What's New in May

The May issue of Visión Casahierro features analyses of the key legal and regulatory developments that are reshaping the business and legal landscape in Peru. From new rulings by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court to regulatory initiatives in the areas of finance, compliance, and intellectual property, this newsletter offers a practical look at the current challenges organizations face in an increasingly dynamic and demanding environment.

In the Labor section, the newsletter analyzes a recent Supreme Court decision that broadens the scope of the principle of labor enforcement in cases of fraudulent corporate transactions, allowing for the seizure of transferred assets to ensure the payment of workers’ labor claims.

In the area of Corporate Compliance, the newsletter reflects on how the true challenge of compliance is no longer merely adhering to regulations or implementing policies, but rather ensuring that integrity becomes an integral part of the organizational culture and daily decision-making within the company.

In the Corporate section, the article discusses the SBS’s regulatory initiatives regarding the Banking as a Service (BaaS) model, which propose new obligations and controls for financial institutions and fintech companies operating under this digital framework.

In the Tax section, the article addresses a recent Supreme Court decision that provides greater flexibility regarding the deadline for submitting a certificate of residence to access benefits under double taxation treaties, thereby limiting formal requirements not provided for in the treaties.

In the Intellectual Property section, the article explains the changes approved by INDECOPI in its TUPA, which modify forms and administrative procedures related to trademarks, copyrights, and other intangible assets.

In the Litigation section, the report discusses the Supreme Court’s use of “serial reasoning” to resolve hundreds of similar appeals, as well as a Constitutional Court ruling recognizing the right to dignified care for older adults with mental disabilities.

In the area of Public Procurement and Infrastructure, the article analyzes the growth of the secondary market for trading CIPRL and CIPGN certificates under the “Works for Taxes” program, as well as new regulatory provisions aimed at strengthening the traceability, transparency, and liquidity of these transactions.

In the area of International Trade and Customs, the report notes that SUNAT has issued a ruling regarding the processing of maintenance orders following the entry into force of the new version of the AEO Procedure.

Finally, in “Visión Piura,” an analysis is presented on the management of the Piura River banks and the potential state liability arising from the lack of permanent infrastructure projects and effective mechanisms for oversight and prevention of environmental risks.

Labor

The Supreme Court elaborates on the scope of the principle of labor prosecution in cases of corporate fraud

In Labor Cassation Case No. 3081-2023-LA LIBERTAD, the Fourth Chamber of Constitutional and Social Law of the Supreme Court elaborates on the scope of the principle of labor enforcement and its relationship to fraud against the law in labor matters. In particular, the Court establishes that the enhanced constitutional protection of labor claims—derived from their nature as claims for maintenance—justifies the existence of mechanisms designed to ensure their effective collection, even in the face of corporate acts intended to prevent or hinder compliance with labor obligations.

Within this framework, the Court analyzes fraud against labor law and clarifies that the legal system does not protect corporate transactions or asset transfers used to strip a company of its assets for the purpose of evading the payment of labor claims. Likewise, it emphasizes that joint and several liability in labor matters is not limited to the cases expressly provided for in the Civil Code, but may also extend when the existence of fraudulent conduct intended to impair workers’ right to collection is proven.

On this basis, the Supreme Court elaborates on the principle of asset tracing as a mechanism that allows workers to trace fraudulently transferred assets to ensure the collection of their labor claims. Accordingly, it concludes that this principle is not restricted exclusively to the judgment enforcement stage but may be invoked as early as the complaint stage when the employee already has prior and specific knowledge of fraudulent corporate acts intended to thwart the payment of their labor claims.

In this specific case, the Court verified that the defendant company received more than 98.36% of the assets of the co-defendant company, concluding that the purpose of this asset transfer was to evade labor obligations, as it left the co-defendant company without sufficient assets to meet its obligations to its workers. Based on this, the Court clarifies that the joint and several liability attributed to the company receiving the assets does not derive solely from the mere existence of a business relationship or membership in an economic group, but also from its participation in a fraudulent corporate transaction aimed at avoiding the payment of labor claims, which has been established by a series of indicators: (i) the creation of the company receiving the assets with negligible capital, (ii) its subsequent capitalization almost entirely with the segregated assets of the employer company, (iii) the identity of shareholders, authorized representatives, and registered address between both companies, as well as (iv) the subsequent “dormant” status and inactivity of the spun-off company.

In light of these elements, the Supreme Court concludes that, once corporate fraud has been established, joint and several liability must be extended to the company receiving the fraudulently transferred assets, and that company cannot rely on the formal or legal appearance of the transactions carried out to avoid fulfilling its labor obligations.

Compliance

The Culture of Integrity: The True Challenge of Compliance

Currently, many organizations have policies, codes of ethics, and compliance systems aligned with international standards such as ISO 37001. However, today’s approach goes beyond mere documentary compliance: the real challenge is to make integrity an integral part of the organizational culture.

A culture of integrity is reflected in the daily decisions and actions of all members of the organization. It does not depend solely on the Compliance department or the Compliance Officer, but on the commitment of employees, leaders, and senior management. When compliance is perceived solely as a formal obligation, controls lose their effectiveness and the risks of non-compliance increase.

In this context, leadership plays a key role in promoting a culture based on ethics, transparency, and prevention. Some actions that can strengthen this culture include:

Incorporating integrity questions into exit interviews to identify normalized practices or cultural risks.
Sharing simple internal statistics: reports received, risks detected, improvements implemented. Transparency builds trust.
Developing cultural indicators: ethics consultations, participation in training, perceptions of trust, and ethical leadership.
Conducting periodic surveys on ethical culture to identify pressure to deliver results, fear of reporting, normalized conflicts of interest, or lack of trust in leaders.

In this way, integrity ceases to be merely a regulatory requirement and becomes part of how the organization conducts its business.

Today, beyond simply complying with regulations, companies need to build trust. And that trust is built when integrity is part of the organization’s identity and culture.

Corporate

Regulatory Initiatives for Financial Services Under the Banking as a Service (BAAS) Model

In the context of the digital transformation of the financial system and the growth of new business models based on the use of digital technologies, and in light of the development of the “Banking as a Service” (“BaaS”)—given that this model could give rise to operational, technological, market conduct, financial consumer protection, personal data protection, and information security risks, as well as risks related to money laundering and terrorist financing— the Superintendency of Banking, Insurance, and Private Pension Fund Administrators (“SBS”) deems it necessary to establish a specific regulatory framework for the provision of BaaS services to ensure the accountability of entities regulated by the SBS both to the SBS itself and to their customers.

Accordingly, on May 8, the SBS published Resolution SBS No. 01371-2026 on its website, authorizing the release of the draft “Regulations for the Provision of Services under the Banking as a Service- BaaS” (“Draft”), which was published in the Official Gazette *El Peruano* on May 11, 2026, for public comment.

The Draft would apply to companies covered by paragraph A of Article 16 and paragraph 4 of Article 17 of Law No. 26702, which defines BaaS as the business model that would allow companies (whether or not supervised by the SBS) to offer financial products and services to customers (individuals or legal entities) through the use of the technological infrastructure of financial institutions regulated by the SBS, through digital connections and integrations that facilitate remote and automated access.

Furthermore, the Bill establishes the main aspects of contracting BaaS services between financial institutions regulated by the SBS—which it refers to as “BaaS Service Providers” (“Provider”) and companies (whether or not supervised by the SBS) that offer financial products and services to customers, which it refers to as “BaaS Service Recipients” (“Recipient”). It also establishes obligations related to corporate governance, comprehensive risk management, oversight of third-party technology providers, and transparency toward customers, as well as prohibitions against contracting a Recipient that already has a valid contract for the provision of the same services with another Provider or whose corporate name is misleading as to whether its business activities include operations authorized by the SBS.

With regard to the Provider, in accordance with the scope of application, this role would correspond to Multi-Operations Companies (Banking Companies, Financial Companies, Municipal Savings and Credit Unions, Municipal Popular Credit Unions, Credit Companies, Savings and Credit Cooperatives authorized to accept deposits from the public, and Rural Savings and Credit Institutions) and Electronic Money Issuers; and, with respect to the Recipient, it is defined as the company (whether or not supervised by the SBS) that has entered into a contract with the Provider.

The financial products and services permitted for the provision of BaaS services are as follows, provided that they fall within the scope of the authorization granted by the SBS to the Provider:

Opening, maintaining, and closing demand deposit accounts and savings accounts;
Opening, maintaining, and closing electronic money accounts;
Granting of loans;
Collections, payments, and transfers made through the accounts indicated in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) above;
Issuance and administration of credit and debit cards; and
Other services as determined by the SBS.

Regarding the main obligations of both the Provider and the Recipient, the Bill establishes the following:

Similarly, with respect to the BaaS service agreement, it is established that it shall govern the responsibilities of the Provider and the Recipient, the commission distribution scheme between the parties (including a prohibition on the Recipient from charging unauthorized commissions), the definition of responsibilities related to information security and cybersecurity, dispute resolution mechanisms and applicable jurisdiction, grounds for early termination and contract termination, security standards for the processing, storage, and protection of customer data, in accordance with the regulations issued by the SBS and the competent authority for personal data protection, the procedure applicable to the provision of BaaS services when the Provider or the Recipient enters into a regime of intervention, dissolution, liquidation, or bankruptcy, or when its operating authorization is revoked, as the case may be, among other aspects.

In light of the foregoing, we recommend that both financial sector companies regulated by the SBS and Fintech companies operating under the BaaS model evaluate their contractual structures, policies, and risk management mechanisms and improve their self-regulation to mitigate the impact of future regulatory requirements.

Tax

DOUBLE TAXATION AGREEMENTS (DTAs): The deadline for submitting the Certificate of Residence has been made more flexible.

The DTAs signed by Peru contain various tax benefits, such as exemptions and reductions in income tax (IR) withholdings applicable to the income of non-domiciled individuals residing in countries with which Peru has signed a DTA. However, to apply these benefits, our domestic regulations require that, at the time of paying the income to the non-domiciled supplier, the latter must submit a Certificate of Residence to the local payer of the income, in order to prove their domicile in the other country. Regarding the timing of the submission of the Certificate of Validity, domestic regulations expressly state that it must be submitted at the time of, or prior to, payment of the income to the non-resident. Otherwise, if the certificate is not submitted at that time—but, for example, after payment has been made to the non-resident—the benefits (exemption or reduced withholding) are forfeited, and the local payer must withhold the full amount of the applicable tax.

It is important to note here that this formal requirement (timely submission of the certificate) is not contained in the Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs) signed by Peru, but rather in our domestic legislation—that is, in a lower-ranking regulation.

In this regard, in Cassation Case No. 32926-2025, Lima, dated March 17, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that a lower-ranking regulation cannot impose additional formalities beyond those established by the DTAs (a higher-ranking provision), such as the obligation to submit the certificate of residence prior to or at the time of withholding, since this not only exceeds the provisions of the DTA but also violates the principle of the hierarchy of laws. Furthermore, it should be noted that the purpose of the residence certificate is essentially to certify that the non-resident has their tax residence in the other country with which Peru has signed the DTA. Thus, the certificate may be issued after the date of payment to the non-resident, provided that it indicates that, during the relevant period, the non-resident was resident in the other country.

Therefore, if you or your company has received a notice or fine from SUNAT for failing to withhold income tax from a non-resident because you did not have a certificate of residence, please contact us so we can review your case and evaluate your defense options in light of the foregoing.

Intellectual Property

New Changes at INDECOPI: Practical Implications for Companies and Trademark Owners

Through Administrative Resolution No. 000047–2026-PRE/INDECOPI, INDECOPI approved amendments to its Consolidated Text of Administrative Procedures (TUPA), as part of the administrative simplification and digital transformation measures implemented by the agency.

Although the changes do not involve the creation of new procedures or increases in processing fees or requirements, they do incorporate significant adjustments to forms, annexes, and mechanisms applicable to various procedures related to intellectual property and competition.

Among the main updates are those related to:

complaints regarding copyright infringement;
procedures for invalidation and cancellation of registrations;
applications for registration and amendments;
forms and attachments applicable to proceedings before Indecopi.

Although the changes are primarily administrative in nature, they could have significant operational implications for companies that have active proceedings before Indecopi or manage portfolios of trademarks, copyrights, and other intangible assets—particularly regarding the filing of applications, document compliance, and the tracking of administrative proceedings.

In this context, it is important for companies to review the currently applicable forms, attachments, and requirements in order to avoid objections, delays, or contingencies in proceedings related to intellectual property and competition.

This update is part of the digital transformation process driven by the authority and reflects a trend toward increasingly standardized and digitized procedures, making it advisable for organizations to periodically evaluate their internal processes related to the management and protection of their intangible assets.

Litigation

Supreme Court Chamber Resolves 555 Appeals Through “Serial Ruling”

The First Chamber of Constitutional and Transitional Social Law of the Supreme Court issued a joint ruling to resolve 555 appeals primarily related to disputes concerning Law No. 24041. According to Supreme Court Justice Aldo Figueroa Navarro, the Chamber applied a methodology known as “serial reasoning,” used to resolve cases involving similar legal issues.

Of the total appeals reviewed, 503 were dismissed and 52 were upheld. The ruling states that issuing a joint decision regarding similar cases is not incompatible with the duty to provide reasoning or with the right to a defense, provided that the corresponding legal analysis is maintained in each case. Furthermore, the Chamber indicated that this methodology seeks to address the procedural workload through criteria of uniformity and expediency.

The decision demonstrates the use of standardized resolution mechanisms in repetitive litigation, particularly in matters where previously established jurisprudential criteria exist. It also reflects a trend toward judicial management models aimed at interpretive uniformity and the joint handling of appeals with common elements.

Case No. 02031-2024-PHC/TC: The Constitutional Court Recognizes the Right to Care for Older Adults with Disabilities

The Constitutional Court recognized the right to care for older adults with mental disabilities as a fundamental right derived from human dignity and from Articles 4 and 7 of the Constitution. In its ruling, the Constitutional Court specified that care measures must respect the individual’s status as a rights-holder and may not result in forms of isolation or permanent separation from their family and social environment.

The case originated in a habeas corpus proceeding challenging certain living conditions imposed on the beneficiary within his home, which unduly restricted his freedom of movement and contact with his family members. The Court noted that protective or care measures cannot entail disproportionate restrictions that affect dignity, personal freedom, or the ability to maintain emotional and social ties.

The ruling establishes criteria applicable to disputes involving older adults, disability, and intrafamilial care relationships, particularly regarding the constitutional limits on protective measures and family assistance.

Public Procurement and Infrastructure

A New Market for OxI: Negotiation of CIPRL and CIPGN Certificates

Against the backdrop of sustained growth in the “Works for Taxes” (OxI) mechanism in recent years—especially given the recent surge in investment—it should come as no surprise that companies are seeking innovative forms of financing or mechanisms to safeguard their liquidity. Not only is the increase in investment in OxI projects significant, but so is the parallel development of a secondary market focused on the trading of Regional and Local Public Investment Certificates (CIPRL) and National Government Public Investment Certificates (CIPGN).

It should be noted that the tradability of these instruments is not a recent development. As early as 2016, Decree-Law No. 1250 permitted their trading, in accordance with the Eighteenth Supplementary Provision. Subsequently, in 2023, a regulatory amendment reinforced this provision, expressly establishing the tradable nature of these certificates.

However, what has been under debate is whether this secondary market should be regulated or, at the very least, whether there should be a mechanism to record and track the transactions carried out. This is largely due to the fact that, with that amendment, the certificates became fully negotiable, facilitating their transfer in the market, and because many companies choose to sell them to obtain liquidity.

Under the new regulation (DS No. 038-2026-EF), provisions have been made for the creation of the “Securities Tradability Platform,” an information system administered by the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), whose objective is to record and facilitate the traceability of CIPRL and CIPGN transactions. This tool, combined with the existing Secured Instruments Platform, enables a higher level of control and transparency over the circulation of these certificates.

As for the requirements for trading these certificates, they have remained largely unchanged. However, one aspect worth highlighting is the removal of the restriction contained in the previous regulation, which prevented private companies that both financed and executed the project from trading the certificates. With the new regulation now in effect, companies that both finance and implement OxI projects may trade the issued certificates. This decision is appropriate, as it avoids imposing unnecessary limits on the tradability of the certificates, which could discourage private-sector participation.

However, these changes do not diminish the importance of due diligence that must be conducted when acquiring these certificates. For companies particularly sensitive to reputational risks, it is advisable to verify the certificate’s origin, as well as to understand the project from which it derives and the financing company involved, before carrying out any transaction.

If your company participates or wishes to participate in the “Works for Taxes” program—whether as a contractor, subcontractor, or supervisor—we are ready to support you.

International Trade and Customs

Report No. 000025-2026-SUNAT/340000: Maintenance Orders and the Entry into Force of the New Version of the AEO Procedure.

The National Customs Legal Directorate has specified that maintenance orders related to certifications issued under the previous version (No. 3) of the DESPA-PG procedure29 must, in principle, be governed by the provisions of the new version (No. 4), effective as of January 1, 2026.

However, when maintenance orders relate to requirements that have not been modified, they may continue under the originally applicable conditions. Conversely, if the requirements were modified, companies must comply with the new requirements within one calendar year.

VISIÓN PIURA

Management of the Piura River Bank: An Analysis of State Liability and the Oversight Deficit

Nine years after the Piura River flooded in 2017, the condition of its riverbanks continues to pose one of the most critical challenges to legal and environmental security in our region. What was once a natural disaster must now be analyzed through the lens of administrative law and extracontractual civil liability, given that the persistent lack of permanent infrastructure constitutes a breach of the duty of care on the part of the competent authorities.

From the perspective of environmental and technical oversight, the management of the river channel is not a discretionary power of the relevant agencies, but rather a mandatory requirement aimed at protecting fundamental legal rights: life and property. The absence of a comprehensive solution—one that includes management of the river’s outlet to the sea and permanent riverbank defenses—places the public administration in a position of legal vulnerability. According to the principles of government oversight, the failure to implement projects with already allocated budgets could result in functional liability for inaction in preventing foreseeable risks.

In the realm of civil procedural law, this scenario opens the debate on the standing of citizens and groups to take legal action in defense of diffuse interests. The inefficiency in riverbank stabilization is not only a technical failure but also a breach of territorial development and disaster risk management plans. Oversight must cease to be merely reactive and become a genuine preventive mechanism that demands accountability for the “Reconstruction with Changes” funds, which have yet to translate into tangible safety measures.

Finally, I must emphasize that “environmental safety” is a necessary guarantee for investment and sustainable development in Piura. I invite you to reflect on the need to strengthen the institutional oversight framework. The debt owed to the Piura River is, in essence, a debt to the rule of law—one that will only be settled when technical efficiency aligns with the legal responsibility that citizens demand and the law requires.