Fideuram AI Voice-Cloning Scam Moved €95 Million

A WhatsApp message that appeared to come from Intesa Sanpaolo CEO Carlo Messina was followed by a call using an AI-cloned lawyer’s voice. That combination reportedly helped scammers persuade Fideuram chairman Paolo Molesini to authorize €95 million in overseas transfers, according to TechSpot’s account, which cites sources familiar with the matter.

The episode matters because the deception did not rely on a voice clone alone. A message supplied an apparent reason for the request, then a call from someone presented as a senior law-firm partner reinforced it. Familiar channels and recognizable identities gave the transaction a veneer of legitimacy.

How the impersonation led to transfers

The reported scheme began in February 2026. Molesini received a WhatsApp message apparently from Messina asking for help with a large overseas transaction. A subsequent call appeared to come from a senior partner at a major law firm; sources cited by TechSpot said criminals used AI models to impersonate the lawyer’s voice. The report says Molesini believed the request was genuine.

Fideuram, Intesa Sanpaolo’s private banking arm, then sent a total of €95 million to foreign accounts, including accounts in China and Hong Kong. The reporting does not specify the number of transfers or the checks performed before they were authorized, so it cannot establish which particular safeguard would have stopped them. It does show how one apparent executive request and a confirming call were used together to support a high-stakes instruction. TechSpot reports the sequence and transfer destinations.

Anomalies helped recover part of the money

Fideuram’s team detected anomalies in the transactions and alerted the recipient banks. With help from authorities and banking institutions in Italy, Portugal and China, the bank recovered €53 million. TechSpot reports that the remaining funds passed through overseas accounts and were ultimately converted into an undisclosed cryptocurrency; it does not provide a separate, confirmed figure for the amount converted. The reported recovery and tracing details.

The distinction matters: €95 million was transferred, but the reported recovery was €53 million. The fact that anomalies were detected shows that intervention after transfers began helped retrieve some funds, while the reporting does not explain what triggered the alerts or how quickly they were acted on.

The investigation is not a finding of guilt

Molesini resigned in March without giving a specific reason, and the report says Milan prosecutors were trying to identify the alleged perpetrators. One person outside the European Union was reportedly under investigation for computer fraud. That is an investigative step, not a finding that the person was responsible. TechSpot’s account describes the resignation and investigation.

For financial teams, the useful distinction is between a familiar voice and a verified instruction. In this case, the message and call strengthened each other, but the available reporting does not describe a verification process or prove that any particular one would have prevented the fraud. The incident’s clearest operational signal is that a convincing identity can be part of a broader transaction story, not just a convincing sound.