That is why civil servants do not report possible offences

In 2025, reports of suspicious transactions (SOS) received by the Bank of Italy’s Financial Intelligence Unit reached a record high of 162,000, an increase of 11.5 per cent on the previous year, representing a total value of nearly 100 billion euros. This is according to the annual report presented this week by the FIU. There was a significant increase in STRs attributable to banks and Poste Italiane, confirming that this sector accounts for the highest number of reports (58.4%). Reports from other financial operators remain high, albeit on a downward trend (21.3% of the total). There has been an increase in reports from crypto-asset operators (now accounting for 3.6% of the total) and gold buyers (2.8%). Among professionals, however, only notaries are proactive in this regard (6.2 per cent). Reports from chartered accountants and solicitors are virtually non-existent. Public sector employees – in particular civil servants, managers and municipal secretaries – are conspicuously absent, without justification.

Reports from public administrations, whose contribution has always been marginal, have seen a further sharp decline (-58.8 per cent, from 1,264 in 2024 to 521 in 2025) and account for just 0.3 per cent of the total. Furthermore, 91% of these were submitted more than 90 days late. There are therefore few reports, which arrive late and come largely from central government bodies rather than local authorities. Yet local authorities are the state’s frontline sensors; they have direct contact with the local area and should be the first to detect anomalies requiring reporting: for example, when they award a contract, grant a licence, disburse grants and subsidies, or when they verify that yet another property has been registered in the name of someone who is not working.

But why do civil servants not report such matters? It may be due to apathy or simply a desire to avoid hassle and inconvenience – certainly not because of collusion. As long as responsibility is attributed more to the Administration as an institution than to individual civil servants, these shortcomings are bound to persist. The reporting obligations date back to Law 231 of 2007. Subsequently, precisely to encourage reporting within the public administration, in 2015 the Ministry of the Interior issued a decree to begin holding staff within local councils and other bodies accountable: a measure which – as the figures show – has fallen on deaf ears. On that occasion, a set of guidelines was also provided to help identify the irregularities that should prompt action. A sort of instruction manual containing numerous warning signs categorised by the identity and behaviour of the individual, by type of transaction and by sector of activity, with particular attention paid to tax audits, public procurement and public funding. A set of guidelines for identifying hotspots of malpractice, aimed at reducing the margins of uncertainty associated with subjective assessments by the designated internal ‘watchdogs’.

But clearly, this is not enough to ensure that every public servant fulfils their duty to report any unlawful conduct of which they become aware, at the very least to the manager or official in charge. Further action is needed to amend the regulations so as to make them more accountable.