Bank compensates bankruptcy if it does not block the account with abnormal transactions

The bank that does not comply with anti-money laundering obligations and does not stop the anomalous movements of shareholders' savings deposits is declared bankrupt. The Court of Cassation (judgment 13945/2026) upheld the appeal of the receiver of a limited company against the bank at which the accounts of shareholders, directors and the company were held. The plaintiff denounced the conduct of the credit institution that, despite the anomalies of the transactions carried out by the shareholders for four years, had continued the relationship without reporting them to the supervisory authorities or interrupting them, in breach of the anti-money laundering legislation (Legislative Decree 231/2007).

The defence of the bankruptcy had allowed the use of banking services for very large amounts to support the illicit collection by the shareholders to the detriment of the company and its creditors. Members who had been subjected to restrictive measures of personal liberty, then brought to trial for abusive collection of savings, bankruptcy and false corporate communications - aggravated by the serious economic damage - defined with a plea bargain.

The Court of Appeal had, however, rejected the appeal, confirming the first instance ruling, considering the model 231 of compliance with the anti-money laundering regulations, adopted by the bank, to be suitable, as had the public prosecutor's consultant. What was lacking, therefore, was proof of the causal connection of the existence of the symptoms of suspicious transactions such as to determine the obligation - in any case of a public nature and devoid of contractual relevance - to cease relations with the partners or to give rise to the duty, out of fairness and good faith, to protect the interests of the current account company.

The Cassazione - which in 2025, with an interlocutory order had referred the case to public discussion due to the relevance of the issue and the absence of specific precedents on the subject - upheld the appeal. And it did so by reproaching the Court of Merit for not having given weight to the evidence that the bankruptcy defence had produced regarding theunlawful collection of savings and the very significant damage produced to the company, which had been transformed from a joint-stock company into a limited liability company, and to the creditors who had trusted to adhere to a bond in favour of the company.

The Supreme Court clarifies that, as a rule, the violation of anti-money laundering obligations by the bank is not per se an automatic source of civil liability to the customer or third parties, either contractual or extra-contractual. However, the sector's regulations 'placing obligations of conduct on banks,' reads the judgment, 'do not exclude in the abstract that the anti-money laundering rules are relevant in relations between private individuals, when they are grafted into the content of the banking contractual relationship, giving concrete expression to the duties of correctness, good faith and protection. And, therefore, that their non-fulfilment results in conduct culpably facilitating illegal or harmful transactions.