The appeals court has fully upheld the acquittals of Daniele Guidi, Maria Stefania Lazzari and Andrea Vincenzo Tommasi in the trial over the Promovacanze case, linked to the Kelibia Beach tourist village in Tunisia and a credit held by Banca CIS.
As reported by L’Informazione di San Marino, the ruling by Judge Renato Bricchetti, published on Monday, entirely confirms the first-instance decision issued by Judge Adriano Saldarelli, including its reasoning: acquittal “because the fact does not constitute an offence” and the return of all seized assets.
At the heart of the case was the assignment given to the company Sunsky to find a buyer for the village, linked to a bank credit of roughly 21 million euros. The 500,000-euro fee paid for that assignment led to charges of disloyal administration against Guidi, who at the time served as the bank’s general manager and chief executive.
All three defendants also faced money laundering charges, while Lazzari additionally stood accused of issuing invoices for non-existent transactions. Already at first instance, based on witness testimony and documentary evidence, the judge had found that the services had genuinely been carried out and the fees were appropriate.
The acquittals were appealed by the Financial Prosecutor’s Office (Procuratore del Fisco) and by the Asset Management Company Ex BNS (Società di Gestione degli Attivi Ex BNS), which also sought damages, quantifying the main claim at 500,000 euros.
Judge Bricchetti declared the prosecution’s appeal inadmissible regarding the now time-barred offences, noting the absence of any concrete interest in overturning the acquittal. The confirmed absence of the underlying predicate offences also removed the basis for the money laundering charge.
The civil party’s appeal was likewise ruled inadmissible, with the party ordered to pay the costs of the second-instance proceedings. The revocation of the seizures remains confirmed.
The trial also addressed the 21-million-euro write-down of the credit position linked to the village, a decision taken during the bank’s period under special administration. According to the defence and the technical assessments cited during the trial, that write-down was not justified and placed an unwarranted strain on the bank’s balance sheet.
