Damage due to poor application of rules on interests in the judicial mandate and / or in its execution

Abstract

This article aims to demonstrate that the interest settlement update does not comply with the Peruvian legal system. Likewise, it is analyzed whether its non-observance affects the defendants. For this purpose, the descriptive and analytical method of the facts is used, which is carried out in the development of accounting expertise, which corresponds to interest generated by the credits granted by the financial system. In relation to this point, special attention is paid to cases of demand for the execution of the guarantee, in which the payment of the debt plus the agreed compensatory interest and moratorium is available, since it is not related to what is established in Circular No. 021-2007-BCR, that is, the collection of both interest rates due to default is only allowed for credit operations outside the financial system. On the other hand, it is also emphasized how, when updating the interest settlement, when the debt exceeds 360 days in arrears, the experts proceed to capitalize the interest annually, without it being agreed in the contract or in the promissory note. . Consequently, to update the interest settlement, only the default interest rate is applied and without annual capitalization.