Edited by Joseph Malvisini

We've recently seen newspaper reports of investigations into well-known football players and coaches who were placing bets through operators outside of Italy. These individuals are being investigated for money laundering following an investigation triggered by a suspicious transaction report, as reported by some media outlets.

I think it's worth reflecting on this topic.

In fact, nothing is said regarding the ban on placing sports bets by professional footballers or coaches based on the rules of their sector.

What is important to note is the continued violation of the confidentiality of the suspicious reporting process in the name of the alleged right to report.

In fact, we want to reaffirm an important regulatory principle, the one described in Articles 38 and 39 of Legislative Decree 231/07.

We have repeatedly encountered simplistic violations of these regulatory aspects, which are crucial to the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing.

We would like to share the rationale behind the two aforementioned articles by highlighting some significant passages.

The introduction to Article 38 highlights how "The obliged entities and self-regulatory bodies shall adopt all appropriate measures to ensure the confidentiality of the identity of the persons making the report."

Further, in paragraph 3: "At every stage of the proceedings, the Judicial Authority shall take all necessary measures to ensure the identity of the whistleblower is kept confidential. In any case, the name of the whistleblower cannot be included in the Public Prosecutor's file or in the trial file, and his or her identity cannot be revealed, unless the Judicial Authority orders otherwise, with a reasoned provision and ensuring the adoption of all appropriate measures to protect the whistleblower, including, where necessary due to the relevance to proceedings relating to organized crime or terrorism, the application of the precautions set forth in Article 8 of Law No. 136 of August 13, 2021, regarding undercover activities (…).

The intrinsic meaning of protection lies precisely in giving essential value to the contribution the reporting party makes in initiating the verification and investigation process, which could potentially result in the arrest of the individual who violated anti-money laundering regulations. This aspect highlights how "protection" is not a reward for reporting, but rather actual protection from retaliatory actions of any kind, from threats to even worse actions by convicted individuals.

It is essential to connect this aspect to art. 39 of Legislative Decree 231/07 in the Prohibition of communications relating to reports of suspicious transactions: (…) the subjects required to report a suspicious transaction and anyone who is aware of it are prohibited from communicating the report to the customer concerned or to third parties (…).

The confidentiality of information relating to the report serves a twofold purpose: first, the aforementioned protection of the reporting party (by not disclosing the existence of the report, and thus their contribution to the reporting process), and second, to prevent the authorities from compromising the ongoing investigation by disclosing the information to the interested party, who could become unreachable or destroy any evidence of guilt.

Based on the above, it is clear that it is necessary to urge compliance with the law, with a request not to disseminate such information. The aforementioned regulatory framework is essential for safeguarding the work of all those involved in combating money laundering. It is also essential for personal protection. These aspects go beyond the protection of the right to report, as they do not restrict freedom of expression, but are fundamental for the protection of those who work daily to combat money laundering.

It's not a matter of mere form but of substance, in the protection—an absolutely essential aspect—of collaborators, anti-money laundering officers, and, even more so, those responsible for suspicious transactions. Therefore, we reiterate our call not to disseminate information or news (even if it's journalistically appealing) regarding suspicious transactions, remembering that a "leak" can seriously jeopardize an investigation and potentially a person's life.