addition, this Tribunal maintained that those depositors who had given their consent to the transfer of funds to offshore banks, or who, by their silence, had consented to the said financial operation should not be protected by the provisions of the said law.175 105. Accordingly, the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal considered that the consent required by article 31 of Law 17,613 could be express or implied. Express consent could be given by the petitioners if: (i) they had signed contracts on “General Conditions for the Administration of Investments,” in which the Banco de Montevideo was granted “broad powers” to carry out on behalf of, and at the order and risk of the client placements in securities issued [by other financial institutions], “exonerating the Bank from any losses that could arise from such operations,”176 and (ii) they had given specific instructions to the Banco de Montevideo requesting the acquisition, administration or renewal of instruments on behalf of, and at the order and risk of the client,” so that their placements did not remain idle.177 106. Regarding implied consent, the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal indicated repeatedly that, under banking law, both positive banking norms and banking practice are applicable, so that “implied consent, verbal orders by clients, even by telephone, constitute reiterated practice in banking law, which has created the general awareness (“opinio juris”) of their existence and obligatory nature.”178 Moreover, like the Central Judgment No. 408 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of July 25, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Atijas, Vito et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folios 15413), and Judgment No. 578 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 17, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Guerra, Martín v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15188). 175 Cf. Judgment No. 578 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 17, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Guerra, Martín v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15188). 176 Cf. Judgment No. 691 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of September 16, 2010, in proceedings entitled “Clemata José et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 13881); Judgment No. 316 of the ContentiousAdministrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Contín, Gianni et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folio 14476); Judgment No. 713 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 25, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Azparren, Ana v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 13913); Judgment No. 316 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Contín, Gianni et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folio 14476); Judgment No. 306 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 13, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Lingeri, Manuel v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15054), and Judgment No. 317 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of May 13, 2010, in proceedings entitled “Roelsgaard, Niels et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folio 15615). 177 Cf. Judgment No. 719 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 25, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Horvath, Raúl v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15126); Judgment No. 691 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of September 16, 2010, in proceedings entitled “Clemata José et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 13881); Judgment No. 713 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 25, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Azparren, Ana v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 13913); Judgment No. 316 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Contín, Gianni et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folio 14477), and Judgment No. 719 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 25, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Horvath, Raúl v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15126). 178 Cf. Judgment No. 691 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of September 16, 2010, in proceedings entitled “Clemata José et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folios 13883 and 13884); Judgment No. 713 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of October 25, 2006, in proceedings entitled “Azparren, Ana v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 13916); Judgment No. 316 of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of June 18, 2007, in proceedings entitled “Contín, Gianni et al. v. the Central Bank of Uruguay. Appeal for annulment” (file of attachments to 42