Cardinal Becciu sentenced to 5.5 years imprisonment for embezzlementNothing is yet known about the end of the trial on the management of the funds of the Secretariat of State, the so-called "Becciu trial". The verdict read on December 15 has several acquittals, many redefinitions of crimes, a few convictions, and can leave no one satisfied.
In fact, the only ones who did not appeal were the Secretariat of State and the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, both civil parties (and two sides of the same coin, considering that the management of the funds of the Secretariat of State was transferred to the APSA). There was no recourse for Monsignor Mauro Carlino, secretary in substitution first of Angelo Becciu and then of Edgar Pena Parra, the only one to be acquitted of all charges. All the other actors, both defendants and civil parties, and even the Vatican's promoter of justice (the prosecutor), have announced that they will appeal.
Therefore, there will be another trial, no longer with a broad hearing, but with a review of documents, which could rewrite crimes and sentences. And in the meantime, there are two other trials in the Vatican, also on financial matters: the trial involving Libero Milone, former auditor general of the Vatican, who denounced, together with his deputy Panicco, who later died of cancer, that he had been unjustly removed from office and asked for a high compensation, and which ended in favor of the Secretariat of State; and the trial concerning the management of the funds of the Sistine Chapel Choir.
But what do these judgments say about the health of the Vatican legal system?
The Vatican legal system
It should be remembered that these are criminal trials, instituted in the Vatican City State. Although canon law is also a source of law in the case of civil and criminal litigation, these are trials instituted in the State, with their own norms.
Pope Francis has changed the Vatican's legal system several times. In the last two years, there have been two reforms of the juridical system, which have effectively redefined the judicial structure. The Pope unified the office of the promoter of justice, which remains the same in first instance and on appeal. He first defined, also on the basis of requests from international bodies, that at least one of the judges or promoters of justice should be employed full time, and then again accepted that all positions should be part time.
Thus, during the investigation phase of the process on the handling of Vatican funds, the Pope rewrote some norms with four rescripts. A way to overcome a normative vacuum, according to the promoter of justice, Alessandro Diddi. A way to manipulate the investigation by changing the rules, according to the accusation.
In fact, however, we are faced with a legal system that has undergone many reforms, composed entirely of lawyers and prosecutors who have practiced or practice in Italy and who, therefore, do not know the peculiarities of the Holy See or contemplate the broader picture of international law.
The fund management process of the Secretary of State's Office
It is in this framework that the lawsuit on the management of funds by the Secretary of State must be placed. The trial concerns events that occurred between 2012 and 2019, and can be summarized in three different strands.
The first concerns the Secretary of State's investment in the shares of a luxury palace in London. After deciding not to go ahead with the possibility of participating in an oil platform in Angola, the Secretary of State assigned to the broker Raffaele Mincione the management of a fund destined to the purchase of shares in a palace to be developed. He then transferred the same shares under management to the broker Gianluigi Torzi, who - initially unaware of the State Secretariat - kept for himself the only shares with voting rights and, consequently, full control of the palace. Eventually, he took possession of the entire building, which was recently resold.
Thus, part of the trial focuses on the contribution given by the Secretariat of State to Caritas in Ozieri for the development of a project of the SPES cooperative, presided over by the brother of Cardinal Becciu. The accusation against Becciu is that of embezzlement.
The third line of investigation concerns the self-styled geopolitical expert Cecilia Marogna, hired by the Secretary of State, who allegedly used for her own benefit the money paid to her for alleged hostage rescue operations (such as that of the Colombian nun Cecilia Narvaez kidnapped in Mali).
How did the trial end?
As already mentioned, the only absolution was that of Monsignor Mauro Carlino.
Cardinal Becciu was convicted of three crimes, two of embezzlement and one of fraud. One of the embezzlement offenses considers him in collusion with the broker Raffaele Mincione for having allocated 200 million euros (one third of the investment capacity of the Secretariat of State) in a highly speculative fund belonging to the broker.
René Bruelhart and Tommaso Di Ruzza, respectively president and director of the Financial Intelligence Authority at the time of the events in question, only receive a fine of 1,750 euros. Enrico Craso, the broker who, first on behalf of Credit Suisse and then in other functions, managed the funds of the Vatican Secretariat of State, was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 euros with perpetual disqualification from public office.
Raffaele Mincione, who was entrusted with the fund that was later used to buy shares in the London property, to five years and six months in prison, an eight thousand euro fine and perpetual disqualification from public office.
Fabrizio Tirabassi, an official of the Secretary of State for Administration implicated by his superiors in the negotiations, is sentenced to seven years and six months in prison, a fine of ten thousand euros and perpetual disqualification from public office.
Nicola Squillace, lawyer, who intervened together with Gianluigi Torzi in the sale and purchase, is sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with suspended sentence.
Gianluigi Torzi, the agent who took over the management of the shares of the Mincione property on behalf of the Secretary of State, is sentenced to six years' imprisonment, a fine of 6,000 euros, perpetual disqualification from public office and special surveillance for one year.
Cecilia Marogna, the self-styled "secret agent" who received a commission of 500,000 euros for an operation to free a nun kidnapped in Mali, which the prosecution claims she used for herself, is sentenced to 3 years and 9 months in prison with temporary disqualification from public office for the same period. Marogna's company, Logsic Humanitarne Dejavnosti D.O.O., will pay a fine of 40,000 euros and is banned from contracting with public authorities for two years.
In addition, the Court ordered the forfeiture of the sums constituting the corpus of the alleged offenses for a total amount of more than 166,000,000 euros. 166,000,000.00. Finally, the defendants were ordered, jointly and severally, to pay damages in favor of the civil party, liquidated in a total amount of more than 200,000,000.00 euros.
Among the damages to be counted, there are also 80 million in non-pecuniary damages for the Secretary of State, while the sentence also aims to recover all the money destined by Becciu to Caritas from Ozieri and that destined to the self-styled intelligence expert Cecilia Marogna. The forfeitures will be enforceable as from the second degree sentence, but there is a rule that provides for the possibility to forfeit the proceeds of crime already with the first degree sentence.
Towards sentencing
However, what was read on December 15, 2023 is only the operative part of the judgment. The full judgment, with all the grounds, will not be published until later, presumably in 2024, sometime between June and December.
The deadline for the appeal is therefore very long, the confiscations are blocked for the time being, and meanwhile the expenses of the Tribunal continue to grow, also because the Pope has recently decided to place Vatican judges in the managerial echelon of the Curia with the corresponding salary.
But how has this season of trials affected the Holy See?
The first risk is that of a decline in the credibility of the Vatican judicial system, both because of the way in which the charges were handled, and because of the way in which the president of the Tribunal himself, Giuseppe Pignatone, decided to redefine several crimes, with a new approach that seemed to disavow the investigations. The question that could be asked, perhaps with too much malice and specificity, is whether this was a political trial, and who it harmed.
The second risk concerns the possible appeal. If, on appeal, there is a substantial reversal of the charges, who and how can compensate the damages suffered by the defendants? These are reputational damages that have enormous repercussions on people's lives, for which compensation would be high. There would be the paradox that in a trial one would seek to recover the money lost and end up paying more than what was lost.
The third risk concerns the position of the judges and the Vatican gendarmerie. If the appeal were to overturn the first sentence, both the ability of the judges and Vatican promoters to conduct a fair trial and the investigative capacity of the Vatican gendarmerie could be called into question. This would be an earthquake for the entire Vatican system.
