Board Resolution No. 114/2026

BOARD
BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 114/2026
SUBJECT: BOARD - APPEAL FOR REVOCATION AGAINST BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 78/2026 THAT MODIFIES THE REGULATION ON FOREIGN EXCHANGE POSITION FOR FINANCIAL INTERMEDIATION ENTITIES.

SEEN:
The Political Constitution of the State of February 7, 2025.
Law No. 1670 of October 31, 1995, of the Central Bank of Bolivia (BCB) and its modifications. Law No. 2341 of April 23, 2002, on Administrative Procedure. Supreme Decree No. 27113 of July 23, 2003, which regulates Law No. 2341. The Regulation on Foreign Exchange Position for Financial Intermediation Entities approved by Board Resolution No. 50/2026 of April 28, 2026. Board Resolution No. 78/2026 of June 9, 2026, which approves modifications to articles 4, 6, and 9 and repeals article 8 of the Regulation on Foreign Exchange Position for Financial Intermediation Entities. The Appeal for Revocation filed by the Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo Regional Institution Financial Development Institution - CIDRE IFD on June 23, 2026. The Statute of the BCB approved by Board Resolution No. 85/2026 of June 23, 2026. Board Resolution No. 90/2026 of June 26, 2026, which approves the Regulation on Foreign Exchange Position for Financial Intermediation Entities, modified by Board Resolution No. 102/2026 of July 1, 2026. The report BCB-APEC-SPMEE-INF-2026-31 of July 17, 2026, from the Economic Policy Advisory (APEC) and the Financial Entities Management (GEF). The report BCB-GAL-SANO-DLBCI-INF-2026-190 of July 20, 2026, from the Legal Affairs Management (GAL).

BOARD
1/2. B.R. No. 114/2026

CONSIDERING:
That the Political Constitution of the State in its articles 327 and 328 establishes that the BCB is a public law institution, with legal personality and its own assets, and that, in the framework of the State's economic policy, it is the function of the BCB to maintain the stability of the internal purchasing power of the currency, to contribute to economic and social development; and its attributes, in coordination with the economic policy determined by the Executive Branch, in addition to those indicated by law, are to determine and execute the monetary policy, execute the exchange policy, regulate the payment system, authorize the issuance of the currency and administer international reserves.

That Law No. 1670 in its articles 1, 2, 3, and 30, provides that the BCB is the sole monetary and exchange authority of the country, with administrative, technical and financial competence and specialized normative powers of general application. Its object is to ensure the stability of the internal purchasing power of the national currency. The BCB will formulate the policies of general application in monetary, exchange and payment system matters for the fulfillment of its object. All entities of the financial intermediation system and financial services, whose operation is authorized by the ASFI, are subject to the normative competence of the BCB.

That in articles 44 and 54, subsections a) and o), Law No. 1670 provides that the highest authority of the BCB is its Board of Directors, which is responsible for defining its policies, specialized norms of general application and internal norms; as well as establishing strategies administrative, operational and financial of the Issuer Entity, approving their respective short and medium-term programs. It also establishes that the Board has the attributes to issue norms and adopt general decisions that may be necessary for the BCB to fulfill the functions, competencies and powers assigned to it by the Law; as well as to approve, modify and interpret the Statute and Regulations of the BCB by two-thirds of the votes of all its members, without the need for an additional administrative act.

That article 55 of the aforementioned Law states that Board Resolutions of the BCB may be challenged by any natural or legal person or competent organ of the State by filing an appeal for revocation with devolutive effect, before the same Board within a period of thirty (30) days from the date on which the BCB made known the Resolution to the interested or affected persons. The Board must pronounce itself within twenty (20) days following the filing of the appeal for revocation. If the Board does not pronounce itself within the deadline, the challenge will be understood as denied on the date of expiration of the deadline.

BOARD
//3. B.R. No. 114/2026

That Law No. 2341 in subsection a) of paragraph I of article 20, provides that if the period is set by days only administrative business days shall be counted; while in article 61, it determines that the administrative resources provided for in this Law, will be resolved by confirming or revoking the challenged resolution in whole or in part, or in its case, dismissing the appeal if it was filed out of time, did not meet the formalities expressly indicated in applicable provisions or if it did not meet the requirement of standing.

That the Regulation to the Law on Administrative Procedure in its article 121 establishes the forms of resolution of appeals for revocation.

That the Statute of the BCB in numerals 1 and 3 of article 6 and numerals 1, 22 and 43 of
article 11, determines that the BCB has normative and technical competence and that its Board has the following attributes:
approve general decisions and issue the norms that are necessary for the BCB to fulfill the functions, competencies and powers assigned to it by the Law; approve, modify and interpret the Statute and Regulations of the BCB; and resolve appeals for revocation, within the legal deadlines provided.

CONSIDERING:
That by Board Resolution No. 78/2026, the Highest Authority of the BCB resolved to approve modifications to articles 4, 6 and 9 and repeal article 8 of the Regulation of Foreign Exchange Position for Financial Intermediation Entities approved by Board Resolution No. 50/2026 of April 28, 2026.

That with the formalities and within the period established in article 55 of Law No. 1670, CIDRE IFD presents an Appeal for Revocation against Board Resolution No. 78/2026 that modifies article 4 (Limits of the Exchange Position), 6 (Sanctions) and 9 (Liquidation of Positions) and repeals article 8 (Exception) of the Regulation on Foreign Exchange Position for Financial Intermediation Entities, requesting to admit the appeal, order the immediate suspension of the execution of the challenged resolution and revoke partially Board Resolution No. 78/2026 in the part that repeals article 8 of Board Resolution No. 174/2016 or subsidiarily, modify Board Resolution No. 78/2026 for Development Financial Institutions, considering the limit of +/-100% until December 31, 2028, gradual adjustment, and suspension until 90 days post currency unification.

BOARD
//4. B.R. No. 114/2026

That having reviewed the arguments of the appellant, considering the reports BCB-APEC-SPMEE-INF-2026-31 from APEC and GEF, BCB-GAL-SANO-DLBCI-INF-2026-190 from the GAL, and the information and criteria expressed in the Board meeting, it is appropriate to state the following:

1. Board Resolution No. 78/2026 has been approved in accordance with the mandate and
   constitutional attributes provided for in articles 327 and 328 of the Political Constitution of the State and the object, specialized normative competence and functions of the BCB contained in articles 1, 2, 3 and 30 of Law No. 1670, in whose framework the Issuer Entity is the sole monetary and exchange authority of the country, with technical competence and specialized normative powers of general application, having as its object to ensure the stability of the internal purchasing power of the national currency and to formulate the general application policies in monetary, exchange and payment system matters, with entities of the intermediation and financial services system authorized by ASFI, subject to its technical competence and specialized normative powers, with ASFI being responsible for its control and supervision.

In this framework, the measures adopted through the challenged resolution are oriented to preserve macroeconomic equilibrium, in compliance with the public interest that the BCB has the legal duty to protect. Consequently, the eventual adjustments that EIFs must carry out for its compliance constitute an inherent consequence of a sector subject to prudential regulation and do not affect the legality of the measures adopted. To maintain the contrary would imply subordinating the fulfillment of the BCB's legal mandate to the particular interests of the supervised entities, a legally inadmissible conclusion, since the public interest compromised in the preservation of monetary and financial stability prevails over the expectations or management decisions of an individual entity.

2. Subsequent to the appeal presented by CIDRE IFD, the Board of the BCB in the
   framework of its attributes, approved by Board Resolution No. 90/2026 (not reached by the appeal), a new Regulation on Foreign Exchange Position for Entities of Financial Intermediation subsequently modified by Board Resolution No. 102/2026 of July 1, 2026 and which currently constitutes the valid and applicable regulation. Consequently, although it corresponds to reject the appeal, since the appeal's claim has lost the aptitude to produce the legal effect pursued with respect to an act that has been left without validity; with the purpose of giving a comprehensive response to the arguments exposed by the appellant entity, thus guaranteeing the right of the administrative party to obtain an express, motivated and congruent resolution with respect to the claims formulated, it is appropriate to point out the following:

BOARD
1/5. B.R. No. 114/2026

a) The alleged violation of the principle of non-retroactivity and acquired rights and legal situations consolidated under the empire of a previous law. Regarding the grievance referred to the alleged violation of the principle of non-retroactivity provided for in article 123 of the Political Constitution of the State, it is appropriate to point out that it lacks legal support. Board Resolution No. 78/2026 does not produce effects on consummated facts nor modifies the legal consequences of acts perfected prior to its validity, but regulates exclusively the conditions applicable towards the future for the determination of the Foreign Exchange Position. Consequently, the eventual economic effects derived from the new regulation do not constitute retroactive application of the norm.

Likewise, the Foreign Exchange Position regime has a prudential nature and can be updated by the BCB in exercise of the attributes conferred by Law No. 1670, without the regulated entities having an acquired right to the permanence of a determined regulatory framework or exemptions. Board Resolution No. 78/2026 establishes new limits of future application, provides for an adjustment period and mechanisms to adjust the foreign exchange position, evidencing that it does not disregard consolidated legal situations nor leaves the entities reached in a state of defenselessness.

In this framework, the financing and financial management decisions adopted by CIDRE IFD were assumed within a regulatory environment susceptible to modification, so the eventual economic impacts derived from such changes cannot be attributed to a retroactive application of the Resolution. No proof is provided of the affectation of acquired rights nor the violation of article 123 of the Political Constitution of the State, so it is appropriate to dismiss this grievance for lacking legal foundation.

b) On the alleged rupture of legal security and legitimate trust.
Regarding the grievance referred to the alleged violation of the principles of legal security and legitimate trust, it is appropriate to point out that the same lacks legal support. Although these principles guarantee predictability and the protection of reasonable expectations, they do not imply the immutability of the legal order nor grant an acquired right to the indefinite permanence of a certain regulatory regime. Legitimate trust protects reasonable expectations generated by Administrative actions with respect to individualized legal situations, but does not confer an acquired right to the indefinite permanence of a normative regime of a general character. Consequently, the prolonged validity of an exemption

BOARD
1/6. B.R. No. 114/2026

regulatory does not generate, by itself, a legally protected expectation that it will remain unaltered.

In the present case, Board Resolution No. 78/2026 constitutes the exercise of the legitimate normative power of the BCB, conferred by Law No. 1670, to adapt the specialized regulation to the current economic, monetary and financial conditions. The modification of a provision of a general character, duly issued within the competencies of the Issuer Entity and supported by purposes of public interest, cannot be qualified as an arbitrary or contradictory act capable of violating legitimate trust. Admitting the contrary would imply unduly restricting the faculty of the BCB to update the regulatory framework and fulfill its constitutional functions of preservation of monetary and exchange stability.

In that context, the financial decisions adopted by CIDRE IFD were assumed within a dynamic regulatory environment, whose update constitutes a power inherent to the competent authority. The eventual economic effects derived from the regulatory modification respond to risks inherent to the regulated activity and do not evidence an affectation of legitimate trust nor of legal security. In consequence, no violation of said principles is observed, so it is appropriate to dismiss the grievance for lacking legal foundation.

c) On the inapplicability of the own act and alleged abuse of right.
Regarding the grievance referred to the alleged violation of the doctrine of own acts and the alleged abuse of right on the part of the BCB, it is appropriate to point out that the same lacks legal and evidentiary foundation. First, the appellant bases its claim on alleged effects derived from Board Resolution No. 043/2023, an administrative act distinct from the one challenged in the present appeal, whose legality does not correspond to review in this instance. Furthermore, the background evidence that, with subsequent to the issuance of said Resolution and with full knowledge of its content, CIDRE IFD made new voluntary contributions to the CPVIS Fund 11, conduct objectively incompatible with the assertion that its resources were unduly withheld or that the measure had generated a situation of defenselessness.

Likewise, the doctrine of own acts prevents assuming a contradictory conduct with respect to a previous one that has generated a consolidated legal situation and legitimate trust in a third party; however, this principle does not restrict the exercise of the normative powers conferred by law to the Public Administration. The Board Resolution No. 78/2026 constitutes a modification of a general character issued in exercise of the attributes conferred to the BCB by Law No. 1670 to regulate the foreign exchange position, so it cannot be qualified as an act

BOARD
//7. B.R. No. 114/2026

contradictory nor as a disregard of consolidated rights. On the contrary, the norm provided for a gradual adjustment regime for DFIs, which evidences a proportional and reasonable act.

Finally, the alleged abuse of right is not configured, since the appellant does not prove that the BCB had exercised its competencies with a purpose different from the public interest or incurring in deviation of power. The eventual financial costs invoked obey to commercial decisions of the appellant itself and to market factors unrelated to the act of the Issuer Entity, so there is no causal link between said effects and Board Resolution No. 78/2026. Consequently, since the prerequisites for the application of the doctrine of own acts nor the configuration of an abusive exercise of the BCB's regulatory competencies are not evidenced, it is appropriate to dismiss this grievance for lacking legal and evidentiary foundation.

d) On the alleged disproportion and confiscatory nature.
Regarding the grievance referred to the alleged violation of the right of property and to the alleged configuration of an indirect expropriation or confiscatory measure, it is appropriate to point out that the same lacks legal support. Board Resolution No. 78/2026 does not provide for the transfer of CIDRE IFD's foreign exchange to the State or to the BCB, nor establishes its confiscation, seizure or definitive deprivation, so the prerequisites provided for in articles 56 and 57 of the Political Constitution of the State for the configuration of an expropriation do not concur. Its content is limited to establishing prudential limits for the administration of the Foreign Exchange Position, in exercise of the regulatory attributes conferred to the BCB by the Constitution and Law No. 1670.

Likewise, the eventual costs or economic impacts derived from the adjustment to a general regulation do not equate to an affectation of the right of property nor generate, by themselves, a right to indemnification. Financial entities develop their activity in a sector subject to permanent regulation, so the modifications to the prudential framework constitute a legitimate expression of the normative power of the State oriented to preserve monetary and financial stability. In this case, in addition, Board Resolution No. 78/2026 provides mechanisms for entities to request the liquidation of their participations in the funds administered by the BCB at the official exchange rate in force, facilitating the adjustment of their foreign exchange position and discarding any alleged immobilization or appropriation of assets.

Consequently, the challenged Resolution does not deprive CIDRE IFD of the ownership of its resources, but regulates the manner in which the entities comprised must administer their exchange exposure in accordance with objectives of public interest. No

BOARD
//8. B.R. No. 114/2026

proof is provided of the existence of an expropriatory, confiscatory or arbitrary measure, nor that the BCB had exceeded the competencies attributed to it by the Constitution and Law No.
1670. Therefore, no violation of the right of property recognized in article
56 of the Political Constitution of the State is evidenced, so it is appropriate to dismiss this grievance for lacking legal foundation.

e) The alleged nullity for lack of motivation
Regarding the grievance referred to the alleged nullity of Board Resolution No.
78/2026 for lack of motivation, it is appropriate to point out that the same lacks legal support. According to articles 30 and 35 of Law No. 2341, the motivation of administrative acts requires the exposition of the grounds of fact and of law that support the decision, but not the response to all objections or scenarios raised by the administrative parties. In the present case, the Resolution was issued in exercise of the attributes conferred to the BCB by the Constitution and Law No. 1670, being explicitly supported by the technical and legal reports that form part of the administrative file and justify the modification of the Foreign Exchange Position regime.

Likewise, it must be considered that Board Resolution No. 78/2026 constitutes an administrative act of general scope and normative content, so the duty of motivation must be appreciated in accordance with its legal nature. In this type of acts, the motivation is satisfied through the exposition of the technical, regulatory, legal and public interest reasons that justify the measure, without there being an obligation to effect an individualized analysis of the economic or financial situation of each regulated entity nor to pronounce on their business strategies or particular expectations.

Consequently, the fact that the appellant disagrees with the convenience or effects of the regulation does not demonstrate the non-existence of motivation nor configures the cause of nullity provided for in article 35 of Law No. 2341. What is evidenced is a disagreement with the technical content of the normative decision and not a defect of legality of the administrative act. Therefore, no lack of motivation is observed in Board Resolution No. 78/2026, so it is appropriate to dismiss this grievance for lacking legal foundation.

f) On the request for justified suspension, normative modification and the interested third party It is appropriate to specify that the challenge of the resolutions issued by the Board of the BCB is governed by Law No. 1670, a special norm that prevails over the

BOARD
//9. B.R. No. 114/2026

general provisions of Law No. 2341. In this framework, article 55 of Law No.
1670 expressly establishes that the appeal for revocation against Board resolutions is granted only with devolutive effect, so its filing does not suspend the validity, obligatoriness nor execution of the challenged act. Consequently, the request for suspension of the effects of Board Resolution No. 78/2026 is legally inadmissible.

On the other hand, it must be kept in mind that the administrative appeal constitutes a mechanism destined to review the legality, reasonableness and motivation of the act challenged, with the effect of determining if it corresponds to maintain it, revoke it or modify it when there is a vice that affects its validity or its application to the concrete case. In this framework, the authority that resolves the appeal exercises a function of review of the challenged decision, but not a new regulatory power.

Different is the normative power conferred to the Board of the BCB to issue, modify or repeal regulations of general scope, which is exercised in the framework of the competencies attributed by Law No. 1670 and in accordance with the technical, economic and regulatory assessments that support the institutional policy. This power is not activated by the mere filing of an administrative appeal, but through the exercise of the corresponding normative competence.

In that sense, the requests formulated by the appellant to establish a new foreign exchange position limit until December 31, 2028, to provide for a gradual adjustment or to subordinate the validity of the regulation to the occurrence of an eventual currency unification, constitute proposals oriented to redefine the content normative of Board Resolution No. 78/2026 and of the Regulation on Foreign Exchange Position for Financial Intermediation Entities. Such approaches exceed the scope proper of the present appeal, since they are not directed to evidence a vice of legality of the challenged act, but to substitute the technical and normative criterion adopted by the Board through the incorporation of an alternative regime designed for the appellant itself and oriented to promote the adoption of a different regulation, aspect that corresponds to the exercise of the regulatory power of the Board that is exercised

---