When Armando Siri says that "a State that forces citizens to put their money in the bank" must then also force banks to guarantee a current account, he uses a deliberately polemical phrasing, designed to target a point that is often left in the background of Italian public debate. Taken literally, no regulation forces every citizen to deposit all their money in a bank under threat of criminal penalties; yet the economic, tax, and administrative system has progressively made the relationship with the banking circuit so pervasive as to turn it, for a great many people and almost all businesses, from an ancillary service into a practical prerequisite for participating in economic life.

It is precisely within this contradiction that Siri's battle gains interest, especially because it does not stem from an off-the-cuff remark linked to the banking consolidation moves of the summer of 2026. In his interview with Repubblica on August 22, the head of departments of the Lega revived the "right to a current account" as a guarantee to be recognized for savers; but his political initiative on the issue dates back more than six years, when on February 11, 2020, he submitted bill 1712 to the Senato, specifically dedicated to the use and provision of current account relationships. That text established, in very clear terms, that a bank could not refuse to open an account and could not terminate it unilaterally as long as the balance was in credit.

Viewed today, the proposal appears less eccentric than it might have seemed back then, because in the meantime the issue of access to banking services has firmly entered institutional agendas. On July 23, 2025, the Camera approved a unified text introducing a new Article 1857-bis into the Codice civile, aimed at requiring banks to enter into a current account agreement with anyone requesting one, subject to the application of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism regulations; the measure is now before the Senato as bill number 1595 and is still under review by the Commissione Finanze. It is therefore not a principle that has remained confined to party propaganda: it has become concrete legislative business, complete with hearings involving ABI, Banca d’Italia, consumer associations, and professional bodies.

The merit of Siri's argument is having recognized before others that the account is no longer a product like any other

Legally speaking, a current account remains a contract offered by a private enterprise, and no serious debate can pretend that banks are public offices. The point, however, is to understand whether all services offered by a business serve the same social function. A mortgage, a credit line, or a credit card involves taking on risk, assessing creditworthiness, and committing capital; a payment account with a positive balance, on the other hand, primarily serves to allow an individual or a business to safeguard money, receive incoming payments, make bank transfers, pay utility bills, use electronic tools, and navigate an economy that the State itself has made increasingly traceable.

Since July 1, 2018, for example, employers generally cannot pay wages in cash directly to workers: the law mandates traceable methods through a bank or a post office, including wire transfers, electronic payment methods, and other procedures stipulated by regulations. Added to this are limits on cash usage, the spread of digital payments, direct debiting for utilities, tax obligations, refunds, professional receivables, and the standard operational needs of any economic activity. The question raised by Siri is therefore understandable: if the legal system strongly pushes citizens and businesses into the traceable payment system, to what extent can the right to access the gateway to that system be left to sheer commercial discretion?

The issue becomes even more evident for professionals, small businesses, associations, and entities that are not seeking credit, but simply require an infrastructure to receive and transfer their own funds. Without an account, a business does not simply revert to operating in a cash economy: it risks being unable to pay suppliers normally, collect from clients, pay taxes, or manage relations with employees and public administrations. It is precisely here that the distinction between a commercial banking service and essential economic infrastructure begins to blur.

For consumers, a right already exists, and this makes the proposal less revolutionary than it seems

The strongest argument in favor of Siri’s approach is that the Italian and European legal frameworks already recognize, at least for one category of users, the principle that access to essential payment services cannot depend entirely on the bank’s discretion. European Directive 2014/92 introduced the basic payment account, transposed in Italy through decreto legislativo 37 del 2017. Consumers legally residing in the European Union have the right to request it, and intermediaries can only refuse it in specific, legally defined cases, including failure to meet requirements or the need to comply with anti-money laundering regulations.

The basic account allows users to deposit and withdraw cash, receive and make payments, and utilize the essential tools for the day-to-day management of their financial lives. For certain more economically vulnerable groups, it is free; Banca d’Italia points out, for instance, that with an annual ISEE of less than 11,600 euros, there are no opening or maintenance fees, nor any stamp duty. The principle, therefore, has already been established: when access to payments becomes an element of economic inclusion, a bank’s contractual freedom can be restricted and balanced against the general public interest.

What is more, on August 5, 2026, Banca d’Italia published new supervisory guidelines regarding the basic account after observing that, in practice, access to this product is sometimes unjustifiably hindered or discouraged. The authority called on banks, Poste, and other payment service providers to eliminate procedures and practices that make it more difficult to exercise a right already guaranteed by law. This step warrants close attention because it demonstrates that the issue raised by Siri is not an abstract debate over freedom of enterprise: even where a right exists on paper, regulatory intervention may still be required to ensure that right can actually be exercised.

Banca d’Italia does not support a blanket obligation, but recognizes the heart of the problem

The most useful perspective for seriously assessing the proposal is not that of those who support it for political reasons, but rather that of Banca d’Italia, which in its hearing on July 21, 2026, expressed significant technical reservations about the bill without denying the issue that generated it. Magda Bianco, head of the Dipartimento Tutela della clientela ed educazione finanziaria, defined financial inclusion as "an essential prerequisite for participating in economic and social life", explaining that current basic account regulations already protect consumers and that the reform’s real added value would primarily concern entrepreneurs, professionals, associations, and other non-consumer clients.

The figures presented to the Senato make the issue concrete: between 2019 and 2025, Banca d’Italia received around 280 complaints related to difficulties faced by non-consumer entities in opening or maintaining a payment account. This is not a figure that justifies describing the phenomenon as a blanket closure of accounts by the banking system, and doing so would be inaccurate; it is, however, sufficient to show that an area of financial exclusion exists that the current right to a basic account does not cover.

Even more significant is the concluding passage of the hearing, in which Banca d’Italia states that solutions focused on entities that currently do not benefit from specific protections—namely, non-consumer clients—"may have merit" and calls for considering the introduction of a right to obtain a payment account, structured to balance inclusion, security, and sound banking management. In other words, Palazzo Koch does not subscribe to the maximalist view that any bank should be forced to open any account for anyone; yet it explicitly recognizes that turning access to payment services into a right for certain businesses and professionals as well is a plausible path forward.

This is where political intuition can become a very solid reform

The crucial step is to separate two issues that are often conflated in the debate. Guaranteeing the right to a basic account does not mean forcing a bank to extend credit, take on financial exposure, or accept clients on whom it is impossible to carry out customer due diligence obligations; rather, it means acknowledging that, in the absence of specific legal grounds, an economically lawful individual or business should not be deprived of access to the payment infrastructure.

A well-designed reform could provide a basic account for professionals, businesses, and organisations unable to access the market, with services limited to payments and without credit lines, credit cards, or other forms of financing. It could establish fast-track appeal procedures, prevent a client's mere commercial profile from becoming sufficient grounds for exclusion, and, at the same time, fully preserve all safeguards against money laundering, terrorist financing, fraud, and international sanctions. It is a less ideological and more robust solution, as it protects the principle that Siri champions without pretending that the banking system can abandon risk management.

The issue of stating the grounds for refusal, for instance, is a real one. The text passed by the Camera provides that a refusal linked to anti-money laundering regulations must be justified in writing within ten days, but Banca d’Italia pointed out that an overly detailed explanation could conflict with the prohibition on alerting the client to the existence of a money laundering suspicion, the so-called tipping off. This is not a reason to abandon the right to an account: it is a technical point to be corrected, distinguishing a client's right to know the outcome of their application from the State's need not to compromise prevention and enforcement activities.

France and Belgium show that the right to an account does not turn banks into government ministries

A European comparison helps free the Italian debate from the idea that this is a measure inherently incompatible with a market-based banking system. Banca d’Italia notes that France has a droit au compte covering basic services, potentially available to anyone and accompanied by a precise procedure that still allows for termination in specific cases, such as when an account is used for suspicious transactions or when a customer provides inaccurate information.

Belgium has adopted a model that is even more relevant to Italy, offering a “basic business account” for self-employed workers, companies, non-profit entities, foundations, and associations that have been turned down by at least three different banks. Following the third refusal, applicants can apply to a designated body that, after consulting the financial intelligence unit, identifies the bank required to open the account; refusals naturally remain possible under anti-money laundering regulations or in cases of serious financial convictions.

These examples do not prove that the Italian proposal should be copied without adjustment, but they refute the objection that recognizing a right to banking access is necessarily incompatible with the market. The real question is how to design that right, which services to include, who should benefit, and what exceptions should apply. It is a debate over regulatory design, not a choice between a market economy and a command economy.

ABI’s opposition must be heard, but it is not enough to settle the matter

Associazione bancaria italiana has expressed firm opposition to a blanket mandate, arguing that banking is an entrepreneurial activity and that imposing an indiscriminate obligation to contract on private entities would undermine the freedom of economic enterprise and banks’ ability to evaluate operational, reputational, and compliance risks. The objection has solid legal foundations, and Banca d’Italia itself has emphasized the need for proportionality, noting that contractual autonomy carries constitutional relevance.

Yet the hearing of Banca d’Italia itself shows why this argument is not sufficient to dismiss Siri’s intuition out of hand. Freedom of enterprise is not absolute: Article 41 of the Constitution allows for limitations justified by reasons of social utility, security, freedom, and dignity, provided they are proportionate. In our legal system, statutory obligations to contract already exist in sectors where the legislator considers access to a service particularly crucial, as is the case with RC Auto insurance. There is therefore no constitutional barrier preventing any intervention; rather, there is the far more reasonable requirement to design it properly.

The most compelling position thus ends up lying between Siri’s original formulation and the technical cautions raised during the hearings: the politician identified the problem well in advance, while the authorities are now defining the perimeter within which the solution can become sustainable. This is precisely how major reforms often mature. First, a principle emerges, sometimes expressed in a blunt manner; then, legislative work transforms that principle into rules compatible with the rest of the legal system.

The current account is becoming an infrastructure of economic citizenship

Technological transformation makes this debate even more relevant than it was in 2020. Instant payments, digital identity, banking apps, e-commerce, online public services, and, looking ahead, the digital euro are shifting an ever-larger share of economic life onto infrastructures that require an accessible, functioning financial identity. An account is not the only possible way to participate in this ecosystem, and new tools may diminish its centrality, but today it remains the main bridge between income, savings, payments, and relationships with the economic system.

This is why Siri's battle is more modern than the traditional language of banking controversies suggests. Behind the seemingly archaic issue of checking accounts lies a question typical of the digital economy: who controls access to the infrastructure required to exercise rights and conduct economic activities, and what safeguards must those who depend on that infrastructure have? It belongs to the same family of problems we have learned to debate regarding telecommunications networks, digital marketplaces, payment systems, and major tech platforms.

The solution cannot be to eliminate banks' ability to protect themselves against risk, nor to turn every financial relationship into an unconditional right. However, it can establish a minimum threshold: anyone who operates legally, uses their own funds, and requires essential payment services should not be excluded from the system for opaque or purely commercial reasons without an effective alternative.

This is why the statement made by Siri, stripped of its inevitably provocative tone, contains an insight destined to remain part of the debate well beyond a single legislature. If the state builds an economy grounded in traceability, asks citizens to use regulated instruments, and makes the payment network indispensable for working, receiving income, and meeting obligations, then it must also ensure that access to that network does not depend solely on the convenience of an individual intermediary.

Six years ago, this position seemed like a stretch. Today, a right to a basic account already exists for consumers, Banca d’Italia intervenes to prevent it from being hindered in practice, Parliament discusses extending these guarantees, Palazzo Koch acknowledges that such a right for non-consumer clients may have merit, and two European countries already have instruments addressing this very issue. It is difficult to find a clearer demonstration of how much the idea anticipated a genuine need.

The final result may differ from Siri's original text, and it will probably be better precisely because it is more specific in its exceptions and safeguard mechanisms; but the political substance would remain intact. In the digital economy, the right to legally hold and move one's money is becoming too important to be treated as a mere commercial concession. Calling it a “right to a current account” may seem like a radical formula. In reality, looking at how work, payments, and the relationship between citizens and the financial system are changing, it is above all a formula that has arrived ahead of its time.

Sources