The Tar of Lazio confirmed the fine of 3 million euros imposed by the Antitrust in 2017 on Intesa Sanpaolo, held responsible together with other credit institutions, for unfair commercial practice. In the specific case, the Antitrust sanction was linked to the misleading and omissive presentation to consumers of the characteristics of the investment in diamonds. It is the epilogue of a story that starts from afar and dates back to October 2017.
Diamonds and banks: the Antitrust investigation dates back to 2017
In 2017, the Authority launched and concluded a process towards Diamond Private Investment (Dpi) for violations of the Consumer Code regarding sales outside business premises and in pre-contractual information, as well as the right to reconsider. Subsequently the proceeding was extended to Intesa Sanpaolo and Monte dei Paschi di Siena.
In 2018, the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, with 5 sentences filed on 14 November of that year (nos. 10965-10969), confirmed 12,3 million fines imposed in October 2017 by the Competition and Market Authority on banks and intermediaries for two unfair commercial practices. The "omissive and misleading presentation" to consumers of some characteristics "of investment in diamonds", as well as the "aggravation of the conditions for the right of withdrawal" had ended up in the Antitrust's sights. Two unlawful conducts are contested: having deceptively and omissively presented to consumers the characteristics of investing in diamonds; the incorrect indication on the right of withdrawal.
Diamonds and banks: the previous sentences of the Tar
At the time, the Tar rejected the sanctions for the intermediaries Dpi (1 million) and Intermarket Diamond Business (2 million). On that occasion, the appeals of Unicredit (4 million), Banco Bpm (3,35 million) and Mps (2 million) were also rejected.
The proceeding proposed by Intesa Sanpaolo remained pending. The judges considered the disputed provision legitimate, rejecting the bank's appeal: "The purchase of diamonds was represented as an ideal solution for diversifying the client's assets, in particular as a sort of safe haven suitable for preserving the value of savings and guaranteeing stable yields, even higher than those of gold”; and "the Authority ascertained (and sufficiently described in the provision) that the illustrative material used by the appellant was misleading". The involvement of the bank, according to the judges, "emerges from having materially allowed the realization of the offer through its commercial network"; and in confirmation of this "it is also worth noting how it obtained an economic return based on the sales volume".
