FILE : 606054503-2022-709-0

Fiscal : Julio D. CALDERON GARCIA

Dispatch : First
SUMILLA : THE ACTIONS ARE RAISED TO
THE SUPERIOR
PROSECUTOR.-------------

LORD PROSECUTOR OF THE THIRD PROVINCIAL CORPORATE CRIMINAL

PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OF CARABAYLLO.

Roberto Carlos ZUÑIGA CHIRINOS , in the preliminary investigation

procedure initiated by a complaint filed against Renzo Norman NAVARRO
HILARIO , for the alleged commission of the CRIME AGAINST HERITAGE , in
the form of Illicit Appropriation and Fraud, to my grievance; To you, respectfully, I
say:

That, on March 15, 2023 at my home, I have been notified of the content
of your PROVISION N° 03-2023 formulated on January 23, 2023, in which Point:
EIGHTH.- FISCAL PRONUNCIATION.- Point FIRST: Declare that IT IS NOT
APPROPRIATE TO CONTINUE OR FORMALIZE THE PREPARATORY
INVESTIGATION, against RENZO NORMAN NAVARRO HILARIO, for the crime
against property in the form of ILLEGAL APPROPRIATION and against the
Estate, in the form of AGGRAVATED SCAM , to the detriment of ROBERTO
CARLOS ZUÑIGA CHIRINOS ; Therefore, with regard to this part of the decision,
I request the following:

I. REQUEST
Under the protection of Inc. (5) of article 334 of the NCPP consistent with
DIRECTIVE No. 004-2016-MP-FN, I form a REQUIREMENT so that, within the
legal term, the proceedings are elevated to the Superior Prosecutor; since I am
not satisfied with the Decision.- FIRST point of PROVISION N° 03-2023 of
23JAN2023, which resolves to declare that IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO
CONTINUE OR FORMALIZE THE PREPARATORY INVESTIGATION ; the
same one that I CHALLENGE for the reasons that I am going to detail:

II. GROUNDS OF THE CHALLENGE

1. The PROVISION OF NON-FORMALIZATION OF PREPARATORY

INVESTIGATION, of JAN 23, 2023; forces me to formulate this COMPLAINT
 (IMPEGATION) on this occasion, so that the actions are elevated to the
Superior, for the following reasons:

Its Provision is not consistent with one of abstention from the exercise of
criminal action, as provided for in the manual for drafting documents
specific to fiscal activity.- Chapter IV.- Types of documents prepared by
the Public Prosecutor's Office and Guide to Recommendations. -
Provision of abstention from the exercise of criminal action; in
which, among others, it literally mentions that the “justification of the
reason(s) for refraining from exercising criminal action in
accordance with article 334, paragraph 1 of the Code” must be
considered; Since in our opinion said justification has not been
adequately MOTIVED, this provision would become VOID, as its
arguments are not decisive and clear.

2. From reading the content of its Fiscal Provision, an attempt has been made
to locate in which part of it the aforementioned JUSTIFICATION has been
recorded, of which I describe the following :

6.5. However, from the review of the proceedings it is noted that there is no
requirement by which the complainant has requested the return or delivery of
the money appropriated by the accused, likewise, a Notarial Letter of fos.
43/45, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A RECEIPT STAMP, IT IS ALSO
INDICATED IN SAID CERTIFICATION THAT THE REFERRED NOTARY
LETTER WAS RECEIVED BY A MALE PERSON, WHO STATED TO BE
PROPERTY SECURITY PERSONNEL AND REFUSED TO IDENTIFY
HIMSELF, SO THIS BEING SO, THE REQUIREMENT OF PROCEDIBILITY
THAT IS REQUIRED TO START THE CRIMINAL ACTION IN THE CRIME
OF ILLEGAL APPROPRIATION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED
WITH, as has already been established, both in doctrine and in criminal
jurisprudence, which has been referred to in the previous recital; Even more
so, if it is taken into consideration that the complainant himself, when giving

his statement, which appears in the documents on pages 67/57 , when

answering question No. 04, stated that “he does not know the accused, he just
knows that Ms. Shannon León said that he was the General Manager, also
indicating that he was in the United States; Likewise, there is your answer to
question 17, that “I am not aware” of the real address of the General
Manager. In this sense, it has not been possible to notice the second moment
that is required for the configuration of the crime of Illicit Appropriation,
which is the non-return of the property , in which there is the intention to
misappropriate, AS WELL AS IT HAS NOT BEEN CORROBORATED THAT
THE REPORTED HE HAD APPROPRIATED SAID MONEY OR THAT IT
WAS NOT DELIVERED TO THE COMPLAINT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
WHAT WAS STATED IN HIS COMPLAINT, BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO
ATTRIBUTE TO HIM THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL APPROPRIATION, SINCE
IT IS NECESSARY TO CORROBORATE HIS APPROPRIATION with other
peripheral elements that reinforce the syndication original file of the
complainant, and must be filed at that end, since the investigated Renzo
Norman Navarro Hilario could not be accused of being responsible for the
crime of illicit appropriation, SINCE NO ELEMENTS OF CONVICTION
HAVE BEEN FOUND THAT CREDIT THAT THE REPORTED WOULD
HAVE BEEN FOUND APPROPRIATE OF AN ASSET, by connection neither
could bad faith be argued that has not been previously proven . (CAPITAL
LETTERS OURS).

ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR:

a. We can appreciate the reasoning expressed by the Representative

of the Public Ministry, in the First paragraph of capital letters, made
by the appellant:

WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A RECEIPT STAMP , IT IS ALSO

INDICATED IN SAID CERTIFICATION THAT THE REFERRED
NOTARY LETTER WAS RECEIVED BY A MALE PERSON, WHO
STATED TO BE PROPERTY SECURITY PERSONNEL AND REFUSED
TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF , SO THIS BEING SO, THE PROCEDIBILITY
REQUIREMENT WHICH IS REQUIRED TO START THE CRIMINAL
ACTION IN THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL APPROPRIATION WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH .

The Prosecutor has omitted to objectively evaluate the

CERTIFICATION carried out by the Notary Public of Lima. - Dr.
Gisella Patricia JARA BRICEÑO, in the specific part that has been
recorded:
 because on it, although there is no RECEIPT SEAL, it very clearly
indicates “ WHICH WAS RECEIVED …..AND PROPERTIES TO
BE SECURITY PERSONNEL OF THE PROPERTY, WHO, AFTER
AWARE OF ITS CONTENT, REFUSED TO SIGN THIS
DUPLICATE ”; which in our opinion, since its receipt was not
denied, even more so that said refusal to sign the receipt charge,
originated from knowing the content of said letter , THE ACT
OF REQUIRING RETURN OF THE MONEY APPROPRIATED BY
THE REPORTED WOULD BE VALIDATED, since the notarial letter
was sent to the address of the fiscal domicile of the San Pedro Mall
Plaza Association, as it appears before the SUNAT (ANNEX 1
SUNAT REPORT), of which its Legal Representative is the accused
Mr. Renzo Norman NAVARRO HILARIO (ANNEX 2 LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE-SUNAT and ANNEX 3 VALIDITY OF SUNARP
POWER).

b. We have a 2nd. paragraph of the reasoning expressed by the

Representative of the Public Ministry, in which the following
appeared:

NOR HAS IT BEEN CORROBORATED THAT THE DEFENDANT

HAD APPROPRIATED SAID MONEY OR THAT IT WAS NOT
DELIVERED TO THE COMPLAINT, BEING AS STATED IN HIS
COMPLAINT, BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO ATTRIBUTE THE CRIME
 OF ILLEGAL APPROPRIATION TO HIM, SINCE IT IS NECESSARY TO
CORROBORATE HIS APPROPRIATION.

According to ANNEX 2 attached to our complaint, “ COPY OF THE

VOUCHER, IN WHICH IT APPEARS AS NO. OF OPERATION
00327 OF THE STORE 100 REG.839270 ", it is proven that a
banking operation was carried out in the INTERBANK bank by
making a deposit for the sum of SEVEN THOUSAND WITH 00/100
AMERICAN DOLLARS ($.7,000.00) to Account 141-300326343- 2,
whose owner is the Company. Inmobiliaria San Pedro SAC (of
which its legal representative is the accused Renzo Norman Navarro
Hilario.- ANNEX 4), as can be seen in the screenshot attached as
ANNEX 5, and in which the logo of said person appears. legal entity
and the bank account numbers, coinciding with said Account
number 141-300326343-2, company and legal representative, which
is the accused Mr. Renzo Norman Navarro Hilario. Reported that he
has been notified via notary, with a request to return said amount of
money and that to date he has not done so and what's more, he
has ignored both notifications sent by the Public Ministry, as detailed
by the prosecutor himself in the Literal 6.4 of this appealed Tax
Provision.

c. Certainly, we also do not agree with what was stated by the

representative of the Public Ministry in the following:

SINCE NO ELEMENTS OF CONVICTION HAVE BEEN FOUND THAT

PROVIDE THAT THE DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE APPROPRIATED
AN ASSET,

We believe, in our opinion, that with the subjectivity that the

complaint is evaluated, the evidence presented, the attitudes
expressed by the investigated parties, it will certainly never be
possible to formalize and continue with the preparatory investigation
to find and subsequently find greater elements of conviction.

3. REGARDING THE CRIME OF AGGRAVATED SCAM, the representative of

the Public Ministry specifies the following:
6.8.3. That the fact communicated to this prosecutor's office does not offer greater
perspectives that would allow for the development of forceful activities to
clarify the fact reported, since, despite having the original complaint of the
injured party, this, although ratified in his complaint, does not specifies the
form, manner and circumstances in which the events occurred, since, when
the complainant gave his statement, the same one that appears in the records

on pages 67/57 , when answering question No. 04, he referred that “he
does not know the accused, only that Ms. Shannon León, that he was the
General Manager, also indicating that he is in the United States; Likewise,
there is your answer to question 17, that “I am not aware” of the real
address of the General Manager. In this sense, it has not been possible to
notice that the accused has defrauded the complainant, being in accordance
with what was indicated in his complaint, but it is not enough to attribute the
crime of illicit appropriation, since it is necessary to corroborate his
appropriation with other peripheral elements that reinforce the original
accusation of the complainant, and must be filed at this point since the
investigated Renzo Norman Navarro Hilario could not be accused of being
responsible for the crime of illicit appropriation, given that said person is in
the United States, as indicated the complainant, in addition to this, does not
know him, therefore there is no Persistence in the syndication, and
consequently, SINCE NO ELEMENTS OF CONVICTION HAVE BEEN
FOUND THAT PROVIDE THAT THE REPORTED WOULD HAVE
APPROPRIATED A PROPERTY, BY CONNECTION THEY NEITHER YOU
COULD ARGUMENT BAD FAITH THAT HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY
PROVEN. (capital letter ours).

ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL:

We have already described in the preceding point the subjectivity with
which the complaint has been evaluated, the evidence presented, the
attitudes expressed by the investigated parties, to which we do not
understand what is meant when the Representative of the Public
Ministry mentions " nor is it could argue bad faith that has not been
previously proven ”; Therefore, in our opinion, we do not find
sufficient motivation to determine that it is not appropriate to continue
 or formalize the preparatory investigation for the Crime of Aggravated
Fraud.

4. We consider it pertinent that there is no necessary justification to refrain from

pursuing criminal action and that validates the reason for not continuing with
the tax investigation and moving to the preparatory stage; The necessary
actions must be carried out to carry out an adequate tax investigation and not
only provide as actions the statement of the accused and the accused.
Reason why the Superior Prosecutor is requested to review the proceedings
and order the appropriate action .

FOR THE EXPOSED:

I ask you to be elevated to Hierarchical Superior, in due course.

ANOTHER IF I SAY: I attach hereto the following annexes:

ANNEX 1 SUNAT-CONSULTA RUC REPORT.
ANNEX 2 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ASSOCIATION. SAN PEDRO MALL
PLAZA-SUNAT
ANNEX 3 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE CIA.INMOBILIARIA SAN PEDRO SAC-
SUNAT.
ANNEX 4 VALIDITY OF SUNARP POWER CIA.INMOBILIARIA SAN PEDRO
SAC.
ANNEX 5 Screenshot of Company Account Numbers. San Pedro Real Estate
SAC.

Carabayllo, February 20, 2023.

 INCOME : 76-2019 of the 2nd FPPC-SR.
SUMILLA : THE ACTIONS ARE RAISED TO
THE SUPERIOR
PROSECUTOR.-------------

LORD PROSECUTOR OF THE SECOND PROVINCIAL CORPORATE

CRIMINAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OF SANTA ROSA.- THIRD OFFICE.

Nancy Soledad MOGROVEJO TEJEDA, in the preliminary investigation

procedure initiated by a complaint filed against Luis Roberto ROJAS FLORES
MONTUFAR , for the alleged commission of the CRIME AGAINST HERITAGE , in
the form of aggravated usurpation, to my detriment; To you, respectfully, I say:

That, on NOV 14, 2019, through Notification Card No. 7965-2019, I was
given a copy of Provision No. 03 in whose Decision - Point 1) states: THERE IS
NO PLACE TO FORMALIZE, OR CONTINUE WITH THE PREPARATORY
INVESTIGATION against LUIS ROBERTO ROJAS FLORES MONTUFAR AND
THOSE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE, for the commission of the Crime against
Property – Usurpation in the form of entry into property, through hidden acts, to the
detriment of NANCY SOLEDAD MOGROVEJO TEJEDA; Therefore, with regard to
this part of the decision, I request the following:

III. REQUEST
Under the protection of Inc. (5) of article 334 of the NCPP consistent with
DIRECTIVE No. 004-2016-MP-FN, I form a REQUIREMENT so that, within the
legal term, the proceedings are elevated to the Superior Prosecutor; since I am
not satisfied with the Decision.- Point 1) of PROVISION Nº 03 OF NON-
FORMALIZATION OF PREPARATORY INVESTIGATION of 22OCT2019; the
same one that I CHALLENGE for the reasons that I am going to detail:

IV. GROUNDS OF THE CHALLENGE

5. The PROVISION OF NON-FORMALIZATION OF PREPARATORY

INVESTIGATION, of 22OCT2019; forces me to formulate this COMPLAINT
(IMPEGATION) on this occasion, so that the actions are elevated to the
Superior, for the following reasons:

1. Its Provision is not consistent with one of abstention from the exercise of
criminal action, as provided for in the manual for drafting documents
 specific to fiscal activity.- Chapter IV.- Types of documents prepared by
the Public Prosecutor's Office and Guide to Recommendations. -
Provision of abstention from the exercise of criminal action; in
which, among others, it literally mentions that the “justification of the
reason(s) for refraining from exercising criminal action in
accordance with article 334, paragraph 1 of the Code” must be
considered; Therefore, by not having made said justification, this
provision would become VOID, as its arguments were not decisive and
clear.

6. From reading the content of its Fiscal Provision, an attempt has been made
to locate in which part of it the aforementioned JUSTIFICATION has been
recorded, from which I must assume that it is the one recorded as :

Second: Statement in relation to the specific case.

2.4 Crime subject of investigation.-
2.4.2 Regarding the accusation carried out against Luis Roberto Rojas
Flores Montufar and those who are responsible for the commission
of the crime against property.- Aggravated usurpation.

e ) However, despite the syndication carried out, it has not been possible
to establish in the records the form and circumstances in which the
illicit matter of investigation would have been carried out;
Meanwhile, the date of the alleged entry into the property that is the
subject of the complaint has not even been specified; Even less so,
has it been possible to establish in the investigation that he entered
clandestinely or hidden as required by the criminal offense;
Meanwhile, the alleged victim has not even mentioned the manner of
entry to the property in question by the complainant Luis Roberto
Rojas Flores Montufar; Even less so, has any of the reported events
been mentioned by eyewitnesses; verifying that this has not even
contributed to the investigation the WhatsApp communication
through which it claims to have become aware of the reported facts.
(our emphasis)

Regarding this matter, the Representative of the Public Ministry

himself, in Section 1.3 of the tax provision.- First: Regarding the
status of this investigation, he has stated
“… it must be kept in mind that to date it has already expired in its
deadlines;…”

Consequently, it can be seen that upon realizing this situation

caused by the series of events that occurred within the
Headquarters of the Second Provincial Corporate Criminal
Prosecutor's Office of Santa Rosa, such as the reassignment
between the different Offices of the Fiscal folder, ignoring
compliance to the deadlines established in the respective fiscal
provisions, the assignment of the Prosecutor in charge to another
fiscal district, the training course to which he was assigned, have
led to the most convenient thing to do for filing the investigation,
the same as It has not been lengthy, and has not carried out “the
other investigation procedures and procedures necessary to
better clarify the facts investigated.”

It should be noted that the Representative of the Public Ministry

has not noticed:

 Content of the statement of 13FEB2019 (at pages 12 to 15) of

the investigated Mr. Luis Roberto ROJAS FLORES
MONTUFAR, in whose response to question 08 of how he
acquired the property, he responded that he saw it 3 months
ago empty and with garbage, it was a pampa and decided to
enter. Likewise, to question 13 of whether you participate in
the Neighborhood meeting, if you are registered on the Board
of Directors, answer NO.

 Nor has he noticed what was expressed by Ms. Mariluz

HUITACCA CAMPOS, who is a neighbor of the property that
was the subject of the alleged Usurpation (fls.108-109), who
was selected at random by the Prosecutor in charge at that
time and when questioned At the end of the Tax Inspection
on April 12, 2019, said lady did not recognize the investigated
person and his family as the owners of the property.

 At the same time, the same lady, without knowing it,

contradicted what was stated by Mr. ROJAS FLORES
 MONTUFAR, who according to his version given in his
statement, that the property was empty, that it was a pampa,
when he took possession; On the contrary, said Mrs.
HUITACCA, asserted that there was a wooden module (as
the aggrieved party has asserted and demonstrated with
photographs that I present), she asserted that the current
occupants had only painted it, verbatim words of said resident
of the place.

 The bond of friendship and dependency that exists between

the neighbor Mr. Rubén CERVANTES (fiscal inspection
record fls.108-109) and the investigated person, who receives
water and electricity from him and for which he pays said
services to Mr. Rubén questions the credibility of his version,
even more so Mrs. Mariluz HUITACCA CAMPOS, has denied
that the lot in Litis has been vacant, as Mr. CERVANTES
asserts.

f) To which is added, which has not been proven in this investigation,

the previous possession of the property in question by Nancy Soledad
Mogrovejo Tejeda, at the time of the reported events, namely: hidden
or clandestine entry; Meanwhile, to date, a statement has not even
been obtained from the person of Fidel Santiago Pariona Figueroa,
who, according to the complainant, turns out to be her husband and
the person who acquired the property that was the subject of the
investigation, the same person who did not even has not even attended
the declaration procedure ordered by this Tax Office….

In this regard:

 On MAY 29, 2019, a document was presented, through which

the names of four (04) people were provided, with their
respective addresses, so that they could provide their
statement regarding the possession and facts that are the
subject of this investigation, which was not meritorious, with
the exception of the President of the Civil Military association
Marko Jara Shenonne, Mr. Marcos Juan TUEROS
VERGARA.
 Mr. Fidel Santiago PARIONA FIGUEROA, unfortunately, is a
soldier of the Peruvian Army and works in the VRAEM, whose
base is located in the Ayacucho region (province of Huanta,
district of Ayahuanco, Peru), on the border with Junín and
Huancavelica , in the VRAE area (Apurímac and Ene River
Valley) . Reason why he did not have the free will to attend the
consecutive days on which he was summoned; However, the
necessary certified copies were provided, in addition to
having provided a power of attorney to represent him, as well
as having attached the documents requested by letter dated
29MAR2019.

Furthermore, in the declaration procedure, I attended with my

husband Fidel Santiago PARIONA FIGUEROA, who was
asked if he could give his statement, receiving the response
that since it was not scheduled, his statement could not be
taken.

Continuation of subsection f) :

… on pages 183 work of Office N| 17-2010-SGPUOPYC through

which the Urban Development and Transportation Management of
the Municipality of Ancón, informs that no documentation was found
in said department related to the person of Nancy Soledad Mogrovejo
Tejeda and Fidel Santiago Pariona Figueroa, acting on the contrary,
On pages 179/182, the statement of Annia Mercedes Rosa Musse
Hurtado, who in her capacity as Deputy Manager of Urban Planning
of the Municipality of Ancón, affirms that said entity granted Proof of
Possession to Luis Roberto Rojas Flores Montufar and Marcela
Peralta Diaz de Rojas on the property subject to investigation having
complied with the required requirements.

In this regard:
 It is clear that said official in her statement refers to
SUPREME DECREE Nº 017-2006-HOUSING (Published
07/27/2006) that Approves the Regulation of Titles II and III of
Law Nº 28687 “Law of Complementary Development of the
 formalization of Informal Property, Access to land and
provision of basic services”, going on to point out that among
other requirements, for the granting of the Proof of
Possession, is the Certificate of verification of effective
possession of the property issued by an official of the
corresponding district municipality.

 However, said legal norm in its article 28, literally says:

Article 28.- Requirements for granting the Certificate or Proof of

Possession
In order for the district or provincial municipality, when
applicable, to issue the Certificate or Proof of
Possession, the interested party(s) must present, solely
and exclusively, the following documents:

1. Simple application indicating name, address and ID number

2. Copy of ID
3. Simple location plan of the property.
4. Certificate of verification of effective possession of the property
issued by an official of the corresponding district municipality
and signed by all the neighbors of the property
or police record of possession signed by all the neighbors of said
property

Therefore, it can be seen that the aforementioned municipal

official has provided biased information and/or in the worst
case, when said Certificate of Possession was issued, the
requirements established in the limited standard have not
been met; Therefore, said Certificate would become null and
void, as the required requirements have not been met.

g) …; It is clear that it is provided by documentation intended to

prove possession of the real estate issued by the person of Marcos
Juan Tueros Vergara, who has not even attended this Tax Office to
render his statement as verified in the minutes of Inconcurrence of
pages 99; without verifying any indication regarding the commission
of the aggravating circumstance that is the subject of the complaint;
everything for which in this extreme it corresponds to issue the
pronouncement of law.

Indeed, the president of the Marko Jara Shennone military civil

association, Mr. Marcos Juan TUEROS VERGARA, did not
 attend the summons issued to him, given that he was ill and
was subsequently not required again, despite the fact that in
the Provision Prosecutor No. 01-2019 of 04MAR2019 warned
that in case of non-compliance, compulsive driving would be
requested, which never occurred.

For these considerations

AVAILABLE:
1. THERE IS NO PLACE TO FORMALIZE OR CONTINUE WITH
THE PREPARATORY INVESTIGATION against LUIS
ROBERTO ROJAS FLORES MONTUFAR AND THOSE WHO
ARE RESPONSIBLE, for the commission of the Crime against
property – Aggravated usurpation in the form of entry into
property through hidden acts, to the detriment of NANCY
SOLEDAD MOGROVEJO TEJEDA. Register and Notify yourself.
In the personal opinion of the Technical Defense, there is not
sufficient justification of the reasons why it would refrain from
exercising criminal action in accordance with article 334 of the
Criminal Procedure Code.

Regarding the Point:

2. THERE IS NO PLACE TO FORMALIZE OR CONTINUE WITH

THE PREPARATORY INVESTIGATION against NANCY
SOLEDAD MOGROVEJO TEJEDA AND THOSE WHO ARE
RESPONSIBLE, for the commission of the Crime against property
– Aggravated usurpation in the form of entry into property
through hidden acts, to the detriment of LUIS ROBERTO ROJAS
FLORES MONTUFAR. Register and Notify yourself.

We agree with said position of the Public Prosecutor's Office,

taking into consideration that the appellant, when appearing at
said real estate subject to litigation, did so strictly adhering to
article 920 of the Civil Code. - Possessory Defense, within the
established period.

I. Due to the considerations expressed in the preceding points and the

failure to take statements from the following people:

- Rubén CERVANTES TORRES (neighbor of the investigated Mr.

ROJAS FLORES MONTUFAR.
 - Gladys Nataly RED FLOWERS MONTUFAR.
- Marcela PERALTA DIAZ DE ROJAS.
- Manager of the urban development area of the Municipality of
Ancón.
- Marcos Juan TUEROS VERGARA.
- Mariluz HUITACCA CAMPOS (resident adjacent to the property
that is the subject of the Litis), to declare how long Mr. ROJAS
FLORES MONTUFAR has been in said property.
- Expansion of the statement of Annia Mercedes Rosa MUSSE
HURTADO.- Deputy Manager of Urban Planning of the Municipality
of Ancón, to indicate whether the Minute of verification of effective
possession of the property issued by the municipal official, must
also be signed by all the adjoining residents of the property.
property, of which the Proof of Possession is processed.
- Jessica ESPINOZA BENAVIDES.
- Gloria Liliana MISHTI LLECLISH.
- Piedad del Carmen PASACHE PANTA.
- Corina Giovanna RENGIFO PIZANGO.
- Identification of the person known as “Nora” and “Clara” and
provide their statement.
- Validation of the Compact CD viewing record.

We consider it pertinent that there is no necessary justification to

refrain from exercising criminal action, and it is not possible to validate
the inaction shown, due to the different situations that occurred in this
Tax File and that validates the reason for not continuing with the tax
investigation and moving on to the preparatory stage; The necessary
actions must be carried out so that an adequate tax investigation is
carried out. Reason why the Superior Prosecutor is requested to
review the proceedings and order the appropriate action .

IV. ANNEX .- Xerographic copy of writing dated MAY 29, 2019.

FOR THE EXPOSED:

I ask you to be elevated to Hierarchical Superior, in due course.

Santa Rosa, November 20, 2019.

 INCOME : 716-2017 of the 1st FPPC-SR.
SUMILLA : THE ACTIONS ARE RAISED TO
THE SUPERIOR
PROSECUTOR.-------------

LORD PROSECUTOR OF THE FIRST CORPORATE CRIMINAL PROVINCIAL

PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OF SANTA ROSA.

Miguel Prudencio SULCA MEDRANO, in the preliminary investigation

procedure initiated by a complaint filed against Elbia HERNANDEZ PAREDES, for
the alleged commission of the CRIME AGAINST PROPERTY , in the form of
aggravated fraud and illicit appropriation, to my grievance; To you, respectfully, I
say:

That, on January 23, 2017, through Notification Card No. 390-2018, I

was given a copy of Provision No. 02 of NON-FORMALIZATION OF THE
PREPARATORY INVESTIGATION of January 15, 2018; Therefore I request the
following:

3REQUEST
Under the protection of Inc. (5) of article 334 of the NCPP consistent with
DIRECTIVE No. 004-2016-MP-FN, I form a REQUIREMENT so that, within the
legal term, the proceedings are elevated to the Superior Prosecutor; since I am
not satisfied with the PROVISION OF NON-FORMALIZATION OF
PREPARATORY INVESTIGATION of January 15, 2018; the same one that I
CHALLENGE for the reasons that I am going to detail:

4GROUNDS OF THE CHALLENGE

7. The PROVISION OF NON-FORMALIZATION OF PREPARATORY

INVESTIGATION, of January 15, 2018; forces me to formulate this
COMPLAINT (IMPEGATION) on this occasion, so that the actions are
elevated to the Superior, as I disagree with the reasoning carried out by the
Prosecutor in charge according to the following Points:

III. CONSIDERING:
NINTH : Following the above line, this Office maintains that the facts investigated are not subsumed
in the criminal category of article 196° A of the Penal Code, since it does not meet the elements to
constitute the crime of fraud, this is sufficient deception, since it cannot be stated that the person
under investigation used deception, cunning or trickery to get MIGUEL PRUDENCIO SULCA
MEDRANO to deliver the sum of $. 3,100.00 dollars, without taking the due precautions, even more
so in the case of a person who apparently is dedicated to the business and was only limited to signing
the Joint Partnership contracts, without verifying public entities such as SUNARP, SUNAT, or taking
any measure to protect your assets, showing excess confidence; the consequent state of error of the
victim , it cannot be stated that the complainant handed over a sum of money to the investigated
person, as he was in a state of error caused by the accused, but rather that he did so so that the
money could be delivered to him in cash and not through a banking entity, without due diligence; the
respective property disposition, and the damage, with respect to these elements as indicated by the
Complainant himself, he would have delivered to ELBIA HERNANXDEZ PAREDES, the sum of
$3,100.00 dollars, since the amount and cash delivery is simply indicated in the contract of joint
association, a fact that has not been possible to prove, and that would cause harm (our emphasis).

Regarding this matter, in fact, in the first instance I have mentioned that of
the minutes presented as an extraordinary general meeting, there is a
percentage whose names have been repeated, who have not attended
and have been recorded to a deceased person and pages 133 to 135 of
the Expansion of the Complainant's Statement. Mr. Juan Carlos
PATRICIO GIRON, presented before the DECONO and among the
questions that were asked him, the following stand out:

Pgta.6 Do you mention if you have the evidence that can demonstrate that the accused,
president of the then Heradio Pascual URQUIZO HINOJOSA, called an extraordinary
assembly, publishing in the agenda for the renewal by thirds of the Board of Directors? .- He
responded: That, if it is true that Heradio Pascual URQUIZO HINOJOSA, called an
extraordinary assembly for the renewal by thirds of the Board of Directors .

DO NOT MENTION THE DATE; I DIDN'T EVEN ASK ME ABOUT IT.

What I wonder about?: Based on what the Deputy Prosecutor has
reasoned, to determine that I have contradicted myself in my
statements.

Pgta.7 Do you mention whether the sworn statement presented to SUNARP by the accused,
president of the then Heradio Pascual URQUIZO HINOJOSA, for the registration of the new
Board of Directors, corresponds to the same date that the extraordinary assembly was
held ? .- That, it does not correspond to the same date that the extraordinary assembly was
held, nor the elections because the day 28MAR13 was Holy Thursday and the accused
indicates that said assembly was held on 28MAR13 (our underlining and bold).

IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT THE ASSEMBLY WAS NOT HELD

ON MAR 2813 BECAUSE IT WAS HOLY THURSDAY AND THAT
THE REFERENCED ASSEMBLY WAS HELD ON ANOTHER DATE;
LIKEWISE, HE WAS NOT ASKED TO SPECIFY THE DATE ON
WHICH THE SUPPOSED ASSEMBLY TOOK PLACE.

Pgta.8 In this question, he responded: That, I have been questioning it because the defendant
in his sworn statement indicates another date for the Extraordinary Assembly, because
28MAR13 was a holiday and Holy Thursday and the assembly, nor elections, were never held.
as I quote in his sworn statement, where I was elected as a member of that Board of Directors
with the attendance of approximately 35 partners.

REITERATES ITS POSITION THAT THE MENTIONED

EXTRAORDINARY OR ELECTIONARY ASSEMBLY WAS NOT
HELD ON MAR 2813; HOWEVER, THE INVESTIGATOR STATED
IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT THAT HE SUBSCRIBED AND
PRESENTED BEFORE SUNARP, THAT THE ASSEMBLY HAD
BEEN HELD ON 28MAR13.

From the impartial comparison that can be made of the two (02)
police statements made by the complainant, in their real context, NO
CONTRADICTION IS PRODUCED; since in none of them at any
time did he mention that the questioned Extraordinary General
Election Assembly had actually been held on March 28, 2013, on the
contrary he stated that it never took place, as specified in the
complaint in Point I. .- PUNITIVE PRETENTION, where it is
indicated: “(in line 10): …prefabricating a Minutes of the General Assembly that was
never held, which was set as the date of March 28, 2013,…”; which he reiterates again in the
middle of section 3.3 of the complaint “…attaching an apparent minutes of the general
assembly supposedly held on March 28, 2013; which was never carried out on said date, nor
on any other date provided for in the call for the renewal by thirds of the Board of Directors of
the aforementioned association…”
 The persons of Julio MARTINEZ TEJADA, Gregoria PEÑA
BATALLANOS, Orlando AREVALO PINEDO, Manuel TEPE
GARCIA, Alfonso COTRINA CONCEPCION; They declared in their
statement that they did not receive the summons notices; with the
exception of Gabriel Elías RAMOS OBREGON and Lucio Lázaro
REYES CRUZ, who mentioned that they did participate. With which it
is proven that the Affidavit of Quorum is false, having recorded it as if
they had attended said assembly, being the case that the original of
said declaration is in the files of the SUNARP and has not been
required for any graphic-technical expertise is practiced.

v. ANALYSIS OF THE SOURCE OF EVIDENCE AND RECORDS, IT IS CONCLUDED:

5.1. There is no evidence sufficient to establish the alleged crimes of falsification of documents and
generic falsification,……..; However, this version had not been duly corroborated with any
other element of the charge , a document that allows linking the accused with the illegality
investigated. (bold ours).

It should be noted that the Prosecutor in charge has not documented

what the REGISTRATION PROCEDURE is that is carried out to
register a NEW Board of Directors and therefore evaluate in their real
dimension the documents that appear in the proceedings; Therefore, it
is necessary to keep in mind what the requirements requested for said
registration are:

REQUIREMENTS:
1. YOU MAY SUBMIT A NOTARY CERTIFIED COPY OF :
to. Minutes of the Election Appointment Assembly of the
Board of Directors.
The call will be made by the last registered president. See Art.
45 of the RIRPJNS (Regulation of Registration of the Registry
of Non-Corporate Legal Entities).
Also attach:

b. Minutes recording the entire electoral process: As an election

of the Electoral Committee and approval of the Regulations,
when the STATUTE establishes it, only when it involves a new
election of the Board of Directors; either

2. TO ACCREDITE THE CALL AND QUORUM, SUBMIT :

a. THE PROOF THAT ACCREDITS THE CALL TO THE
ASSEMBLY (The requirements that the proof must contain are
indicated in Art. 16 and 53 of the RIRPJNS); and
 b. THE RECORD THAT ACCREDITS THE QUORUM OF THE
ASSEMBLY (The requirements that the certificate must contain
are indicated in Art. 16 and 59 of the RIRPJNS).
c. The person authorized to declare in the aforementioned
Certificates is the one who was authorized to convene the
election assembly , the two Certificates must have the
signature of the declarant duly certified before a Notary
Public or Notary of the SUNARP.
3. Fill out the Registration Request Form.
4. COPY OF IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRESENTATIVE.
5. COST: Go through PRELIQUIDATION
6. PAY AND PRESENT DOCUMENTS AT CASH OFFICE – DAILY

For this reason, you have not noticed that among the proceedings
on pages 162 to 181 are the LITERAL COPIES OF FILED TITLES ,
and among them is the Literal Copy of the Minutes of the General
Assembly of March 28, 2013 where in the first paragraph of said
minutes, In the seventh line it has been stated verbatim:

“…with a quorum of 138 qualified members out of a total of 273…”

Record that is signed by Mr. Pascual Heradio URQUIZO HINOJOSA
and Blanca GALLO CALLE, who are two of the people investigated;
the same ones who, having given their statements in the presence of
their technical defender and with the presence of the Prosecutor, have
not maintained that said annotation of the record where their
signatures appear is not the ones they use in their official acts. But on
the contrary, Mr. Pascual Heradio URQUIZO HINOJOSA, President of
the Association at that time, has tried to justify in his answer to
question (17) that he works on pages 200 to 203 of the record, where
he mentions that he was only in charge of take some papers to
SUNARP (he tries to make the person pursuing the criminal action
believe that he was a file holder, a janitor); However, he has signed
with his signature said minutes and Certificate of Affidavit of Call and
Quorum, whose signature was legalized before a Notary Public of
Lima, said declaration being signed UNDER AN OATH TO TELL THE
TRUTH , and these documents are in said pages already indicated in
the proceedings. The Representative of the Public Ministry has not
noticed that the investigated person has not presented a Psychiatric
and/or Neurological Certificate that proves that he did not enjoy 100%
 of his mental faculties on the dates he signed said documents and in
this way he can be exempt from responsibility for the subscription. of
said Declaration has been made outside of his sanity; So I declare
that:

- With 9 days' notice, he has convened in his capacity as President

of the Board of Directors of the Virgen del Rosario de Ancón Pro-
Housing Association, to hold the Extraordinary General Assembly,
according to the notes whose positions are in his possession.

- You have subscribed and inserted into your declaration the Call for
the assembly on Thursday, MAR 28, 2013, at 08:00 am. first
summons.

- I declare under oath that I verified the quorum of 138 attending

members out of a total of 273 working members.

ATTESTING THAT THE ATTENDANCE TO THE ASSEMBLY WAS

138 ASSOCIATES, pointing to the list of the attending members and
signing and printing the print of their right index finger as a sign of
agreement, under the sight and agreement of the Notary Public of
Lima Dr. William Leoncio CAJAS BUSTAMANTE, dated May 20,
2013.

Requirement demanded by SUNARP, for the registration of new

Boards of Directors of Legal Entities; Therefore, I attach an impression
of the format that said Superintendency gives as a model.

5.2. In this sense, although there is in the record the Death Certificate of Luisa GARCIA LOPEZ as it
appears in the proceedings, whose name supposedly appears on the list of participants in the
questioned assembly, however, there is no original of said list, having only The complainant's
statement, in fact, the declarants during the aftermath of this investigation, could have denied
their participation in the questioned assembly, however, they cannot indicate that in fact their
signatures have been forged, much less who the authors would be. of the alleged falsification,
since there are no originals of the questioned documents, however , it should also be noted that
there is a contradiction in the statement provided by the same complainant when initially
indicating that irregularities were found in the extraordinary general assembly , dated March
28, 2013, as there had been duplication of partners that were repeated, as well as a deceased
person had been recorded and that more than 90% of partners had not attended, and then said
 that said meeting was never held, because It was Maundy Thursday, and there is some doubt in
this assertion about its verisimilitude (our bold).

It is reiterated that there is a CERTIFIED LITERAL COPY issued by

SUNARP dated 30JAN2015 of the documents presented in the apparent
extraordinary general assembly and that the investigated Mr. Pascual
Heradio URQUIZO HINOJOSA, has signed under oath three (03)
documents, among which DA FAITH, WITH LEGALIZED SIGNATURE OF
A NOTARY PUBLIC OF LIMA, THAT THE ATTENDANCE AT THE
ASSEMBLY WAS 138 ASSOCIATES, among which was the deceased
who in life was Mrs. Luisa GARCIA LOPEZ , who under no circumstances
was able to draw, sign or place fingerprint on the attendance record book
and the multiple verbatim copies that SUNARP has sent at the request of
the Fiscal Office must be taken into consideration, the content of which
shows that the aforementioned investigator has held different
management positions within said association and on multiple occasions,
to say "because one is not at the door controlling" as he does in his
response to question (14) on pages 200 to 203, when asked if the
deceased participated in the assembly.

It is unreasonable to BE IGNORE, who would have forged the signatures,

when said record book is under the responsibility of only the members of
the Board of Directors and is not one that is at the mercy of any person,
who would have had free disposal over it, no. There is a police report that
it could have disappeared and then been recovered, during which time
false signatures could have been placed.

It is anecdotal that the pursuer of the criminal action takes it as true and
supports: "...however, these cannot indicate that in fact their signatures have been forged, much
less who or who would be the authors of the alleged forgery" since the documents in
question are not “Complaint Books” that are in a common place and easily
accessible to any user and/or in this case any person or partner, who has
the freedom to access it and make notes, subtractions, deteriorate or
some other act; since the person responsible is the Secretary and
President of the Board of Directors, in accordance with Article 44 of the
Statute of the Virgen del Rosario de Ancón Pro-Housing Association,
which literally says:
 The functions of the secretary are :
a) Keep the Minute Books of General Assemblies and Council sessions
up to date.
b) ….
c) Have the Minutes that have been approved signed with the President

5.3 In this order of ideas, it should also be taken into consideration that the Supreme Executor of the
Appeals Chamber with Free Prisoners of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima of October 6, 1997,
Exp.2062-97, Rosa Gómez of the Torre, Miguel. Jurisprudence of the Summary Criminal Procedure,
Lima Grijiley, 199, p.483, where it states “To establish the crime of falsification of documents, not
only is the report issued by the injured party sufficient, but a technical graph of expertise must also
be carried out, thus or credit”
Regarding this matter, firstly the investigated Mr. Pascual Heradio
URQUIZO HINOJOSA, tried to escape all responsibility by arguing that he
was only an encomendero who took documents to SUNARP, but he does
not assume his responsibility that he signed with his signature and
fingerprint of his index finger. right the content of the Affidavit of Call and
attendance (Quorum) of 138 members to the supposed electoral
assembly, which very conveniently said original Attendance Control
Book, would have been lost on October 15, 2013 , when the person
responsible for the Books agreed the Statute is the Secretary and/or,
failing that, the Member, as described in Article 46, which reads:
The duties of the members are:
a) Keep the Main Standard Book up to date, which…
b) …
c) Review and control auxiliary registers

It is worrying that the Minutes of the Electoral Assembly have not been
validated, the certified copy of which is in the proceedings and in which it
was stated in the first paragraph that there was a quorum of 138 members
and that within the party's complaint filed with the Prosecutor's Office, said
record has been recorded as a matter of investigation and the original of
which, luckily, has not been lost and was in the possession of the
investigated , HAVING NOT BEEN REQUIRED BY THE PROSECUTOR
IN CHARGE, so that the GRAPHOTTECHNICAL EXPERTISE to which it
allusion.
5.4. Nor would it have been proven that said act of assembly and its registration had the possibility, or
even potential, of causing any harm to the aggrieved party .

It is evident that the Virgen del Rosario de Ancón Pro Housing

Association, on the date of the commission of the crime charged, the
Board of Directors made up of part of those investigated had recently
signed the sale of a plot of land to a conjugal partnership. ; Therefore, it is
evident that there was a lucrative purpose to continue being a member of
the Board of Directors. An economic loss would not necessarily have to be
evident, since the fact that a Board assumes that rests on its laurels and
does not carry out acts for the benefit of its associates, its own lethargy in
itself causes damage, by not advancing in its runway works, sidewalks, as
they have been carried out with the new management, which has
persisted in efforts before the Municipality of the town, of Lima and the
Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

5.5. That, the subjective element that the criminal law requires would not be met either, since it would not
have been proven that the accused had the intention or will to commit generic falsehood, and
although the name of the person Luisa GOMEZ LOPEZ, as reported by the accused Blanca M.
GALLO CALLE, this apparently would have occurred due to some error in the writing in the
manuscript, which would have later been typed, conduct that would not fall within the criminal
category, a matter of investigation. Section 1 of article 334 of the NCPP, which states: “If the
prosecutor: so in the specific case the proceedings are filed”

It is incomprehensible that, according to the documentation sent by the

SUNARP to the SUNARP Prosecutor's Office, having confirmed that the
investigated Pascual Heradio URQUIZO HINOJOSA is a person who
holds leadership positions within said association, the minimization he
makes is taken as true. to his criminal behavior by trying to show that it
was an error in the drafting, downplaying the importance of formal
documents that entered the legal traffic and were going to be carefully
scrutinized , since the legalization of copies and subsequent presentation
and registration before the Public Registries, which in themselves when
qualifying the titles, pay attention to the smallest details to proceed with
their registration or formulate an Observation Note and/or in the worst
case the deletion of the title.
 5.7. ….that, tax investigations are subject to time limits for their conclusion,……., they would violate
art.334 subsection (2) of the NCPP.
It is evident that if there is a certain elapsed time, this is due to the
exclusive responsibility of the Prosecutor's Office that has been in charge
of this case, as the tax file has been INACTIVE for more than SEVEN (07)
MONTHS and subsequent parsimonious actions by each one of the
prosecutors who have been in charge, despite repeated requests to
continue this preliminary investigation

SAW. FISCAL DECISION.

1° Not formalize or continue with the preparatory investigation against Blanca M. GALLO CALLE,
…..in their capacity as Directors of the Association. Pro-Vivivienda Virgen del Rosario de Ancón; for
the alleged commission of a crime against public faith, in the form of document falsification and
generic falsehood, to the detriment of the state and Asoc.Viv. Virgin of the Rosary of Ancón.

In the personal opinion of the Technical Defense, on the contrary, there is

merit to formalize the preparatory investigation and even more so to
formulate accusations against those investigated; For this reason , the
Superior Prosecutor is requested to review the proceedings and order
appropriate action . Having to take into account that the actions of the
Public Ministry throughout this slow investigation have been working in
favor of those investigated and the request for its archiving to be able to
benefit from the special prescription is reflected in the short term.

5ANNEXES .
V.
Xerographic copy of Complaint dated 07APR2015.
VI.
Copy of Notification Card of 30JAN13, with Tax Ruling No.
01 of 30JAN2017, with Complaint.
VII. Printing of the Quorum-SUNARP Certificate format.
VIII. Copy of Affidavit signed by Pascual Heradio URQUIZO
HINOJOSA.
IX. Copy of the Association's Statute.
X. SUNARP printing of requirements to register appointment
of Representative of a civil association.
FOR THE EXPOSED:
I ask you to be elevated to Hierarchical Superior, in due course.
Santa Rosa, January 22, 2018.

_________________________
Juan Carlos PATRICIO GIRON
DNI.Nº10186408
 JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE: 145-2015 (FOLDER:
1017-2014)
SUMILLA : COMPLAINT AGAINST THE
PROSECUTOR OF THE FIRST
MIXED PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
OF PUENTE
PIEDRA.--------------------

SENIOR PROSECUTOR OF THE DECONCENTRATED OFFICE OF INTERNAL

CONTROL OF LIMA NORTH

Orlando AREVALO PINEDO, identified with DNI.Nº 06544198,

with address at Asoc. Viv. Virgin of the Rosary Mzna. E Lot 14.- District of Ancón,
in the complaint filed against Blanca Margarita GALLO CALLE and others, for the
alleged commission of the Crime of illicit appropriation of Books, to the detriment of the
"Virgen del Rosario" Housing Association.- District of Ancón , to you I sincerely say:

1. That, on JUN 24, 2015, the Discharge Prosecutor's Office of LIMA NORTE, by virtue
of FISCAL FOLDER Nº1017-2014, formalized a complaint before the Mixed Court of
Ancón; Judiciary where FILE No. 145-2015 was generated, being the case that the
Magistrate in charge issued RESOLUTION NUMBER ONE, by which she ordered that
the Prosecutor of the FIRST MIXED PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OF
PUENTE PIEDRA rule on the relevance of recording in the Prosecutor's Complaint
whether or not it requests the precautionary measure of PERSONAL NATURE of the
accused, as it has not been recorded by the Prosecutor who was in charge of the
complaint.

2. This is the case, Mr. Prosecutor, that on repeated occasions I have appeared at the
Parties Table of the aforementioned Prosecutor's Office, to be informed about my File,
a place where I have not received good treatment from the person in charge (male),
they have told me a series of arguments, so on SET 282015 at 14:30 hrs., after a long
wait, my lawyer was finally able to read said file, after it was recorded in the respective
control notebook, becoming aware of the reason why said file It was referred to
Puente Piedra.

3. This is the case, Mr. Prosecutor, that having returned on SET 30, 2015 at 08:30 to
meet with the Head of said prosecutor's office to set a date for when he will provide
my file, I did not find it because they told me that he had gone out on an errand, and to
 return on 06OCT2015 for this purpose; It is the case that having returned and after a

long wait, the Prosecutor OSCAR TEMPLE TEMPLE has indicated to me that
said folder is not in his charge and that it has been in the Ancón Police Station since
the month of March, despite having insisted that he does A few days ago my lawyer
had given a reading.

For this reason, Mr. Prosecutor of the Decentralized Office of Internal Control of
Lima Norte, I turn to your Office in order to denounce such a fact of INACTION
and THE LITTLE DILIGENCE TO ATTEND THE CITIZENS WHO SEEK
JUSTICE and on the contrary they give us any answer to that we withdraw;
Therefore, I request that you arrange for my File to be completed, given that the
Prosecutor's Office that is in charge of it REFUSES TO do so.

Said complaint dates back to MAR 28, 2013 and time has been accumulating
unnecessarily and the conditions may arise for said alleged crime to become
statute-barred DUE TO SUCH administrative INACTION .

FOR THE EXPOSED:

TO YOU I ask to arrange the pertinent corrective actions.

Independence, October 9, 2015.

_________________________
Orlando AREVALO PINEDO
DNI.Nº 06544198
 INCOME : 96-2014 of the 1st FPMPP
SUMILLA : COMPLAINT – PUBLIC
MINISTRY

LORD PROSECUTOR OF THE SUPERIOR PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OF THE

FISCAL DISTRICT OF LIMA NORTH.

Juan Carlos PATRICIO GIRON, in the preliminary investigation

procedure initiated by a complaint filed against Pascual Heradio URQUIZO
HINOJOSA and others, for the alleged commission of the Crime against Public
Faith, in the form of Falsification of Documents, to the detriment of the Housing
Association " Virgin of the Rosary.”- District of Ancón; To you, respectfully, I say:

Article 12 of the Organic Law of the Public Prosecutor's Office indicates that “If the
Prosecutor to whom it has been presented [I will refer to the criminal complaint]
does not consider it appropriate, he will inform the complainant in writing, who
may file a complaint before the immediate superior prosecutor , within a
period of three days of notification of the denial Resolution.”

Within the legal term and in this context I say:

V. REQUEST
I file a COMPLAINT against the FISCAL PROVISION that there is no place for
the formalization and continuation of the investigation of MAR 24, 2014, so that
the Superior Prosecutor declares it founded and orders the expansion of the
preliminary investigation.

VI. GROUNDS OF THE COMPLAINT

1. In accordance with the Fiscal Provision of March 24, 2015 RESOLVES:

THERE IS NO PLACE TO FORMALIZE A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against
Pascual Heradio URQUIZO HINOJOSA, Blanca Margarita GALLO CALLE,
Belisario Roberto BLAS VASQUEZ, Miguel SANDOVAL FALLA and Juan
Felizandro ATOCHE CORNEJO, for the alleged commission of the crime
 against the Faith Public-Falsification of documents, to the detriment of the
STATE and the “Virgen del Rosario” Housing Association, consequently, the
DEFINITIVE FILE of those acted is available and right is taken where
appropriate.

2. Mr. Superior Prosecutor, this Complaint is formalized for the reasons that I will
now explain:

a. The Provincial Criminal Prosecutor of the Temporary Criminal

Prosecutor's Office of DESCARGA DE LIMA NORTE, has reasoned in his
FISCAL PROVISION, as detailed:

“CONSIDERING.- Fourth Point:”….(fourth line); Well, in this regard, it is

clear that during the aftermath of the investigation the complainant has
presented as evidence the statements of the alleged partners who appear
on the list of participants in the Extraordinary Assembly of associates;
However, not all of them deny having participated in it, not remembering
whether they signed the attendance or not (see pages 72/74, 75/77,
78/80, 81/83 and 84/86), from which it follows that presumably “if the
Extraordinary Assembly in question had been held .” (our emphasis).

In this regard, what was asserted by the Prosecutor distorts what was
expressed in the police statements of the witnesses, because according to
the work of pages 72 to 86, they have been given another interpretation,
BECAUSE CLEARLY THE STATEMENTS of Messrs. Julio MARTINEZ
TEJADA, Gregorio PEÑA BATALLANOS, Orlando AREVALO PINEDO
and Manuel TEPE GARCIA, have uniformly and consistently corroborated
that they did not receive any summons notice, that they were unaware of
the holding of the questioned extraordinary assembly, as they have stated
in the sworn statement that they signed and of which they have been
ratified in all its content, expressions expressed in response to questions
No. 5, 6, 7 and 9 of their police statements HAVE EXPRESSED THAT
THEY HAVE NOT ATTENDED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSEMBLY IN
QUESTION ; except for Mr. Gabriel Elías RAMOS OBREGON, 72 years
old (summoned by the accused party), who has been the only one who
declared that he did participate, stating that he received an obituary TWO
 (02) DAYS BEFORE the celebration of the same (which It is contrary to the
statute and if so it invalidates said communication), THIS BEING THE
ONLY PERSON WHO DECLARED THAT HE HAD SIGNED , NOT REMEMBERING
IF IT WAS ON LOOSE LEAVES . This single version has been generalized by
the Prosecutor for all the declarants, when this is not true. Furthermore,
said statement should not be taken into account (it MUST BE CROSSED
OUT), given that the declarant is an elderly person, being 72 years old
and it is unknown if he was completely lucid when he testified, HAVING
GIVEN AN INCONGRUENT RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION SEVEN,
which literally says: “Say. If you are aware that in the list of attendees at
the 28MAR13 assembly, your name is repeated (No. 01 and No. 23) as
having attended, AS IT IS SHOWN TO YOU THE VIEW IN THIS ACT and
what works on pages 19?” to which he responds: That he is aware of it,
SINCE HE IS IN THIS RELATIONSHIP WITH NUMBER 07 , evidencing
with this response that presumably at that time due to his advanced age
he was not bright enough to make his police statement and subsequently
the same should not be taken into account.

b. In the following lines of POINT FOUR it mentions: "...what's more, despite

the fact that the complainant promised to attach the original document or
certified copies of the questioned document, he has not complied with
doing so , which does not allow it to be reliably established that , in effect,
the existence of the same or the falsity of what has supposedly been
recorded therein, because its……”; What was stated by the Provincial
Prosecutor in this sense is incoherent, because according to the charge
that is in my possession, dated 06FEB2015, ONE (01) LITERAL COPY
OF THE MINUTES OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE DAY
28MAR2013, which consisted of twenty (20) pages, given that it had just
been delivered to me by SUNARP. The receipt of which I attach in a
xerographic copy, for further illustration. (Our emphasis).

c. It should be noted, Mr. Superior Prosecutor, that from reading the Tax
Income, it has been possible to see that on pages 148 appears the Tax
Provision of 12FEB2015 (06 days after the presentation of the requested
certified copies) through which the preliminary investigation is concluded.
and orders to send said Fiscal Income No. 96-2014 to the Presidency of
 the Board of Prosecutors for its due assignment to the Provincial
Transitory Discharge Prosecutor's Office of Lima Norte. My
aforementioned document dated 06FEB2015, which had the required
certified copies attached, is not included in the Tax Income File No. 96-
2014.

d. In POINT FIFTH, on line 9, the prosecutor states: “… the deponents

during the aftermath of this investigation could have denied their
participation in the questioned assembly, however, THEY CANNOT
INDICATE THAT IN EFFECT, THEIR SIGNATURES HAVE BEEN
FALSIFIED (underlining and bolding ours) much less who or who would
be the authors of said alleged falsification,…”; of the deduction reached by
the Prosecutor, he is unaware that the declarants Messrs. Julio
MARTINEZ TEJADA, Gregorio PEÑA BATALLANOS, Orlando AREVALO
PINEDO and Manuel TEPE GARCIA, have uniformly and consistently
corroborated that they have not attended the supposed extraordinary
assembly , as they have expressed in their police statements that are in
the records and also reflected in the sworn statement that they signed and
of which they have ratified in all its contents. Regarding not being able to
establish who the authors would be, the accused Blanca Margarita
GALLO CALLE, in her police statement that works on pages 61 in
response to Question 18 , responds: That first I must indicate that I made
a manuscript of the minutes and the list of partners and Then I sent it to be
typed by a person in a house that does typing, but I will get the exact
address to provide it and regarding the registration of said lady (Luisa
GARCIA LOPEZ-deceased), it is due to a typing error. Regarding question
No. 19 , if the person who did the typing knows Luisa GARCIA LOPEZ, or
did you provide him with the information for the typing, as you yourself
indicate having done it in manuscript?; Ms. GALLO contradicts her
previous response in that she mentions that she provided everything in
manuscript, to change the version and say “that whoever did the typing
was in accordance with the Master Book.”

e. Likewise, the same Mrs. Blanca Margarita GALLO CALLE, in response to

question 23, responds that: “If you recognize such a document, you will
have it drafted and then delivered to Mr. URQUIZO, who was the one who
 presented these documents to SUNARP; In this way, it becomes evident
that the person who wrote or ordered the writing of the document was her
and the person who took it to the SUNARP was Mr. URQUIZO, then
because the Prosecutor mentions that there are no necessary elements
before the statement expressed by said declarant to investigate and
determine who or who would be the authors of said alleged falsification.

3. It is incomprehensible, Mr. Prosecutor, that having provided in the FISCAL

PROVISION of 10JUL2014 that appears on pages 113, among others, that
the statement of the accused Blanca Margarita GALLO CALLE, Pascual
Heradio URQUIZO HINOJOSA, Velisario Roberto BLAS VASQUEZ, Miguel
SANDOVAL FALLA and Juan Felizandro ATOCHE CORNEJO, despite being
correctly notified as stated in POLICE REPORT No. 767-2014 DECONO of
January 26, 2015 (Diligencies carried out), whose charges of the Summons
appear in the Tax Revenue; the accused have not attended, including Ms.
Blanca Margarita GALLO CALLE, who undertook to keep the Minutes Book
and Register Book or the list of the partners attending the assembly on MAR
28, 2013 (as stated in her statement of April 3, 2014 on pages 61 , in
response to question 25), and requested in the final part of CITATION No.
6279-2014 has not complied with what was requested. They are AWARDED
for the obvious CONTEST and subtraction of the Administration of Justice by
not appearing REITERATIVELY before the PNP DECONO Department that
carried out the investigation ordered by the 1st. Mixed Provincial Prosecutor's
Office of Puente Piedra, Police Department that in its PART No. 767-2015-
DECONO of 26JAN2015, concludes that it is ratified in the content of the
ATTESTING No. 1398-2014 of 09JUN2014 and PART No. 7774-2014 of
22SET2014. Through which they determine as alleged perpetrators Pascual
Heradio URQUIZO HINOJOSA, Blanca Margarita GALLO CALLE, Belisario
Roberto BLAS VASQUEZ, Miguel SANDOVAL FALLA and Juan Felizandro
ATOCHE CORNEJO of the crime against Public Faith.- Generic falsehood to
the detriment of the state (SUNARP), fact occurred on MAR 21, 2013 by
having inserted documents with data outside reality to achieve the registration
of a Board of Directors of the Pro-Housing association “Virgen del Rosario” for
the 2013 Period, by presenting documents with data outside reality, before
the SUNARP and thus achieve the registration of a Board of Directors of the
Pro-Housing association “Virgen del Rosario de Ancón”.
 4. For the reasons stated, Mr. Prosecutor, I request the review of the actions
and the Fiscal Provision of FINAL ARCHIVING be left without effect and order
the EXPANSION OF THE INVESTIGATIONS, as has been reiterated in the
respective fiscal provisions that appear in the File, the COPIES be located
CERTIFICATES OF THE LITERAL COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE DAY 28MAR2013 and provides for the
conduct of rank or force of the accused who are reluctant to attend to the
summons issued by the DECONO Police.
VII. ANNEXES .

Written dated 06FEB2015 with (22) xerographic copies of certified copies of

LITERAL COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF DAY
28MAR2013.

FOR THE EXPOSED:

TO YOU I ask that the complaint be declared founded in due course.

Independence, April 7, 2015.

_________________________
Juan Carlos PATRICIO GIRON
DNI.Nº10186408
 Income : 131-2013

File a Legal Complaint

LORD PROSECUTOR OF THE FIFTY-SEVENTH PROVINCIAL CRIMINAL

PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OF LIMA

TATIANA ELIZABETH BASTIDAS

ÑAMOC , lawyer for the companies HV
Contratistas SA, Consorcio Saneamiento
Cajamarca, Salfa Montajes, Salfa Perú and Maqsa
SA, before the investigation carried out against
Jimmy Soto Rufasto for the commission of the
crime of Fraud and another to the detriment of our
clients, Before you with all due respect we present
ourselves and say:

I. REQUEST.-

By means of this document, under the protection of the right of defense that assists my
representatives, and being within the period granted by Law; I file a Legal Complaint
against the Tax Resolution dated September 6, 2013 , in the extreme that provides “There
IS NO MERITS to promote the respective criminal action against PETER SALAZAR
LINARES, HUMBERTO WILLIAM FELIX DI NATALE, ADALBERTO JOSE FUSTER
SALAZAR, NATALIA VICUÑA ZUMAETA and LUIS FRANCISCO RAMIREZ MARTINEZ,
for the alleged commission of the crime of Fraud ; REQUESTING that the SUPERIOR
PROSECUTOR REVOLVE the appealed resolution and order the formalization of the
criminal complaint against said people for the crime of Fraud.

Similarly; A LEGAL COMPLAINT is FILED against the Tax Resolution of September 6,

2013 , in the extreme that states “there is NO MERITS to promote the respective criminal
action against JIMMY SOTO RUFASTO, PETER SALAZAR LINARES, HUMBERTO
WILLIAM FELIX DI NATALE, ADALBERTO JOSE FUSTER SALAZAR , NATALIA VICUÑA
ZUMAETA and LUIS FRANCISCO RAMIREZ MARTINEZ for the alleged commission of the
crime against Public Faith – Generic Falsehood; REQUESTING the SUPERIOR
PROSECUTOR to revoke the same and order that the investigation be expanded in order to
gather graphotechnical expertise and, based on this, the conduct of the accused be delimited.

I support my request in article 139, paragraph 14 of the Political Constitution of the State, and
in the second paragraph of article 12 of the Organic Law of the Public Ministry.

II. BACKGROUND.-
1. On January 25, 2013, a criminal complaint was filed against Jimmy Soto Rufasto for the
commission of the crime of Fraud and Generic Falsehood, with Department No. 8 of the
Scams and Other Fraud Investigation Division being in charge of the investigation.

2. The complaint stated that Mr. Jimmy Rufasto worked for the company HV Contratistas as
assistant to the head of administration and personnel. The defendant was in charge of
insurance arrangements, so part of his job was to pay the insurance of the company and the
consortia of which HV Contratistas was a part.
3. In this way, on Friday, January 11 of this year, Mr. Soto Rufasto received various checks –
listed in Notarial Letters No. 0000058433, 0000058459 and 0000058460 (found in the tax
folder), which should be taken to the companies Rímac SA EPS, Rímac Seguros y Reaseguros
and Mapfre Perú Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros since all the checks were stamped Non-
Negotiable.

4. However, Mr. Jimmy Soto, after receiving the aforementioned securities, stopped assisting the
company, which is why two notarized letters were sent to him requesting his defense since
when carrying out the corresponding verifications, on the one hand, the Surely they told us
that they did not receive the checks sent and on the other hand, the banks with which we work
did not inform that several checks had already been cashed.

5. During the investigation it has been determined that after Mr. Jimmy Soto Rufasto cashed the
checks delivered by our clients, said funds were deposited into the account of Mr. PETER
SALAZAR LINARES, who in turn, after having received the deposit, withdrew the money to
then divide said amounts and deposit them into the accounts in soles and dollars of Mr.
HUMBERTO WILLIAMS FELIX DI NATALE.

6. After Humberto Williams Felix Di Natale withdrew the aforementioned funds, credits were
made to the accounts of Adalberto Fuster Salazar and Luís Francisco Ramírez Martinez,
advisors at Banco BBVA Continental El Pino and Venezuela Offices respectively; for the sum
of S/. 700.00, S/. 500.00 and S/. 300.00 new soles.

7. From the Accounting Expertise carried out by the DIRINCRI Expertise Office, it has been
possible to establish as indicated in Opinion No. 97-2013-DIRINCRI-PNP/DIVIIEOD-D8 the
following:
A. That, HV Contractors presented various expense vouchers and their respective
payment receipts, which show that during the period from June 2012 to January 9,
2013, they issued various checks in the name of Compañía de Seguros Rimac SA and
Mapfre Perú SA (for the cancellation of various payment vouchers for the insurance
purchased) for an amount of S/. 853,671.69 new soles and $51,193.09 US dollars…
B. That the existence of 09 checks by HV Contratistas in the name of Compañía de
Seguros Rimac and Mapfre Perú SA has been verified for a total of $8,058.98 US
dollars and S/. 24,867.74, which were deposited into the savings accounts of Peter
Salazar Linares; Subsequently, on January 12, 2013, they made a cash withdrawal of
a total of $8,058.95 US dollars and with respect to S/. 24,867.74 it is unknown whether
or not it is kept in his bank account…
C. That it has been verified that on January 12, 2013, 03 cash payments were made for a
total of $8,058.95 to the savings account belonging to Humbero Williams Felix Di
Natale, however the origin and the person who made it are unknown. said payments
because said documents were not available.

8. Likewise, during the investigation, the representative of the Continental bank sent the checks
that were drawn by our client and subsequently cashed by Mr. Jimmy Soto, and it could be
verified that on the back of said securities appeared endorsements in the name of Américo
Salas Cueva – Head of Administration and Human Resources of HV Contractors of the other
consortia (keeping in mind that Mr. Sala Cueva has denied having endorsed said checks
because they bore non-negotiable stamps); Regarding this, the bank determined the irregular
collection of 204 checks drawn; which were paid by the service advisors ADALBERTO JOSÉ
CRISTOBAL FUSTER SALAZAR from the El Pino office, NATALIA VICUÑA
 ZUMAETA from the Nestlé – D'Onofrio Office and LUIS FRANCISCO RAMIREZ
MARTINEZ from the Venezuela office.

9. For this reason, the Officer in charge of the investigation sent the checks to the DIRINCRI
Criminalistics Office – Grafotécnica Expertise, which to date is pending sending the result of
the analysis carried out.

III. FUNDAMENTALS.-
A. Regarding the point that orders "There is no merit to promote the respective criminal
action against PETER SALAZAR LINARES, HUMBERTO WILLIAM FELIX DI
NATALE, ADALBERTO JOSE FUSTER SALAZAR, NATALIA VICUÑA ZUMAETA
and LUIS FRANCISCO RAMIREZ MARTINEZ for the alleged commission of the
crime of SCAM."
1. Mr. Prosecutor, in relation to Mr. Peter Salazar Linares and Humberto WillianFelix Di Natale,
it has been pointed out in the Tax Resolution that is the subject of this complaint:

“Although it is known from the aforementioned Expert Report No. 97-2013-DIRINCRI-

PNP/OFIPECON that the nine (9) checks issued by HV Contratistas SA in the name of the
insurance companies RIMAC SA and MAPFRE PERU SA, for a total of S/. 24,867.74NS
and $8,058.98DA, would have been deposited to the account of Peter Salazar Linares. It is
also true that the preliminary investigation indicates that he has worked as an Accounting
Assistant for the company Corporación Gráfica Noceda SAC, since July 15, 2000. eleven,
to date, likewise, there is from their police demonstration of pages. 121/130, who only has
an account in soles and dollars at Banco Continental due to the job function he performs,
since this consists of collecting money from clients and taking money to the bank to be
deposited at the direction of his boss Humberto William. Felix Di Natale, who as treasurer
of the company controlled the movement of his account and money, which were intended
for payment of the company's expenses, and he does not know his co-investigators, with the
exception of Humberto William Di Natale, who He is your boss; that with respect to the
checks referred to in point 6, the annotations mentioned in the question are not in his
handwriting, since he has never seen those checks; Being that from the review of what was
done, it is clear that the withdrawal of money from his account and deposit from it was
made to the account of the person of Humberto William Felix Di Natale, is part of the work
in the company Corporación Gráfica Noceda SAC, that it performs; In this regard,
Humberto William Di Natale points out that he worked from May 1, 2006 until February
2013 at Corporación Gráfica Noceda SAC, as Administration and Finance Manager, who
knows Peter Salazar Linares because he worked at the same company. That, from the
actions taken, there are not enough or reliable elements that allow us to presume the
participation of Peter Salazar Linares and Humberto William Di Natale in the accused
crime. Therefore, in this regard with respect to Peter Salazar Linares and Humberto
William Felix Di Natale, the accusation against them is dismissed.

2. In relation to the advisors of BBVA Banco Continental ADALBERTO JOSE FUSTER

SALAZAR, NATALIA VICUÑA ZUMAETA and LUIS FRANCISCO RAMIREZ
MARTINEZ, the following is specified:

“That, we have the police demonstration of Leonidas Gil Arroyo Ramírez, legal
representative of the continental bank, from pages. 77/78 and the appeal presented on
April 4, two thousand thirteen, on pages. 260/265, that the Fraud Prevention Unit of
 Banco Continental has proceeded to review the operations and that the irregular
collection of several checks has been determined, attaching a table of two hundred four
(204) checks drawn, of which the nine checks indicated above come from; maintaining that
Adalberto José Cristobal Fuster Salazar, from the El Pino office, Natalia Vicuña Zumaeta
from the Nestle – D'onofrio Office and Luis Francisco RamírezMartínez from the
Venezuela office participated as service advisors in the processing of the aforementioned
checks. However, from the actions taken, although it has been established that these people
worked for Banco Continental when the events occurred, there are no elements that allow
us to presume that they would have had any type of participation in the events that are the
subject of the accusation, dismissing the accusation in his against.

3. Before analyzing the conduct of the aforementioned people, the provisions of article 25 of the
Penal Code must be kept in mind, which provides the following:

“Whoever intentionally provides assistance in carrying out the punishable act, without
which it would not have been perpetrated, will be punished with the punishment provided
for the perpetrator. Those who, in any other way, would have maliciously provided
assistance will have their sentences prudently reduced.

4. Complicity is constituted by contributions or assistance, prior or simultaneous, that are useful

for the commission of a crime. These contributions must be made in a criminal context,
otherwise they will remain within the framework of what is socially permitted. When a crime
is contributed to in a criminal context, the criminal act also becomes the work of the
accomplices; those who have a certain degree of control over the fact, especially with regard
to the “how” of the crime. The difference with the author is not found in the competence for
the act (the accomplice is as competent for the crime as the author), but in a lesser amount of
control over the act that constitutes the crime.1

5. Acts of complicity may occur at the time of preparation of the crime or during its execution.
Once the crime has been consummated, only acts that, in unity of action with the
execution of the crime, help to exhaust the crime could give rise to punishable complicity
(For example, helping the commission of a smuggling crime, keeping the goods that have been
surreptitiously introduced into the national territory).

6. Within accomplices, article 25 of the CP distinguishes two types of complicity. On the one
hand there is the so-called primary complicity or also known as necessary cooperation. On the
other hand, there is secondary complicity, also called simple complicity. While the first
constitutes a contribution without which the crime could not have been perpetrated, the second
refers to any other form of aid or assistance in the commission of the crime. 2

7. At present, it must be verified that the representative of the Public Ministry has not made an
analysis of the alleged crime, the participation of each of the investigated agents, as well as the
documents on record.

8. Mr. Prosecutor, it is not true that the participation of the advisors of Banco Continental in the
events investigated has not been proven, since as stated by the representative of the Bank,
1
GARCIA CAVERO, Percy. Criminal law. General Part. Second edition. Jurist Editors. Lima-2012. P. 713
2
GARCIA CAVERO, Percy Criminal Law. General Part. Ibidem P. 714
 which is corroborated by the documentation in the record, it is clear that they were Adalberto
Fuster Salazar, Luís Francisco Ramírez Martínez and Natalia Vicuña Zumaeta who paid the
checks stamped NON-NEGOTIABLE.

9. The Superintendency of Banking, Insurance and AFP, through Report 809-LEG dated June 5
of the current year as well as the Bank's Internal Process manuals, can prove that on behalf of
the service advisors Adalberto José Cristobal Fuster Salazar from the El Pino office, Natalia
Vicuña Zumaeta Martínez from the Nestle – D'onofrio Office and Luís Francisco Ramírez
Martínez from the Venezuela office, there has been alleged functional misconduct in relation
to client Jimmy Soto Rufasto, since as stated see all the checks that are the subject of the
complaint, they have been drawn to the order of various legal entities and even the checks
have the impression NOT NEGOTIABLE and therefore the aforementioned service advisors of
the BBVA Continental bank should not have paid said checks to people different from said
legal entities, but they should have been paid only to the beneficiary representatives of the
checks or credited to the accounts of the legal entities drawn; However, as can be seen, the
aforementioned bank employees have ignored what is stated in the BBVA Continental Process
Manual regarding the operation they must have in the payment of checks to legal entities .

10. Mr. Prosecutor, it is public knowledge that checks marked NON-NEGOTIABLE cannot be
paid to persons other than the holders of said securities; The advisors, due to the role they play
within the Banking Institution, were aware of this impossibility, since they are clearly
indicated in their internal manuals; Added to this, the fact did not happen once but on repeated
occasions, since as stated by the legal representative of the Bank, 204 checks drawn by our
clients were cashed in this way.

11. Added to this is what was stated by the bank representative, which is corroborated by the
documentation in the tax folder; I am referring to the fact that immediately after Humberto
William Felix Di Natale withdrew the funds resulting from the cashing of the checks (which
were deposited by Peter Salazar who received the money from Jimmy Soto through deposits)
credits were made to the accounts of Adalberto Fuster Salazar and Luís Francisco
Ramírez Martínez for S/. 700.00, S/. 500.00 and S/. 300.00 new soles.

12. Regarding said action, it is evident, Mr. Prosecutor, that said bank advisors were aware that
they should not pay the checks drawn because they had the NON-NEGOTIABLE sign, but
despite this they did so and according to the documents on file they obtained a benefit for said
act, deposits of money from Mr. Humberto W. Felix DiNatale.

13. Mr. Prosecutor, the actions of the banking advisors were decisive in being able to collect the
checks drawn by our clients; since in this way Mr. Jimmy Soto obtained the money that should
have been deposited into the accounts of the Insurance and Reseguros companies Rímac and
Mapfre; That is, the advisors of Banco Continental contributed with Mr. Jimmy Soto to carry
out the criminal offense charged to the latter – Fraud; It is proven that for said action they
received part of the money that was obtained illegally by Mr. Soto Rufasto.

14. The banking advisors have acted in complicity with Mr. Jimmy Soto Rufasto in order to
seize the money of our client, which was made effective through the collection of Non-
Negotiable checks; Especially you, if there is a prohibition on paying said securities to
persons other than the holders thereof; The only way to collect said checks was through
someone who had knowledge of the illegality of Jimmy Soto's conduct and who had the
possibility of managing the internal procedure in the Banking Institution, and these
 people were the advisors of BBVA Continental Adalberto José Cristobal Fuster Salazar
from the El Pino office, Natalia Vicuña Zumaeta Martínez from the Nestle – D'onofrio
Office and Luís Francisco Ramírez Martínez from the Venezuela office; The complicity
in the crime of fraud for which Jimmy Soto was denounced was proven.

15. Regarding the accusation against Peter Salazar Linares and Humberto Williams Felix Di
Natale, the Prosecutor has indicated that there is neither sufficient evidence nor reasonable
elements that allow us to presume said participation; Regarding this, I must state that it is
totally false and that no evaluation of what has been investigated has been carried out.

16. It can be verified from the statements of Messrs. Peter Salazar Linares and Humberto
Williams Felix Di Natale that both have declared not to know Mr. Jimmy Soto; However, the
money that he collected illegally with the support of bank advisors was deposited into the
accounts of Mr. Peter Salazar Linares, who after making the withdrawal divided the amounts
of each operation and made other subsequent deposits to the accounts in national currency.
and in foreign currency by Humberto Williams Felix Di Natale.

17. Faced with this fact, the following question arises : Why would Mr. Jimmy Soto Rufasto
make deposits of large sums of money to Mr. Peter Salazar if, supposedly, as the latter
stated, he does not know said person? It is evident that what Mr. Peter Salazar stated is totally
false; even more so when he cannot give a clear explanation of the origin of the money that
entered his accounts.

18. Mr. Peter Salazar has indicated that the money that enters his accounts is supposedly from the
collections he makes on behalf of the company Corporación Gráfica Noceda SAC; However,
he has not specified who his suppliers and/or clients would be or why the large amounts of
money were deposited into his account.

19. Said person denied having made money deposits to the accounts of Humberto Williams Felix
Di Natali; but this statement is discredited through Opinion No.
97-2013-DIRINCRI-PNP/DIVIEOD-D8

A. That the existence of 09 checks by HV Contratistas in the name of Compañía de

Seguros Rimac and Mapfre Perú SA has been verified for a total of $8,058.98 US
dollars and S/. 24,867.74, which were deposited into the savings accounts of
Peter Salazar Linares; Subsequently, on January 12, 2013, they made a cash
withdrawal of a total of $8,058.95 US dollars and with respect to S/. 24,867.74 it
is unknown whether or not it is kept in his bank account…

B. That it has been verified that on January 12, 2013, 03 cash payments were made
for a total of $8,058.95 to the savings account belonging to Humbero Williams
Felix Di Natale , however the origin and the person who made it are unknown.
said payments because said documents were not available.

20. As can be seen, what was stated by Peter Salazar is totally unrelated to the truth; It has been
proven that the nine checks illegally cashed by Jimmy Soto were deposited into his account,
and that on January 12, 2013, he withdrew the sum of $8,058.98 US dollars, money that was
later deposited into the account. from Mr. Humberto Felix Di Natale on the same day.
21. In addition to this, it should be kept in mind that Mr. Humberto Felix Di Natale has not been
able to explain the origin of said amounts of money, stating roughly that they must be deposits
from clients whom he advises, without giving the name or amounts of said clients. of the
payments that they supposedly had made.

22. It is evident, Mr. Prosecutor, that Mr. Peter Salazar Linares and Humberto Williams Felix Di
Natale know Mr. Jimmy Soto Rufasto, as well as the illegal origin of the money collected by
him and subsequently deposited into his accounts; These people have acted as accomplices in
the crime of fraud for which Mr. Jimmy Soto has been formally denounced.

23. Mr. Prosecutor, as the criminal doctrine explains, people who, after the crime has been
consummated, collaborate and/or help to exhaust it will be accomplices; In the present case,
both people meet this quality since, in agreement with Mr. Jimmy Soto, they have provided
their bank accounts so that the money collected can be deposited in them and then split them
up and deposit them in other bank accounts, so that thus the final destination of said money is
not detected.

24. In this sense, it must be verified that both the bank's advisors as well as Peter Salazar and
Humberto Di Natale collaborated with Mr. Jimmy Soto Rufasto for the commission of the
accused crime – Fraud; since the conduct displayed by said people consisted of facilitating the
irregular payment of the checks drawn and subsequently (after cashing them) hiding the final
destination of the money.

25. Thus, I REQUEST your Office to analyze the conduct displayed by each of the investigated
and declare FOUNDED the complaint filed and order the Provincial Prosecutor to
FORMALIZE A COMPLAINT against PETER SALAZAR LINARES, HUMBERTO
WILLIAM FELIX DI NATALE, ADALBERTO JOSE FUSTER SALAZAR, NATALIA
VICUÑA ZUMAETA and LUIS FRANCISCO RAMIREZ MARTINEZ for the alleged
commission of the crime of SCAM.

B. Regarding the point that orders “There is no merit to promote the respective criminal
action against JIMMY SOTO RUFASTO, PETER SALAZAR LINARES, HUMBERTO
WILLIAM FELIX DI NATALE, ADALBERTO JOSE FUSTER SALAZAR, NATALIA
VICUÑA ZUMAETA and LUIS FRANCISCO RAMIREZ MARTINEZ for the alleged
commission of the crime of GENERIC FALSE”.

26. It can be verified from the criminal complaint filed on January 25, 2013, that it was filed
against Mr. Jimmy Soto Rufasto for the crime of Fraud and Generic Falsehood; pointing out
that with respect to the last criminal offense "the defendant would have falsified some element
of the security in order to deceive the officials of the Interbank or BBVA Banks in order to
collect the checks drawn by our client."

27. Although the complaint did not specify which elements had been falsified, it was because we
did not directly know how Jimmy Soto Rufasto would have cashed said checks if they had
been stamped with the NON-NEGOTIABLE sign.

28. But during the investigations and through the Legal Representative of Banco BBVA
Continental Dr. Leónidas Gil Arroyo Ramírez, it was possible to see nine of the 204 checks
that were illegally cashed by Mr. Jimmy Soto, being able to verify that on the back of said
securities there was the seal, name and signature of Mr. Américo Salas – Head of Finance
 Administration of the aggrieved companies; supposedly endorsing said checks in favor of Mr.
Jimmy Soto.

29. As can be verified from the additional statement of Mr. Américo Salas dated March 13, 2013,
in question No. 3, Mr. Salas is shown the checks sent by the bank representative to which he
has responded that THE STAMPS AND SIGNATURES THAT APPEAR ON THE BACK
OF SAID SECURITIES ARE FORGED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT APPLY TO THEM.

30. For this reason, the originals of the checks were sent to the DIRINCRI Criminalistics office –
Graphotechnical expertise in order to determine whether or not the signatures that appear on
the back of said securities correspond to Mr. Américo Salas.

31. In Report No. 596-2013-DIRINCRI-PNP/DIVIEOD-D8 sent by the Scams and Other Fraud
Investigation Division, the following was indicated in Item H: “The respective
graphotechnical expertise has been requested from the DIRINCRI Criminalistics Office, the
corresponding Expert Report has not yet been received; Likewise, the remaining checks have
not been received to be subjected to the necessary examinations; situation that limits a
categorical statement on the crime against Public Faith.

32. Likewise, in the Expanding Part No. 1508-2013-DIRINCRI-PNP/DIVIEOD in Point O it has

been indicated that the result of the graphotechnical expertise (...) has been requested from
the DIRINCRI Criminalistics Office (...) which has not been received by the moment;
Therefore, it is not feasible to issue a categorical opinion on the matter.

33. Regarding this, Mr. Prosecutor, once your Office was received, you have not issued any
request addressed to the DIRINCRI Graphotechnical Expertise Office for the purpose of
sending the result of the expertise requested by the Investigator who was in charge of the
investigation; Quite the contrary, within two days of receiving the proceedings and issuing the
appealed Tax Resolution.

34. There has been no assessment of the investigative acts and the need to obtain the
aforementioned expertise in order to determine if we are facing a crime indicated in Title XIX
“Crimes against public faith” included in our criminal catalog.

35. It should be kept in mind that Mr. Américo Sala Cueva has indicated that the signatures on the
back of the checks sent by the BBVA Continental representative as well as the stamps do not
correspond to him; In that sense, Mr. Prosecutor, it is decisive to notify the Office of
Graphotechnical Expertise so that it can send the results of the analysis of the samples and can
validly rule on the alleged or non-commission of a crime against Public Faith; understand
Document Forgery and Generic Falsehood.

36. This is one of the arguments that support the present Complaint filed, since the investigative
acts have not been exhausted to issue a statement regarding the crime against Public Faith;
since this would cause defenselessness to our representatives; all the time because it has
become clear that the collection of the checks delivered to Mr. Jimmy Soto Rufasto have been
carried out illegally, which must be duly investigated and merits a well-founded statement by
the Fiscal representative and not a hasty one as has happened in the present case; taking into
consideration that the result of the investigation reached the Prosecutor's Office on September
3 and on September 6 there was already a statement that has not been validly motivated.
37. In this sense, I REQUEST at this point that the Complained Resolution be revoked and
the Provincial Prosecutor is ordered to expand the preliminary proceedings in order to
gather accounting expertise and issue a new statement defining the conduct of those
investigated .

THEREFORE

To you, Mr. Prosecutor, I sincerely request that you accept the complaint filed for processing
and that it be escalated to the hierarchical superior so that in due course he can resolve as
requested.

Lima, September 17, 2013