The first-instance ruling in the Banca CIS case, which resulted in eight convictions for criminal association, has reignited debate over the political responsibilities of that era. Weighing in on the matter is the RETE movement, which is reclaiming the denunciations it made in the past and calling for clarity on the role played by those who, in its view, supported or shielded the power system now at the heart of the investigation.
“There are rulings whose significance extends well beyond the courtroom. The one handed down on 5 November 2026 in the Banca CIS trial is one of them,” reads the movement’s statement, which recalls that the Tribunal recognized, at first instance, the existence of a criminal association, handing down eight convictions.
The sentences range from 5 years and 6 months for Daniele Guidi, former CEO of Banca CIS, to 5 years and 2 months for criminal association for Francesco Confuorti, whose overall sentence reaches 8 years once combined with his conviction for money laundering.
Four years were handed down for Marino Grandoni, the bank’s former controlling shareholder, and 4 years and 4 months each for Lorenzo Savorelli, Roberto Moretti, Filippo Siotto and Ugo Granata, all of whom previously held positions at the Central Bank.
Alberto Buriani, a Commissario della Legge (judge) suspended from service, was also sentenced to 4 years and 2 months.
For RETE, the Tribunal’s decision also carries significant political weight. “This ruling casts new light on a political season in which RETE denounced and opposed a power system that is now substantially corroborated by the decisions of the judiciary.”
The movement then looks back on the years of its own denunciations and the controversies that followed. “We fought those battles when it was far easier to look the other way.
When we were mocked, isolated, attacked and branded as visionaries, conspiracy theorists, irresponsible troublemakers.
When Confuorti was portrayed as our obsession, and exposing certain entanglements meant becoming the target of a campaign of political and personal delegitimization.”
RETE claims it paid a political and judicial price for those positions, without ever abandoning its fight. “RETE paid an enormous price: it faced attacks and legal proceedings, it withstood attempts at isolation and delegitimization. Yet it never backed down.”
The central point of the statement, however, concerns the responsibilities of the government and majority in power at the time. “What remains, though, is a question that cannot be filed away along with the verdict: the political responsibilities of that government and that majority which, in those years, endorsed, supported or defended the conduct of the power group now at the center of these convictions.”
This leads to a series of questions directed at San Marino’s political class.
“Who provided political cover? Who downplayed the denunciations? Who helped delegitimize those calling for clarity?
Who chose to defend certain balances of power rather than question what was happening? These are questions politics has yet to answer. A ruling does not erase political responsibilities, nor does it give the country back the years lost, the damage suffered, or the trust compromised in its institutions.”
The movement states it does not wish to turn the convictions into a personal vendetta, but insists on the need to fully reconstruct what happened. “Today we are not claiming a personal victory, nor are we seeking revenge.
We do, however, have a political and moral duty to remember which side we were on when taking a stand was far more difficult: the side of the country.
We paid a price for refusing to accept that silence should become the norm, and that those calling for transparency should be treated as enemies.”
The call now is for full clarity on that period, without overlooking the responsibilities of those who held political and institutional office. “Today’s convictions do not erase what we went through, but they make it all the more essential to reconstruct that chapter without omissions or distortions.
History cannot be rewritten by discrediting those who had the courage to speak out.
And the rule of law is not defended with words alone: it is defended by standing on the side of legality, even when doing so costs consensus, power and political convenience.”
Finally, RETE extends its criticism to the current situation, arguing that the ties between politics and business continue to pose a problem for San Marino. “Unfortunately, though, the dynamics of power have not changed: the marriage between business and politics is still very much alive, as are shady dealings and dirty business. We fear this affair has taught our country very little.”
