Steven Raul James had been convicted in Italy of sexually abusing four children during a football camp in Carpegna, yet he continued working in the kitchens of San Marino’s nursery schools. His sentence of four years and four months became final in March 2025. His last assignment at the nurseries ended on 6 August. On 23 August he was arrested in Rimini.
This is the case at the centre of inquiries by the technical-administrative commission set up by the Congress of State. Lawyers Gianna Burgagni and Daniele Cherubini (in a report to be discussed under Item 33 of the current session of the Grand and General Council) reconstructed the communications between Italy and San Marino, the checks carried out on statements submitted for public-sector employment, and the steps that preceded the arrest.
They identified weaknesses and proposed changes to controls and prevention measures.
The offences for which James was convicted date back to the summer of 2021, during a football camp in Carpegna. The victims were four minors under the age of 14 from Ancona. The conviction covers sexual acts with minors, corruption of minors and sexual violence.
The first ruling was handed down in Urbino in February 2023. In May 2024 the Court of Appeal of Ancona reduced the sentence to four years and four months in prison. In March 2025 the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible, making the conviction final.
In the meantime, James had obtained posts within the Sammarinese school system. Between September 2023 and March 2024 he worked for the Directorate of Primary Schools as a janitor-cook.
In April 2025, when the Italian conviction had already become final, he signed a new self-certification for a substitute position as a nursery-school worker, declaring that there were no conditions incompatible with the role.
From 24 April to 22 June 2025 he worked mainly in the kitchen of the Cailungo nursery, with a few days at Dogana and Città. From 23 June to 6 August he was assigned to the Dogana facility.
On this point, the report specifies that he worked only in the kitchens and does not appear to have had direct contact with children in the classrooms. His qualification did not allow him to carry out other duties within the nurseries.
Inconsistencies in the statements submitted to the offices had, however, already emerged earlier. In July 2023 and September 2024, James had declared that he had no pending legal proceedings. Checks had instead revealed a Sammarinese case for assault, relating to events from 2021.
That offence had not been considered an obstacle to inclusion on employment lists, as it did not meet the penalty thresholds required to bar access to public employment. Nevertheless, a discrepancy remained between what had been declared and what the certificates showed, as noted by the two experts.
The Italian proceedings for the abuse case, however, did not appear in the Sammarinese certifications obtained at those times. And it is on this point that the problem of communication between the two countries emerges.
The first Interpol alert reached San Marino on 12 June 2025 and concerned the detention order issued by the Urbino Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Sammarinese office responded the same day, while the Gendarmerie began checking James’s presence in the territory and his habits. The judicial authority was informed the following day.
The Interpol communications were subject to a ban on disclosure to third parties without prior authorisation from the Italian authority. They could not, therefore, be freely passed on to administrative offices for use in employment checks.
On 18 June the Secretariat of State for Justice received a request for extradition assistance from the Ancona Prosecutor General’s Office. On 30 June it was forwarded to the Court, and on 2 July the Secretary of State informed the Congress of State of the offences, the Italian request, and the convicted man’s wish to serve his sentence on Mount Titano.
Meanwhile, at the initiative of the Fiscal Prosecutor’s Office, an updated criminal record was requested from Italy. It arrived on 11 July 2025, and the conviction was entered into the Sammarinese criminal register.
The Labour Office obtained the certificate showing the conviction on 26 August, following a new urgent request to verify self-certifications. The following day it filed a complaint over James’s alleged false statements.
Three days earlier, on 23 August, he had been arrested in Rimini, with the Gendarmerie assisting in tracking his movements.
San Marino had refused extradition due to James’s Sammarinese citizenship. In the assessment of Burgagni and Cherubini, the Italian conviction alone did not constitute grounds to arrest him in the Republic and have him serve his sentence there: a separate procedure was required for enforcement within San Marino.
The main weakness identified by the two lawyers concerns the exchange of information on ongoing criminal proceedings. The system described provides for periodic communication between Italy and San Marino regarding final convictions, but there is no treaty obligation requiring mutual notification of pending cases.
Hence the proposal to strengthen agreements and procedures with Italy, at least for certain categories of offence, in order to ensure that the information needed for checks reaches the relevant offices in time, while respecting confidentiality requirements.
On the domestic front, Burgagni and Cherubini suggest making verification of self-certifications explicitly mandatory also at the point of registration and access to public employment lists, in addition to the cases already covered for competitive exams and job assignments.
For those who submit false statements, the report proposes considering stricter penalties and a broader application of disqualification, along with the possibility of barring future access to certain benefits obtained through false declarations.
Another proposed measure concerns the protection of minors prior to any extradition. The proposal would allow the judicial authority, based on an assessment of the individual’s dangerousness and with the necessary safeguards, to impose bans on approaching places frequented by minors and suspensions from jobs involving contact with children and teenagers.
A further amendment is suggested to make explicit the possibility of prosecuting in San Marino the sexual acts against minors covered by Article 173 even when committed abroad by Sammarinese citizens or persons habitually resident in the Republic, or against Sammarinese citizens and residents. This extension could also be considered for other crimes against minors.
Regarding the ban on working in public administration for those convicted of sexual offences against minors, two options are proposed: a general exclusion, or a ban limited to roles involving contact, even occasional, with minors. The changes would apply to competitive exams, employment lists, substitutions, job transfers and existing employment relationships.
