The secrecy surrounding San Marino Bank starts to unravel

For years, Banca di San Marino (BSM) has operated under a veil of opacity, shielded by the Republic of San Marino’s notorious banking secrecy. But cracks are emerging. A 22 February article by Italy’s respected Il Resto del Carlino reveals millions of euros vanishing from client accounts since at least 2022, with a former branch director, Luca Cichetti, under fire.

Cicchetti, former manager of the Gualdicciolo branch of the Banca di San Marino, reportedly took advantage of the relationship of trust built up over the years with clients. He wasn’t just a consultant: for many, he was almost “one of the family.” It was precisely this trust, according to the plaintiffs, that he leveraged to convince them to open an account at the bank where he worked and entrust him with large sums, promising safe, low-risk investments.

The families say he often went directly to their homes to collect the money and have them sign the documents. The main transactions, they claim, took place not in the branch but in their private homes. He was always the one showing account statements, explaining how the investments were performing, and, occasionally, handing over money presented as accrued interest.

According to the plaintiffs’ consultant (accountant Fabio Fraternali), the system functioned like a Ponzi scheme: the money from new clients would be used to pay interest to existing clients, creating the illusion that everything was fine. Hence the double complaint—filed both in Italy, to the Rimini Public Prosecutor’s Office, and in San Marino by the families’ lawyers, Piero Venturi, Gian Vito Antinori, Guido Saraceni, and Alessandro Stolfi—with alleged crimes such as embezzlement, fraud, and self-laundering.

Victims, who trusted the executive with their savings, demand restitution, decrying a betrayal that echoes broader systemic rot. The bank’s commissioner seeks case archiving, but lawyers push back, hinting at institutional complicity. This scandal dovetails with the botched 2025 sale of BSM’s majority stake to Bulgarian investor Starcom Holding AD – a deal that exposed San Marino’s governance flaws and sparked international outcry.

The Starcom saga, first broken by EUalive in November 2025, underscores how BSM’s woes predate the failed acquisition. Starcom, a €1.5 billion powerhouse with operations in 11 countries, offered €36.7 million: €16.7 million for 51% equity plus €20 million capital injection. Funds, vetted through first-rate EU banks with stringent AML protocols, were deposited into a BSM account via San Marino Group S.p.A. (SMG). ECF, the church-linked seller, praised the “transparency and absolute correctness.” Yet, Central Bank rejection in October 2025 froze €15 million, triggering criminal probes into “private corruption” and “breach of trust.”

Exclusive: San Marino bank heist: how €15 million vanished after a done deal

Il Resto del Carlino’s revelations suggest these aren’t isolated incidents. Since 2022, clients report unexplained disappearances from current accounts, implicating internal mismanagement or worse. The accused ex-director faces scrutiny for allegedly siphoning funds, with victims lamenting blind trust in a system long criticized for lax oversight.

Compounding suspicions: recent press reports of intrusions at BSM

In mid-February 2026, Italian outlets like San Marino RTV and Corriere Romagna detailed a “banda scatenata” (rampant gang) targeting San Marino, with one thief assaulting an agent during a botched escape. Whispers in local media suggest a vault breach at BSM, possibly to erase evidence amid the Starcom probe. While unconfirmed, the timing – post-freeze and amid escalating accusations – fuels theories of cover-ups. San Marino authorities remain mum, refusing comment, which only amplifies calls for independent audits.

Meanwhile, San Marino has weaponized the narrative against Starcom’s Assen Christov, labeling his efforts a “piano parallelo” – a “parallel plan” evoking a coup d’état. In an 11 February Congress of State move, San Marino constituted as a civil party, framing the investor’s transparency push as subversive. Echoes of the 1957 “Fatti di Rovereta” – San Marino’s Cold War-era coup where opposition forces ousted a communist government with Italian/U.S. backing – are invoked to dramatize the threat.

Contrast with Starcom’s openness

While Starcom Holding AD has consistently pursued transparency to protect its interests and reputation – publicly releasing detailed financial statements, transaction records, correspondence with the Council of Europe, and rebuttals to allegations, including initiating legal action in Bulgaria against AIF Director Nicola Muccioli – the authorities of San Marino have chosen the opposite path. They have hidden behind layers of secrecy: withholding full justification for the freeze of €15 million in investor funds, declining to correct misleading statements in the AIF report (despite Varengold Bank’s explicit clarifications), and refusing to engage openly with media or critics.

This asymmetry highlights San Marino’s resistance to EU norms – especially as it seeks Association Agreement perks like market access.

The Carlino piece and other recent publications in the Italian media peel back layers: BSM’s troubles, from missing millions to potential evidence tampering, suggest a bank plagued with issues. In the meantime, the fate of Starcom’s €15 million remains unclear as opacity persists.

San Marino risks more than a failed deal – its EU aspirations hang in the balance. Time to unravel the secrecy, or face isolation.

EUalive has contacted BSM and the Central Bank of San Marino, inviting them to submit comments.

BSM stated it had operated with complete fairness and transparency in providing information to investors and all stakeholders, while all charges against BSM regarding the matter of Luca Cicchetti had, to date, “been dismissed by the Judicial Authorities”.

The reply by the Central Bank was somewhat in contradiction to the one by BSM. “We emphasize that the facts in this article are being investigated by the judicial authorities and, therefore, we caution you against publishing information that does not correspond to documented and objective data or, in any case, is covered by the confidentiality of the investigation”, the reply reads.

Caption: The headquarters of Banca di San Marino, Google maps.