Diego Abeo SabogalJorge Luis Acevedo MercadoMaritza Yesenia Agüero MiñanoFranklin Altamirano SegundoPercy Giancarlo Ángeles RodríguezCarla Antonieta Benedetti OrtegaCesar Benites MendozaKaren BustamanteJavier Julio Bueno ZuñigaCesar Edmundo Carlín RonquilloCarolina Chipollini RománGuillermo Gabriel Cornejo PeralesMayra Estrada EspinozaRocio Jimena De La Puente LeónKlever Antonio Espinoza RattoUrpy Gail Del Carmen Espinoza SilvaHugo Forno FlórezDaniel Figallo RivadeneyraHector Gadea BenavidesVictor García TomaMilagros Mercedes Guzmán ValenzuelaJavier Enrique Jimeno GoicocheaDaniela Kizner GomberoffJose Francisco León PachecoSilvia León PinedoZoila Isabel Macavilca RomanMartin Mayandía BurnsWillman César Meléndez TrigosoLiliana Navarrete HayakawaMelissa Nuñez SanttiAlejandra Olortegui AzatoStefano Antonio Osterling LévanoEnrique Augusto Palacios ParejaDonny Pedreros VegaWilly Pedreschi GarcésEliana Rebeca Peláez RoblesNatalia Lizzet Peña GonzálesJacqueline Lissette Quiroz GonzálesGustavo Manuel Rodríguez GarcíaAlvaro Rafael Salazar CotrinaCarlos Salinas MezaCarlos Alberto Samamé GonzálezElsy Stephanie Sedano RojasMaria Eugenia Tamariz HerediaJosé Carlos Ugaz Sánchez – MorenoVanessa Valverde LunaLuis Gilberto Vargas ValdiviaAlvaro Martín Venegas AlvarezJesús Andrés Vega GutierrezRenzo Vinelli VereauNadia Evelyn Villegas GalvezAlberto Zarak AlvaradoKarla Evelyn Zuta Palacios

Av. 28 de Julio Nº 1044,Miraflores, Lima 18 – Perú

Teléfono: (511) 615-9090Fax: (511) 615-9091

www.bfu.pe

Calle Fray Bartolomé de las Casas N° 478Urbanización San Andrés,Trujillo, La Libertad, Perú

Teléfono: (044) 60-8866e-mail: bfutrujillo@bfu.pe

José Robles Arnao N° 1055Urbanización San Francisco

Huaraz, Ancash, Perú

Teléfono: (043) 42-4408

Summary: I file criminal accusation

MR. PROSECUTOR ON DUTY OF THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OF LIMA SPECIALIZED IN ORGANIZED CRIMINALITY:

We, MINERA IRL LIMITED, represented by JAIME ALBERTO PINTO TABINI, identified with D.N.I. No. 07809274, pursuant to the attached powers of attorney (Annexes 01 and 02), with procedural domicile in Mail Box N° 310 of the Bar Association of Lima, located on floor 4 of the Courthouse, appear before you and respectfully say:

I. PETITUM

In accordance with articles 159 and 166 of the Constitution and citing articles 11 and 94 subparagraph 2 of the Organic Law of the Public Ministry, in agreement with articles 1, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 321, 322, 324, 325, 326, 328, 329 and 330 of Legislative Decree 957 and Statute 30077; WE FILE A CRIMINAL ACCUSATION against Diego Benavides Norlander, identified with DNI No. 07271705, José Antonio Cabia Vega, identified with DNI No. 09535513 and Patricia del Pilar Matsuda Ysa, identified with DNI 06673763, for the commission of the crimes of Aggravated Fraud and Conspiracy to

Commit Crimes, foreseen and sanctioned in articles 196-A subparagraph 2 and 317 of the Criminal Code, against Minera IRL Limited.

Consequently, I REQUEST that the present accusation be given leave to proceed providing the commencement of the preliminary diligences and, upon their conclusion, and once the authors and participants have been individualized, that the preparatory investigation be formalized according to the factual-juridical grounds we indicate below.

II. BACKGROUND

1. Minera IRL Limited (hereinafter, “MIRL”) is a foreign company registered in the Island of Jersey (British territory) which quotes its capital shares in the Stock Exchanges of London (AIM), Toronto (TSX) and Lima (BVL). MIRL has two subsidiary companies that operate in Peru: MINERA IRL S.A. and COMPAÑÍA MINERA KURI KULLU S.A.MINERA IRL S.A. (hereinafter, “MIRLSA”) which is a Peruvian company created on August 19, 2002, the corporate purpose of which is the mining activity. The main shareholder of MIRLSA is MIRL, with 99.9% of the shares.

2. COMPAÑÍA MINERA KURI KULLU S.A. (hereinafter, “CMKK”) is a Peruvian Company created on August 15, 2006, also devoted to the mining activity and the main asset of which is the Ollachea Mining Project, in Puno. The main shareholder of CMKK is MIRLSA, with 99.9% of the shares.

3. MIRLSA and CMKK are run and controlled by the accused party Diego Francisco Pablo Christian Benavides Norlander who is Chairman of the Board of Directors and General Manager in both companies as can be seen in Registration Entry N° 11409657 of MIRLSA (Annex 03) and Registration Entry N° 11919603 of CMKK (Annex 04) of the Registry of Corporations of the National Superintendence of Public Registries – Lima Office. His son, Felipe Benavides Romero, is shareholder of 0.1%.

4. Without giving account to the parent Company, owner of 99.9 % of the shares, Benavides Norlander exercises complete power of the administration of both subsidiaries. Such administration has become arbitrary since Benavides Norlander refuses to leave the positions he has despite the parent company’s request, in direct contempt towards our Board of Directors, which demanding a rendering of accounts due to existence of indications of wrongful management by the current administration.

5. In effect, the accused party, Benavides Norlander, has been committing a series of irregularities, the most evident of which has been an operation through which he has obtained for our subsidiary MIRLSA a loan of US$ 70´000,000.00 (seventy million US dollars) from COFIDE inducing our company to error about the need and suitability of hiring the intermediary company Inversiones y Asesorías Sherpa S.C.R.L. (hereinafter “SHERPA”) which has collected millions for non-existing services.

2

III. FACTUAL GROUNDS

1. Corporación Financiera de Desarrollo (COFIDE) is a public company governed by private law and of mixed economy, regulated by Legislative Decree N° 206, dated June 15, 1981, and its amendments, and in everything that is pertinent, by Statute N° 26702 –General Law of the Financial System and of the Insurance System and Superintendence of Banking and Insurance- and Statute N° 26887 –General Law of Corporations. In this way, the money that COFIDE manages and uses to grant financings belongs to the Peruvian State, and comes from the National Fund to Finance Entrepreneurial Activities of the State –FONAFE (initials in Spanish).

2. COFIDE is a second floor development state Bank. The main purpose of COFIDE is contributing to the development of certain sectors such as agriculture, textile, infrastructure, as well as dealing with and solving regional or municipal funding problems or encouraging certain activities such as exports and the creation of micro, small and medium-sized companies through funding and support programs.

3. For such reason, the Peruvian market was taken by surprise when in June 2015 COFIDE granted MIRLSA a disbursement of US$ 70’000,000.00 (SEVENTY MILLION US DOLLARS) with the intention of granting greater financing amounting to US$ 240’000,000.00 (TWO HUNDRED FORTY MILLION US DOLLARS), which is unusual and unprecedented, especially when the company is going through a critical economic situation, to the extent that its market value is lower than the amount of the credit received.

4. Being COFIDE a second floor Bank and since it was not able to get the domestic banks to support such an unusual operation, the authors of the crime resorted to the services of the American bank Goldman Sachs Bank USA, which channeled the loan and which currently manages it, charging over US$ 1’500,000 (ONE AND A HALF MILLION US DOLLARS) for such service to date, as evidenced in the Instructions Letter subscribed by Diego Benavides addressed to such institution on June 4, 2015 (Annex 05). This is the first time that COFIDE grants such a large financing to the mining sector.

5. It is also observed in the mentioned document the high fees amounting to US$ 90,000 (NINTY THOUSAND US DOLLARS) charged by the law firm Clifford Chance US LLP for providing legal advice in the disbursement of the credit granted by COFIDE. The payments made by MIRLSA to Goldman Sachs and Clifford Chance US LLP add up to almost two million dollars, money that was collected from the total amount of the loan granted by COFIDE. It is worthwhile highlighting that the elevated fees charged by both private institutions unnecessarily raised the cost of the financial operation for MIRLSA.

6. As a consequence of the development of this questioned financing operation of US$ 70´000 000.00 by COFIDE in favor of MIRLSA we have been victims of fraud by the accused Benavides Norlander and the rest of the members of its criminal organization to approve the hiring and the millionaire fees of a Company that exists only on paper, such as Inversiones y Asesorías SHERPA SCRL (hereinafter “SHERPA”), to which to date more than US$ 2’400,000.00 (TWO MILLION FOUR

3

HUNDRED THOUSAND US DOLLARS) have been paid from the funds COFIDE loaned to MIRLSA.

7. In the context of the negotiations to give the credit to MIRLSA for the mentioned US$ 70’000,000.00, the accused Benavides Norlander subscribed on January 22, 2015, in representation of MIRL, MIRLSA and CMKK, a Financial Advisory Contract with the company SHERPA, represented by the accused party José Antonio Cabia Vega (hereinafter, “The Contract”). (Annex 06)

8. The mentioned Contract formalized the supposed informal services that SHERPA had been providing since the beginning of the negotiations with COFIDE in March 2014 (almost one year before the signature of the contract). Regarding this Company, supposedly specialized in consulting and advice in very complex financial operations, there are, as we will demonstrate below, a series of indications that prove that it was activated ex profeso for this operation (SHERPA just activated its Sole Taxpayer’s Registry Number in May 2014 which proves that the company was used for the present operation without having ever before provided services similar to those established in The Contract), and its members lack the formation and experience credited in this matter.

9. In effect, far from complying with its fiduciary duties, the accused party Benavides Norlander and his co-defendants Cabia Vega and Matsuda Ysa, the latter a married couple and managers of SHERPA, created the corporation SHERPA, which had never operated before, to generate the appearance that they were contracting a Company specialized in very large scale financing.

10. For such purpose, the accused parties Benavides Norlander and Cabia Vega subscribed the Contract in which they included a series of falsehoods oriented to inducing the parent Company (MIRL) into error so that its Board of Directors approved the millionaire considerations paid to SHERPA.

11. As established in Clause Three of the Contract, the supposed contractual purpose was that SHERPA “will support THE CLIENT in the formulation of financing requests according to the different economic and financial alternatives, that will allow to enhance the company and in such a way that the same will be eligible for the obtainment of financial resources that make the Ollachea Gold Project completely possible.”

12. From the First Clause falsehoods can be seen inserted in the Contract by the accused parties Benavides Norlander and Cabia Vega in order to induce the parent Company into error. It was literally stipulated regarding SHERPA that it had:

“broad experience in activities carried out in capital markets, investment banking, project financing, reorganizations and it provides consulting and business management services and project financing consulting services to companies in diverse sectors.”

13. As we have stated, and as can be easily verified by reading the registration entry of SHERPA and the public information gathered from SUNAT, the Company was

4

incorporated in 2003 but it did not operate until March 25, 2014 when it registered its RUC (Annex 07), starting its activities in May that year, which coincided with the commencement of the negotiations for the giving of the credit of COFIDE for US$70’000,000.00. Therefore, it is absolutely FALSE that it is a Company with experience in the capital markets, investment banking, project financing, etc. The only purpose pursued with the inclusion of SHERPA in the financing operation was for it to serve as an instrument to deceive our directors and channel the ill-gotten money as payment of supposed fees to objectives and people whose nature and identities must be clarified throughout the investigation.

14. When revising SHERPA’s Registration Entry N° 11570709 of the Registry of Corporations of the National Superintendence of the Public Registries of Registration Zone N° IX-Lima Seat, it can be seen that the company was incorporated in the year 2003 its corporate purpose being “to devote to the investments, purchase and sale of all types of movable and/or immovable goods, real estate, import, export, construction, financial operations in general, bonds, rights, brands, contracts, options over any contract and products derived from any type of financial instrument, among others.” (Annex 08). That is to say, this company was primarily created with a broad commercial purpose and with incidence in the realty business, and then it was written in an accessory and secondary manner a vague reference to financial operations which are very different to the services detailed in the contract and for which it is certainly not qualified.

15. The mentioned Registration entry shows that on the date of registration of SHERPA the main shareholder was the accused party José Antonio Cabia Vega with 99.9% of the shares, who also has the position of General Manager. On the other hand, Cabia’s wife, Patricia del Pilar Matsuda Ysa, has the position of Sub-Manager of SHERPA. Neither person indicates having carried out professional studies in the country and they both lack patrimony, since the only goods they have are two motorcycles. It is strange that these persons manage a company the purpose of which is to create large and complex financing projects for MIRLSA when in the financial market they are not known as experts in this matter nor they have a patrimonial situation in agreement with the substantial fees accrued by this type of operations (as the more than US$ 2 million 400 thousand dollars they had received for this operation).

16. SHERPA’s Registration Entry only has 02 entries. The first one evidencing the registration and the second one evidencing the transfer of 999 shares that were in the name of the accused Cabia Vega to the accused Matsuda Ysa, his wife. The foregoing proves the evident business inactivity of this company. There is no agreement or operation that this company has carried out in over 12 years from its incorporation. SHERPA doesn’t even have an office or a website! In effect, the domiciled indicated as business address corresponds to the apartment rented by the married couple Cabia – Matsuda in the district of Miraflores.

17. Despite these basic deficiencies, SHERPA was described in the Contract as a specialized company with broad experience in being an intermediary in the negotiations with COFIDE in order to obtain the credit.

5

18. Likewise, Diego Benavides presented SHERPA before the Board of Directors of the parent company (MIRL) as essential and necessary to carry out the negotiations, even indicating that COFIDE had appointed SHERPA as exclusive agent, so not contracting with this company would be detrimental and would generate a risk of not obtaining the credit. Specifically, Benavides sold the idea that without the participation of SHERPA as intermediary COFIDE would not grant the loan.

19. In effect, the reply dated October 29, 2015 made by Mr. Doug Jones, member of the Board of directors of the parent company MIRL, to the electronic mail issued by Mr. Carlos Yrigoyen, Legal Representative of MIRL, asking if any member of the Board of Directors had any information about the participation of SHERPA in the negotiations with COFIDE is forceful and clear: “Diego Benavides presented SHERPA as a company that could guarantee the obtainment of the credit from COFIDE. He indicated that SHERPA was the only company that could advise us since COFIDE had appointed them as exclusive agents for the giving of the credit. Therefore we had to contract SHERPA, otherwise we would not obtain COFIDE’s support” (Annex 09)

20. Mr. Benavides, not telling the truth, asserted that the participation of SHERPA was essential to obtain the credit from COFIDE and that the latter had indicated that the company had an exclusive relationship to be intermediary in the negotiations with MIRLSA, so its services were necessary.

21. Mr. Jones has also indicated that “when Daryl Hodges (member of the Board of Directors of MIRL) had the opportunity to meet in person with Ramos Felices (General Manager of COFIDE), without the presence of SHERPA in the meeting, Ramos Felices informed him that there was no such exclusivity relationship or special agreement between COFIDE and SHERPA, therefore exposing the lies told by Diego Benavides to the Board of Directors of MIRL”.

22. What Mr. Jones, member of the Board of Directors of MIRL, said is conclusive. Mr. Diego Benavides induced the directors of the parent company to error, misleading them by indicating that the participation of SHERPA in the negotiations with COFIDE was essential and necessary for the obtainment of the credit. As a consequence of this misleading, the directors, in the Session of the Board of Directors of MIRL of December 22nd, 2014 (Annex 10), decided to approve the contract between MIRLSA and SHERPA. Still misled by the fraud of Diego Benavides, the Directors of MIRL in the Session of May 31st, 2015 decided to authorize Mr. Benavides to carry out the suggested amendments to the contract between MIRLSA and SHERPA. (Annex 11)

It is worthwhile highlighting that in some minutes to the sessions of the board and electronic mails that we will submit throughout the investigation SHERPA and/or the Contract are accused to be a “facilitator”, name usually used to accuse in the global anti-corruption system the intermediaries devoted to bribe public officials. Therefore, your Office must not dismiss this hypothesis as a mobile in the contracting of SHERPA by Benavides.

6

23. This irregular situation motivated Mr. Napoleón Valdez Ferrand (member of the Board of directors of the parent company) to send a Notarized Letter dated December 22nd, 2014 to Mr. Courtney Chamberlain (President of MIRL) expressing his disagreement with the participation of SHERPA as intermediary in the possible negotiations between MIRL and COFIDE. (Annex 12)- When he verified that the other members of the Board –totally induced to error- approved the contract with SHERPA, on January 14, 2015 Mr. Valdez submitted his irrevocable resignation to his position as director of MIRL. (Annex 13)

24. With the authorization of the Board of Directors of MIRL obtained based on this basic fraud, the accused parties Benavides Norlander and Cabia Vega, simulating non-existing qualities and fake services, stipulated in the Contract that SHERPA would receive the exorbitant consideration described in clause six and that we transcribe below:

“a) For the advice in the financing phase (between US$ 70’000,000.00 and US$ 100’000,000.00) SHERPA shall receive a consideration consisting in:

 i) a payment equal to 3% of the amount disbursed by the investors; ii) a NSR royalty equal to 0.9% calculated based on the gross income actually received for the sale, under market conditions, of the Mineral Concentrates coming from the Ollachea 3 mining concession, as well as all the underground extensions made of the exploration/production tunnel, even if they are located in other mining concessions; and, iii) purchase options equal to 5% of the common shares of MIRL.

 b) For the advising in the financing phase (between US$ 200’000,000.00 and US$ 230’000,000.00) SHERPA shall receive a consideration consisting in:

i) a payment of 3% of the amount obtained and disbursed; ii) the corresponding NSR royalty percentage will be increased up to 2%; and, iii) purchase options equal to 10% of the common shares of MIRL.

25. In this way, upon reception of the US$70´000,000.00 loan, the accused Benavides Norlander transferred from MIRLSA’s accounts more than 3% of such amount to SHERPA between June 10 and 12, 2015. In total, a few days after receiving the loan, the accused Benavides Norlander made payments to SHERPA for over US$ 2’400,000.00 (Two Million Four Hundred Thousand US Dollars). Besides such an exorbitant amount, according to the contract, MIRL binds itself to pay a royalty to SHERPA and to give it a purchase option of 5% of its shares! As can be seen, this absolutely atypical agreement is so onerous that it does not resist the slightest analysis since in the future it could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars taking into account the three remunerative concepts and the market fluctuations, which evidences a fraudulent conspiracy between Benavides and SHERPA.

26. With this fraudulent simulation, the undue benefit became real in favor of SHERPA, causing a serious patrimonial loss to the company I represent since an amount of over two million dollars has been unduly withdrawn from its patrimony, and it must

7

be established in the investigation, through the lifting of the bank secrecy, among which natural persons was the money received as fees for a presumed specialized and sophisticated financial consulting finally distributed.

IV. JURIDICAL GROUNDS

A. Fraud Crime

1. The crime against the patrimony in the modality of fraud, foreseen and sanctioned in article 196° of the Criminal Code, is established with the sequential concurrence of the following elements: (1) the verification of a fraudulent mechanism, consisting in the trick, cunning or scheme, that must be ideal to (2) produce a state of error in the passive subject, based on which (3) an act of patrimonial disposition is carried out, the same that implies a (4) patrimonial loss. It is convenient to specify that for the perpetration of the criminal type being commented it is necessary that these four (04) objective elements occur in the established order, joined together by a causal connection of antecedent to consequent. On the other hand, the subjective element of the type is given by the author’s trick, consisting in the knowledge he possesses about the fraudulent character of his behavior1.

2. The basis for the unfairness typical of the fraud crime is the prejudice to the patrimonial disposal of the victim, as legal manager of a patrimonial organization scope, the trick being the violation of the truthfulness duty by the author which generates a misrepresentation of reality in the manager of the damaged patrimony, annulling or blocking its free disposition. Such fraud may consist in the supply of false information or in the hiding of information that is relevant for the manager of the damaged patrimony to make decisions; this last modality (hiding of relevant information) concurs in the case subject matter of the present criminal accusation.

3. In effect, what characterizes the fraud is that the perpetration of the crime requires the causing of a patrimonial damage directly imputable to the falseness of the author, even if it has been the victim himself who carried out the patrimonial disposition in favor of the author. Precisely, the grounds for his punishment resides in the fact that such patrimonial disposition cannot be considered as freely made, since it is affected by a fraud that vitiates the will of the person who disposes of the patrimony; for this reason, the specialized doctrine affirms that the typical falseness of the fraud is a manipulating falseness, the structure of this crime being characterized as a «typified mediate perpetration», since it is the victim himself who carries out the patrimonial disposal that ends up by prejudicing him2.

1 See QUINTERO OLIVARES, Gonzalo; Comentarios a la Parte Especial del Derecho Penal, Aranzadi,

Pamplona 1999, pp. 517-521.2 See SILVA SÁNCHEZ, Jesús-María.; The falsehoods of the individuals faced with Criminal Law. In:

SALVADOR CORDECH / SILVA SÁNCHEZ, Simulación y deberes de veracidad, Civitas, Madrid 1999, pp. 99.

Also, see KINDHÄUSER, Urs. Estudios de Derecho Penal Patrimonial, Grijley, Lima 2002, pp. 83-122.

8

4. In the case at hand, the fraud perpetrated by the accused parties was materialized when they introduced SHERPA as a company with “broad experience in activities carried out in capital markets, investment banking, project financings, reorganizations and that renders advising and business management services to companies of different sectors” when it was actually a Company that existed on paper only, solely used to mask the embezzlement of substantial funds to unknown destinations and persons.

5. This fraud was ideal for the parent Company to approve the fees proposed by SHERPA in the Contract prepared by the accused parties Benavides Norlander and Cabia Vega, which are detailed in clause six mentioned above. It is in this state of error about the capacity, suitability and need of SHERPA as an intermediary for the structuring and concretion of the credit with COFIDE, when its participation was actually UNNECESSARY, that the parent company authorizes the extremely high fees of SHERPA the payment of which amount to date to over US$ 2’400,000.00.

6. The illegal appropriation of more than US$ 2’400,000.00 of MIRLSA by the accused parties, when such expense was unnecessary for COFIDE to grant the credit, has meant a patrimonial prejudice for such amount to the parent company that is the owner of 99.9 % of the shares of MIRLSA.

7. Regarding the aggravation, that is, that the fraud is committed by 2 or more persons, has been proven that the fraud was ideal due to the participation of the accused Benavides Norlander as representative of the contracting company and of the representatives of SHERPA, the accused Cabia Vega and Matsuda Ysa, who compose a real conspiracy created to commit crimes. Precisely, it has been the participation of all of them, written in the Contract, what made it possible to stage the described scene so that being misled the parent Company approved such a large consideration for fictitious services.

B. The Conspiracy crime

1. The crime of conspiracy to commit crimes, typified in article 317° of the Criminal Code, is perpetrated merely by belonging to a group of two (02) or more persons oriented to commit crimes, regardless of the materialization of the projected crimes, since what is sanctioned is the danger it means for the public tranquility the existence of a criminal group, understood as an organized apparatus with functional division of roles, in which structure its members have a decisive or simply executive participation.

2. Regarding the material elements of the offense, we have: (1) regarding the active subject, it is necessarily a multi-subjective or multi-personal fact, demanding the concurrence of an organizational basis among them; and, (2) the concurrence of a trend, finalist or teleological element expressed in the collective purpose to commit crimes is essential. Following Professor GARCÍA-PABLOS DE MOLINA, the condition of the member of a conspiracy requires the existence of a stable rand lasting relationship among several subjects, oriented to the execution of a criminal program.

9

3. The demand of these elements evidences that the specific participation in a crime is not punished, but the participation in a conspiracy to commit crimes independently from the execution or non-execution of the planned or proposed deeds. In this sense, it is a crime of belonging or of status3, since in order to talk about conspiracy a certain element of permanence is necessary, as well as a minimum cohesion, which are present in this case.

4. In effect, the only purpose of SHERPA has been to commit crimes. For the time being, a perpetrated aggravated fraud. It is not a company with illegal activities from which a crime has been committed. We are before the creation of a corporation to make viable an aggravated fraud. This has been the only purpose of SHERPA. Taking advantage of SHERPA’s legal status, the accused Cabia Vega and Matsuda Ysa have acted in an organized way, and did not doubt activating the company to perpetrate the crime in perfect coordination with the other member of the criminal organization, the accused Benavides Norlander.

C. Regarding the application of Statute 30077 – Criminal Organization

1. Statute 30077 –Law against the Organized Crime – must be applied to the present case since we are before crimes that have been perpetrated by a Criminal Organization.

2. Pursuant to article 2 of Statute 30077 a criminal organization is “any group of three or more persons that divide different tasks or functions, whichever its structure and scope of action, which, with a stable character or for an indefinite period of time is created, exists or operates, unmistakably, in an agreed and coordinated way, in order to commit one or more serious crimes indicated in article 3 of the present statute”.

3. Article 3 establishes the crimes that the criminal organization must perpetrate in order to apply Statute 3007, among which are the crime against patrimony Aggravated Fraud typified in article 196-A of the Criminal Code.

4. In the case at hand, the existence of a criminal organization has been proven, composed, for the time being, by: i) Diego Benavides Norlander, Chairman of the Board of Directors and General Manager of MIRLSA and CMKK; ii) José Antonio Cabia Vega, representative and General Manager of SHERPA; and iii) Patricia del Pilar Matsuda Ysa, Sub Manager and majority shareholder of SHERPA. The extent of the fraud and the sophistication of the methods used make us foresee that other members of the criminal organization will be disclosed during the investigation your Office will be carrying out.

3Vid. SILVA SÁNCHEZ, «¿Belonging or Intervention? From the crime of “belonging to a criminal organization”

to the figure of the “participation through organization” in the crime», in: YACOBUCCI(Director), Los desafíos

del Derecho Penal en el siglo XXI. Libro Homenaje al Profesor Dr. GüntherJakobs, Ara editores, Lima, 2005,

pp. 209 et seq.

10

5. The mentioned persons –who manage MIRLSA, CMKK and SHERPA– have shared out diverse tasks and functions consisting in preparing operations and negotiations with a legal appearance to induce the parent Company into error and thus obtain an illegal profit.

6. Now, article 2 of the Statute indicates that the organization structure can be any. In the case at hand, the existence has been proven of a structure in which the accused [carry out a criminal plan among them] through the creation of the company SHERPA. Moreover, the permanence in time has been proven, at least 18 months which is the duration of the negotiations with COFIDE for the giving of the credit for US$70’000,000.00. Finally, it has been proven that this criminal organization has been created with the sole purpose of committing the crimes of Aggravated Fraud (a crime included in article 3 of the Statute) and Conspiracy against MIRL.

7. Due to the foregoing, article 4 of Statute 30077 is applicable, which establishes that for the investigation, trial and sanction of the members of a criminal organization, persons related to the same or that act under its orders, that commit the crimes indicated in article 3, the norms and provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Legislative Decree 957 rule.

8. Finally, it must be investigated if the accused parties have also deceived the officials of COFIDE involved in this operation, since there is no logical explanation that justifies the granting of such a large loan to a Company that is in a critical state and that it is obvious that it cannot respond due to the immense debt contacted with the Peruvian State.

THEREFORE:

I ask you, Mr. Prosecutor: To give leave to the present accusation to proceed and, upon conclusion of the preparatory investigation and once the authors and participating parties have been individualized, to promote the criminal action.

FIRST ADDITIONAL PETITION : That, I appoint as lawyers Mr. Luis Vargas Valdivia and Mr. Héctor Gadea Benavides, with Bar Association of Lima Registry N°09579 and N° 44119, respectively, who form part of the Collective Law Firm “Benites, Forno & Ugaz” who will defend our interests as injured parties in the present cause.

SECOND ADDITIONAL PETITION : Under the protection of that provided by article 291º of the Sole Ordered Text of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch and with that provided in the New Code of Criminal Procedure, any of the lawyers listed in the letterhead of the present document may substitute one another indistinctively in the defense of this investigation, by virtue of the fact that they integrate a collective law firm registered as such before the Superior Court of Lima and before the Bar Association of Lima.

THIRD ADDITIONAL PETITION : I reiterate the domicile for procedural purposes in the domicile established at the beginning of this document: Mail Box N° 310 of the Bar Association of Lima.

11

FOURTH ADDITIONAL PETITION : According to that provided in article 16 of Statute 30077 –Law against Organized Crime– and in application of article 235 and the following of the New Code of Criminal Procedure I request that your Office order the Judge of the Preparatory Investigation to lift the Bank Secrecy of the companies MINERA IRL S.A. and Inversiones y Asesorías SHERPA SCRL since it is necessary in order to clarify the facts to know the incomes, expenditure and financial operations carried out by these two companies related to the obtainment of the credit from COFIDE.

FIFTH ADDITIONAL PETITION: In application of articles 90 and 91 of the New Code of Criminal Procedure I request that your Office include Inversiones y Asesorías SHERPA SCRL in the present investigation since its organizational structure has been used to favor the commission of the crime, reason why it is subject to the application of the accessory consequences regulated in articles 104 and 105 of the Criminal Code and in article 23 of Statute 30077 –Law against Organized Crime.

SIXTH ADDITIONAL PETITION: I attach the following documents:

- Annex 01: Copy of my National Identity Document.

- Annex 02: Copy of the Representation Power of Attorney granted by MINERA IRL LIMITED in my favor.

- Annex 03: Copy of Registration Entry N° 11409657 of the Registry of Corporations of the National Superintendence of the Public Registries – Lima Office, corresponding to MIRLSA.

- Annex 04: Copy of Registration Entry N° 11919603 of the Registry of Corporations of the National Superintendence of the Registry – Lima Office, corresponding to CMKK

- Annex 06: Copy of the Financial Advisory Contract subscribed on January 22, 2015 by MIRLSA and INVERSIONES Y ASESORÍAS SHERPA S.C.R.L. (SHERPA), represented by José Antonio Cabia Vega.

- Annex 07: Copy of the Consultation of the Sole Taxpayer’s Registry Number (RUC) at SUNAT regarding SHERPA.

- Annex 08: Copy of Registration Entry No. 11570709 of the Registry of Corporations of the National Superintendence of the Public Registries of the Registration Zone No. IX-Seat Lima of SHERPA.

- Annex 09: Copy of the electronic mail communication dated October 29, 2015 between Mr. Doug Jones and Mr. Carlos Yrigoyen.

- Annex 10: Copy of the Minutes to the Session of the Board of Directors of MIRL dated December 22, 2014.

12

- Annex 11: Copy of the Minutes to the Session of the Board of Directors of MIRL dated May 31st, 2015.

- Annex 12: Copy of the Notarized letter dated December 22, 2014 issued by Mr. Napoleón Valdez Ferrand addressed to Mr. Courtney Chamberlain (President of MIRL).

- Annex 13: Copy of the Notarized letter dated January 14, 2015 issued by Mr. Napoleón Valdez Ferrand addressed to Mr. Courtney Chamberlain (President of MIRL).

Lima, November 05, 2015

13