San Marino. Smi Decree, Information: “Now it is more, but difficulties could still arise”
The information of San Marino. The SMI decree in the Council amended and adjusted, but …
ANTONIO FABBRI – Ratified in the Council, with various amendments, the decree “Methods for reimbursement of sums to Smi SpA’s trustees”.
l Secretary of State Marco Gatti pointed out that the amendments of the van[1]no to specify who is not entitled to a refund. The opposition expressed concerns about the Decree Future Republic, while Free she found herself in agreement.
What divided it was having considered depositors or investors who will be able to take advantage of the repayment: for Rf whoever has brought sums to the former financial institution is to be considered an investor and, as such, is not due to the right of repayment.
By government, majority e Freeon the other hand, those who lost the sums were subjected to a risk without knowing it, also because the remuneration of the deposits was comparable to that of a banking institution. Therefore “actions have been artfully taken against regulatory provisions – motivate the Secretary Gatti– which caused damage to those who deposited the sum in a supervised entity, with indications other than those for which that money was used for others. The state budget has established a special chapter, the reserve fund to repay situations of this type“.
Finally, always by the majority, Emanuele Santi, Net, urged not to limit themselves to compensating the saver on the matter Smi: “It’s time we took action because the scam manager didn’t pay anything – he claims – it is time that we take the necessary actions to go and recover something from this question, which has remained in the court drawers for too long“.
It must be said that some issues raised were answered with the government amendments. In particular, the part that had foreshadowed doubts of client logic was in particular the paragraph that provided for compensation up to the entire, for residents of San Marino only. That wording that links the compensation to the residence has been deleted. The compensation ceiling was also specified.
But the problem now could be the other way around. That is, with the changes made, the decree could prove to be a “candy” for the trustees and a quarrel for Central Bank.
Here because.
The first draft of Article 1 provided for reimbursement for those “that they prove that they have suffered an unfair financial loss[1]due to the carrying out of fraud or scams by the SMI“
The new formulation provides for the reimbursement of colors “who prove that they have suffered a financial loss resulting from the commission of fraud or scams“.
The differences are minimal, but not insignificant. While the scope the first in the formulation left a greater margin to write the loss in the context of a scam, the second ties the loss to the direct derivation from the crime. This means that in order to claim reimbursement based on the loss it will be necessary while the crime of fraud or fraud has occurred and, secondly, that the loss is a direct result. So much so that in the documents to be attached to the refund application there is also “copy of any administrative or judicial documentation useful for the purpose of ascertaining the commission of frauds or scams by the SMI, or in any case of the existence of the related criminal responsibility, which have caused unjust financial losses to the applicant“.
This is where the problem could arise and a dispute may arise between the trustees, first, and others Central Bank who has to sift through the questions, then. In fact, who if there has been the crime of fraud, deception or fraud? The court. Well, to date it does not appear that there have been any rulings against Smi or its administrators for scams or scams.
Indeed, one of the complaints of savers Smi it was precisely that their fraud complaint had ended up in oblivion and was legally prescribed and it was precisely for this reason that they had requested interventions, precisely because they had not obtained justice in court. The risk, therefore, is that a decree has been drafted to dare refreshment to investor-trusting savers who, however, will not be able to enforce the same decree that was adopted to resolve their case.
This is because it was only politics in the Council that spoke of fraud, but there are no judgments to date – at least as far as we know since the trials are still public – but not indictments, which certify the existence of fraud crimes, in the head a Smi or to its directors, from which there is a direct derivation of the damage to the trustees.
So, on the one hand there is no court ruling on scams, on the other hand there is BCSM requests the documentation and cannot independently assess whether or not there has been a crime and decide to pay compensation.
If this were the case – always unless there is a decision for fraud of which one is not aware – the possibility of compensation would become difficult.
But on the other hand, that they are not liability deriving from fraud – which must necessarily follow the damage deriving from the crime – it also emerges from the words of Emanuele Santi di Net, at the end of the discussion “On the one hand, the state resurrects the saver, on the other hand it is time for us to take action because the person responsible for the scam has not paid anything. Today we settle a question but it is time that we take the necessary actions to go and recover something from this question, which has remained in the court drawers for too long“.
But the person responsible for the scam did not pay anything, because it does not appear that the scam was prosecuted or sentenced. And the knot that could still cause problems to emerge is right here.
Article taken from The information of San Marino, published in full after 11 pm