At the conclusion of two investigations, the Antitrust Authority considered the methods of offering investment diamonds by Intermarket Diamond Business - IDB SpA (IDB) and Diamond Private Investment - DPI SpA (DPI) to be seriously misleading and omissive, also through credit institutions with which they respectively operated: Unicredit and Banco BPM (for IDB); Intesa Sanpaolo and Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena (for DPI).
The profiles of impropriety found for both companies concerned the misleading and omissive information disseminated through the site and the promotional material prepared by them in relation to: a) the sale price of diamonds, presented as market quotation, the result of an objective survey published in the main business newspapers; b) the performance of the diamond market, represented by stable and constant growth; c) the easy liquidation and resale of diamonds at the prices indicated and with certain timing; and d) the qualification of professionals as market leaders.
In reality, in the light of the preliminary findings, it emerged that the market quotations were the sales prices freely determined by the professionals, much higher than the purchase cost of the stone and the international reference benchmarks (Rapaport and IDEX); the trend of quotations was the trend of the selling price of the companies annually and progressively increased by the sellers; and the liquidability and resale prospects were solely linked to the possibility that the trader would find other consumers within his own circuit.
The Authority also ascertained that the credit institutions, the main diamond sales channel for both companies, using the information material prepared by IDB and DPI, proposed the investment to a specific segment of their customers interested in buying of diamonds as a safe haven and to diversify one's investments.
According to the Authority, the fact that the investment was proposed by the bank staff and the presence of the bank staff at the meetings between the two professionals and the customers, gave ample credibility to the information contained in the promotional material of the two companies, causing many consumers to purchase without carrying out further investigations.
The Authority also ascertained the violation by IDB and DPI of consumer rights in contracts regarding the right of withdrawal and, for IDB, also the competent court in the event of disputes.
The penalties imposed were: in one case, totaling 9,35 million (2 million for IDB; 4 million for Unicredit; 3,35 million for Banco BPM); in the other case, totaling 6 million (1 million for DPI; 3 million for Banca Intesa; 2 million for MPS).
During the investigation, inspections were carried out with the assistance of the Special Antitrust Unit of the Guardia di Finanza and useful information was provided for the verification of the file by CONSOB. The Altroconsumo associations, the original whistleblower, Movimento Difesa del Cittadino and Codacons participated in the proceedings.
