It has been called the "trial of the century". In reality, however, the Vatican trial for the management of the funds of the Secretariat of State is more like a commercial law trial, in which the most frequent accusations are those of corruption, fraud and embezzlement.
Even so, the process has achieved international resonance because for the first time a cardinal, Angelo Becciu, has been accused in a Vatican tribunal. Until the Pope Francis' motu proprio of April 30, 2021In fact, cardinals could only be judged by the Vatican Cassation, which is a college of three cardinals.
The verdict, i.e. the declaration of "guilty" or "not guilty" of the ten defendants and four companies on remand, will be announced on December 16. On the other hand, the full verdict, with the reasons, should be published a few months later.
The dispositive part, however, will have to be interpreted, because the charges are many, sometimes cross-cutting and involve several defendants, and are subject to change.
It is also possible that the court may decide that certain offenses are not exactly those contained in the indictment provided by the prosecutor, deciding lighter penalties or simply declaring that the acts committed do not constitute a crime. To do this, it is first necessary to understand what the trial consists of.
One trial, three trials
The investigators have followed three leads, very different from each other and all related to the theme of "management of the funds of the Secretary of State".
The first clue is the most important: the investment of the Secretary of State in the shares of a luxury mansion in London for about 200 million euros. The investment was first given to the agent Raffaele Mincione and then to the agent Gianluigi Torzi. Torzi, in turn, took the shares of the investment and kept only the 1,000 voting shares, thus maintaining full control of the property.
Therefore, the Secretary of State decided to buy the shares and take control of the building. The negotiation that led the Secretariat of State to pay Torzi compensation for the loss of the shares was considered "extortion" by Vatican investigators. The Holy See then sold the palace without carrying out the planned development operations (the investment was not so much in the palace itself, but in a project to expand it and reallocate its use to rental purposes) for a price below market value. According to the Vatican Promoter of Justice, the loss to the Holy See would range from 139 to 189 million euros.
The second clue concerns the allocation of funds from the Secretariat of State amounting to 125,000 euros to Caritas of Ozieri, in Sardinia, Cardinal Angelo Becciu's home diocese. The money was destined by Caritas to SPES, a cooperative linked to Caritas that carries out social work, and was intended to cover the expenses of a bakery created to create jobs for the marginalized, and the construction of a "citadel of charity". The crime would be embezzlement, because according to the accusation Becciu used the money of the Secretariat of State for personal purposes and to enrich his family.
The third clue concerns the hiring by the Secretariat of State of Cecilia Marogna, a self-styled intelligence expert who claimed to collaborate in the release of some hostages, including that of Sister Cecilia Narvaez, the Colombian nun kidnapped in Mali in 2017. The woman, according to the Prosecutor's Office, would have spent for herself money that had been earmarked by the Secretariat of State to conclude the release operations.
What the defendants risk
The Vatican's promoter of justice has asked for total sentences of 73 years and one month in prison, in addition to various disqualifications and fines. According to the promoter of justice Alessandro Diddi, the common thread of these three lines of investigation is always and only Cardinal Angelo Becciu. It matters little that Becciu was involved in the operation of the London palace only at the beginning, because it was under his management that the sale and purchase of the shares in the building began.
Precisely because the cardinal has never shown signs of repentance, the maximum possible penalty has been requested for him: 7 years and 3 months in prison, disqualification from public office, a fine of 10329 euros and a request for forfeiture of 14 million.
For René Bruelhart, former chairman of the Financial Intelligence Authority, 3 years and 8 months imprisonment, temporary disqualification from public office and a fine of 10329 euros have been requested.
For Tommaso Di Ruzza, director of the Financial Intelligence Authority, 4 years and 3 months imprisonment, temporary disqualification from public office and a fine of €9600 have been requested.
For Monsignor Mauro Carlino, who was the deputy's secretary at the time of the operation, 5 years and 4 months in prison, perpetual disqualification from public office and a fine of 8,000 euros are requested.
Enrico Craso, who was finance director of the State Secretariat through Credit Suisse, is asked to serve 9 years and 9 months in prison, a fine of 18,000 euros and perpetual disqualification from public office, according to the indictment.
Cecilia Marogna, faces 4 years and 8 months in prison, perpetual disqualification from public office and a fine of 10,329 euros.
For the racer Raffaele Mincione 11 years and 5 months of imprisonment, life disqualification from public office and a fine of 15450 euros are requested, while Gianluigi Torzi faces 7 years and 6 months of imprisonment, life disqualification from public office and a fine of 9000 euros.
For the lawyer Nicola Squillace, who claimed to have acted on behalf of the Secretary of State, 6 years imprisonment, suspension from the practice of his profession and a fine of 12500 euros.
The highest sentence requested was for State Secretariat official Fabrizio Tirabassi: 13 years and 3 months imprisonment, perpetual disqualification from public office and a fine of €18750.
In addition, the Secretariat of State of the Vatican, the Administration for the Patrimony of the Apostolic See and the Institute for the Works of Religion have joined the proceedings as civil plaintiffs: the former has asked for compensation for image damages caused by the operations of between 97 and 177 million euros, while the IOR has requested restitution of 206 million euros and almost one million euros for moral and reputational damage to the Institute.
The defenses
The defenses have pointed out what they consider to be contradictions in the reconstruction of the promoter of Justice, and have all requested the acquittal of their defendants, for two main reasons: because the fact does not exist, and because the fact does not constitute a crime.
According to the defenses, there was no investment crime, nor was any evidence presented that the losses on the purchase of the building constituted a crime. The defense also stressed that there was no evidence that Cardinal Angelo Becciu and his family had received funds illegally, so he could not be charged with embezzlement. Finally, the defenses accused the Vatican's promoter of justice of elaborating a theorem, regardless of the outcome of the hearing.
From the sentence, the resistance of the Vatican judicial system will be understood. If the investigations are shown to be characterized by bias, as the defenses claim, this could weaken the Vatican judicial system itself. Already a London judge, Baumgartner, in proceedings related to this process, has called the findings of the investigations a mischaracterization, an accusation that the promoter of Justice returns to the sender.
The presence of no less than four papal rescripts that have hastily changed the rules of research is also an important issue. The rescripts only concern this trial. But can a fair trial really be characterized by extemporaneous decisions?
