A.2.b) Operations in the Banco de Montevideo 69. The Banco de Montevideo offered its clients, through its Private Banking Department, different investment instruments issued by both public and private entities.64 These instruments included shares in Trade & Commerce Bank’s certificates of deposit65 which it had been offering “at least since 1996.”66 In 2001, these shares in certificates of deposit, together with other similar products from other international entities of the Velox Group, represented “no more than a quarter” of all the investments managed by the Banco de Montevideo’s Private Banking [Department].67 In particular, with regard to the alleged victims in this case, three methods were used to place funds in the Trade & Commerce Bank: (i) through TCB Mandatos (supra para. 65); (ii) by the client opening an account directly with the Trade & Commerce Bank, through the Banco de Montevideo; a situation in which the Banco de Montevideo acted as broker and charged a fee for the transfer made in the client’s name, and (iii) by the Banco de Montevideo setting up a certificate of deposit in the Trade & Commerce Bank, of which it later offered shares to its clients, while the shares in the global certificate of deposit issued by the Trade & Commerce Bank remained in the custody of the Banco de Montevideo. In this last case, the shares were sold by the Banco de Montevideo for more than the value of the global deposit that the said bank held in the Trade & Commerce Bank.68 70. The sale of shares in certificates of deposit set up by the Banco de Montevideo in the Trade & Commerce Bank, together with the deposits made by the Banco de Montevideo in the Trade & Commerce Bank, were operations within the legal framework in force at the time because, even though these institutions were related entities, they did not have directors in common.69 The sale of certificates of deposit or shares in them, 64 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Rosolina Trucillo of February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1134) and Affidavit of the witness Jorge Xavier of February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1116). 65 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Rosolina Trucillo of February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1134); Affidavit of the witness Jorge Xavier of February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1117), and report of January 28, 2003, the Private Banking Department of the Banco de Montevideo (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume I, attachment 6, folio 12122). 66 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Jorge Xavier of February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1116). According to a letter addressed by the Banco de Montevideo to the Central Bank on March 13, 2002, the shares in the deposit certificates of the Trade & Commerce Bank had been offered to clients of the Banco de Montevideo “since 1997.” Cf. Communication of March 13, 2002, of the Banco de Montevideo to the Central Bank contained in file No. 2002/0267 before the Central Bank of Uruguay entitled “Banco de Montevideo – Increase of the risk of companies linked to the Velox Group” (file of attachments to the answer, volume I, attachment 7, folio 12504). 67 Cf. Affidavit of the witness Jorge Xavier of February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1117). In addition, witness Jorge Xavier explained that the Private Banking Department “focuses on clients who manage to certain amount of investments that are intended to diversify their savings placing them in assets that offer to better return and that are abroad as to way of accessing better benefits for their resources[; in addition t]here are fiscal and confidentiality reasons that justify these decisions, since investments in assets abroad are not subject to the country’s tax laws.” Cf. Affidavit of the witness Jorge Xavier of February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folios 1116 and 1117). 68 Cf. Proceedings entitled “Da Pena Marcela Adriana v. Banco de Montevideo in liquidation et al. – damages.” File No. 2-22368/2006. Judgment No. 21 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of November 24, 2008, (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folios 14458 and 14459). 69 According to witness Fernando Barrán, the position of the Superintendence of Financial Intermediation Institutions, prior to the events that occurred in 2002, was that these placements in to related company did not constitute violations, because they did not have senior personnel in common and, according to the witness, this was reflected in the regulatory framework in force in 2002, “which did not prohibit banking institutions from holding active positions with related banking or non-banking institutions.” Cf. Affidavit of Fernando Barran dated February 16, 2011 (merits file, volume III, folio 1177). In addition, witness Rosolina Trucillo testified that the granting of credits among related companies was not illegal and indicated “[i]n fact the credit that can be given to related companies is regulated (risk ceilings),” while what is illegal is granting credits among companies with directors in common. Cf. Affidavit of Rosolina Trucillo dated February 16, 2011 (merits 23