alegado en la resolución SP-1096 de las quince horas del catorce de junio del año 2005. Ello así por cuanto en el considerando séptimo se establece con claridad que no se observan los vicios endilgados por cuanto se explica que en el acto inicial se le indicó a la actora "con suma claridad las actuaciones por las cuales se le investigaría (lo cual fue acreditado en autos) teniendo claridad que eventualmente podría imponérsele una sanción fundamentada en la Ley N.º 7523 y en el Reglamento de Inversiones de las Entidades Autorizadas, lo cual en efecto sucedió, adicionalmente se indicó en la resolución final que se incurrió en conductas contrarias a lo dispuesto por la Ley General de Control Interno lo cual no se constituye en un impedimento para que al no ser el acto final como parte del sustento jurídico". Argumento que se avala debido a que en efecto, del estudio de los autos se observa que tal nulidad no se encuentra presente en el acto impugnado. En ese sentido expresa la agraviada que en el acto de apertura o resolución inicial del procedimiento administrativo la Superintendencia de Pensiones no cita la normativa que se alegó como lesionada para los efectos de la sanción impuesta, lo que indica le afecta su derecho de defensa y genera incongruencia entre la acusación formulada en el acto inicial y la decisión final. Sin embargo, ello no es de recibo porque del estudio del auto inicial o intimatorio de cargos, dictado bajo resolución número SP-1793 de las doce horas del 19 de agosto del 2004 (folios 2 al 5 del expediente administrativo) se observa con claridad que se le expresa a la operadora de pensiones los mismos cargos por los cuales se le sancionó, y las normas en que se sustento tal resolución, base de la infracción, (artículo 46 inciso g) y 47 de la Ley), siendo las mismas en que se basó la Superintendencia en su por tanto para imponer la multa impugnada. Sostiene también la impugnante que la sanción se sustenta en la Ley General de Control Interno, pero de la cual no se hace mención siquiera en el traslado de cargos lo que le afectó el derecho de defensa, argumento que no se admite, porque como ya se indicó, la normativa citada de la Ley de Control Interno en los resultandos del acto impugnado, se consignan como sustento o razones adicionales para tener por configuradas las infracciones y conductas contempladas en forma específica en la Ley 7523 para las operadoras de pensiones y que son las que le dan la competencia específica y determinada a la Superintendencia de Pensiones para la imposición de la multa impuesta, todo ello sin perjuicio de las citas normativas que a mayor abundamiento de razones se consignaron en la resolución administrativa sobre la Ley de Control Interno, las cuales no desvirtúan en nada, ni le restan eficacia a los actos administrativos impugnados. Alega también la operadora de pensiones que la omisión atribuida a BN VITAL consistente en no haber puesto por escrito las políticas y procedimientos mínimos para un adecuado control interno de las inversiones no se desprende, ni está contemplada en los ordinales 46 inciso b) y g), ni en el artículo 50 del Reglamento de Inversiones de las Entidades Autorizadas, normas que no contemplan tal obligación, lo que no se obtiene del mérito de los autos, porque las conductas en que incurrió la actora de carecer para abril y mayo del 2004 de políticas y procedimientos mínimos para un adecuado control interno del proceso de inversiones y no proporcionar a la Superintendencia los documentos y grabaciones con las autorizaciones al Puesto de Bolsa de la compra y venta de valores, son conductas tipificadas en los artículos 46 inciso g), 47 inciso b) y ordinal 50 de la Ley 7523, en los que se contempla como sanción muy grave el no llevar la contabilidad o los registros legalmente exigidos o tenerlos en forma viciada o irregular dificultándose así el conocer la situación patrimonial o financiera o las operaciones que realiza, y se dispone la obligación de que las órdenes de negociación que se realicen con los recursos de los fondos administrados por las entidades autorizadas deben respaldarse por medio de grabación si es por vía telefónica que se realizan o resguardarse por medios electrónicos cuando así corresponda, teniendo relación con el hecho reprochado y sancionado de carecer de políticas y procedimientos mínimos para un adecuado control interno del proceso de inversiones, debido a que tales conductas acreditan que la entidad sancionada no lleva una adecuada fiscalización del proceso de inversiones, teniendo ausencia de procesos documentados, lo que se corrobora con la no presentación de las órdenes de negociación. En ese sentido constituye sin duda un hecho muy grave el que se haya constatado la inexistencia de registros y controles eficientes, así como de un procedimiento de inversiones, en mérito a que tales operaciones se rigen por los principios de la búsqueda del provecho primordial de los afiliados y del equilibrio entre seguridad, incremento de su valor, rendimientos reales, rentabilidad real, y liquidez. Finalmente, afirma la impugnante que el fallo de mérito no realiza un análisis adecuado de la violación al principio de proporcionalidad y de racionalidad en que se incurrió por el quantum de la multa impuesta, máxime que no se causó daño, debiendo de haberse procedido mediante medidas correctivas a fin de que se emitieran las políticas y procedimientos echados de menos, por lo que debió de haberse acogido la acción anulatoria del acto administrativo cuestionado o reducido el quantum de la sanción, lo cual se deniega, debido a que vista la sentencia cuestionada, se realiza una correcta valoración de los principios de proporcionalidad y racionalidad que estima la apelante violentados en el acto administrativo cuestionado, debido a que del estudio del análisis del considerando octavo, se observa al respecto que la multa cuestionada se impuso con base en los ordinales 46 inciso g) y 47 inciso b) de la ley 7523, observándose que de conformidad con la conducta sancionada era viable imponer una multa de hasta un cinco por ciento del patrimonio de la sociedad, sin embargo se optó por el extremo menor, en razón de lo cual no se aprecia desproporción o abuso alguno por parte del órgano sancionador. Por otro lado, debe tomarse en consideración que estamos ante infracciones muy graves en razón de estar en presencia, como se expuso en el considerando tercero, y tomando en consideración el criterio de gravedad de la infracción (ordinal 58 Ley 7523), de ahorros de los trabajadores que deben ser invertidos de manera segura y confiable, minimizando los riegos para no exponerlos, y buscando que las inversiones se realicen en forma correcta, dándoles el adecuado destino a los recursos obtenidos de los afiliados.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.