On September 22, in the new chambers of the Vatican Tribunal, the second chapter of the high-profile case over the London property deal begins. The first trial ended in December 2023 with ten convictions. Now comes the appeal phase, starting with five hearings this week.
By Salvatore Cernuzio
A new courtroom, under a new pontificate, and 644 days after the first verdict, the appeal trial concerning the management of Holy See funds opens tomorrow, Monday, 22 September, in the Vatican. Five hearings are scheduled in the first week (September 22–26), marking a new chapter following the initial trial, which began in July 2022 and ended on 16 December 2023, with the conviction of ten defendants for crimes ranging from fraud to corruption, among others.
The first trial
At the center is the purchase of a building in a fashionable district of London, a transaction which, according to the first-instance ruling of the Vatican Tribunal – presided over by Giuseppe Pignatone – in a loss of at least €139 million. Pope Leo XIV himself referred to the situation in his first interview, published September 18, when, speaking about Vatican finances, he said: “There was great publicity given to the purchase of this building in London, Sloane Avenue – and how many millions were lost because of that.”
Other strands of investigation — involving payments to a cooperative in Sardinia and to a manager who allegedly used funds for the release of kidnapped religious to buy luxury goods — became intertwined in what much of the world’s press described as the “trial of the century.” The label referred to its length (86 hearings, a record for the Vatican), its complexity, and the fact that for the first time a cardinal, Giovanni Angelo Becciu, was among the defendants.
Appeals and new arguments
Cardinal Becciu, sentenced by the Vatican City court of first instance to five years and six months in prison, is among those who have appealed the 2023 ruling; his lawyers announced the appeal the very evening the verdict was read. Other defense teams did the same on behalf of their clients.
The appeals are being heard by a panel presided over by Archbishop Alejandro Arellano Cedillo, dean of the Roman Rota, alongside two lay judges. Defence lawyers have filed motions with “additional grounds” in view of the upcoming proceedings.
WhatsApp chats
In recent months, renewed attention has fallen on the trial following the publication in an Italian newspaper of WhatsApp chats between Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui and Genoveffa Ciferri, both witnesses in the first trial due to of their connections to Monsignor Alberto Perlasca, former director of the Administrative Office of the Secretariat of State. His statements, according to the prevailing narrative, triggered the investigation that ended with the indictments — though the court ultimately determined he was not a reliable witness.
During the 2022–23 hearings, some defence lawyers argued that the two women — one of them pretending to be an elderly magistrate — influenced Monsignor Perlasca in his choices and statements. This allegedly took place through WhatsApp chats, some of which were redacted by the Promoter of Justice, Alessandro Diddi (also prosecutor in the appeal trial), for reasons he described as relating to security and the integrity of the trial. The defense raised this issue repeatedly over the 86 hearings.
Ciferri later gave the same chats to one of the defendants, financier Raffaele Mincione, who is said to have passed them to a UN special rapporteur. The conversations were then published in full by the Italian daily Domani and reported by other media outlets. According to defence lawyers, they show that Perlasca’s memo and interrogations were the result of a plot against Cardinal Becciu, involving not only Chaouqui but also official of Vatican City State. Many denounced the scandal of an investigation — and thus an entire trial — thought to be “contaminated” by pressures and behind-the-scenes manoeuvring, and the suggestion of personal vendettas.
The reasoning behind the verdict
Certainly an unpleasant matter for Cardinal Becciu, who has always declared his “absolute innocence” and spoken of a “worldwide public humiliation.” As for the exchanges between Ciferri, Chaouqui and others, and what followed from them — namely Perlasca’s memo, his interrogations in 2020, and his later testimony — the reasoning of the judgment itself makes clear that this material did not influence the verdict. One passage states: “…without the probative contribution offered by Monsignor Perlasca having in any way influenced the assessment of criminal liability, since instead the Tribunal relied exclusively on multiple factual elements in the record that remained unchallenged, proving responsibility beyond any reasonable doubt.”
In other words, the issues raised by Monsignor Perlasca — some “without criminal relevance and in any case extraneous to the present trial,” as another passage notes — were not deemed credible by the Vatican court and did not weigh on the proceedings.
The Rescripta
A more complex question surrounds the Rescripta issued by Pope Francis during the investigation, which changed procedures by granting extraordinary powers to prosecutors. Defence lawyers strongly contested these papal interventions, arguing that, among other things, they allowed the Promoter of Justice, to decide at his discretion which documents to hand over to the defence, and to heavily redacted them.
The issue has fueled debate both inside and outside the Vatican about the principle of separation of powers and the right to defence. While the independence of the Vatican judiciary was “explicitly recognized” by many foreign judicial authorities, including Italy’s Court of Cassation and Switzerland’s Federal Criminal Court, defence lawyers — especially Luigi Panella, representing financier Enrico Crasso — have argued that this independence was undermined by the Pope’s “multiple” and “unusual” interventions, made “without any prior notice” and to “the detriment of the defendants’ rights.”
Prosecutor Diddi has consistently explained that the rescripts “served to regulate activities otherwise not regulated,” and thus “were a safeguard for all those affected.” An order by the President Pignatone on 1 March 2022, rejecting motions to annul the indictments, addressed the issue in depth and concluded that the Rescripta did not amount to any violation of legality or the rule of law. The judgment also underscored that “the guarantees of a fair trial” were “fully respected by Vatican justice.”
What happens next
Thus a new phase begins on Monday. The first day will be devoted to the reporting judge’s summary, after which each party will present the grounds of its appeal.
In addition to Cardinal Becciu, appeals were filed by:
– Enrico Crasso, former financial adviser to the Secretariat of State (sentenced to 7 years in prison; a €10,000 fine; and permanent disqualification from public office);
– Raffaele Mincione, financier (5 years and 6 months; €8,000 fine; permanent disqualification from public office);
– Fabrizio Tirabassi, former Secretariat of State employee (7 years; €10,000 fine; permanent disqualification);
– Nicola Squillace, lawyer (1 year and 10 months, sentence suspended for 5 years);
– Gianluigi Torzi, broker (6 years; €6,000 fine; permanent disqualification; plus one year of special supervision under article 412 of the Penal Code);
– Cecilia Marogna, consultant (3 years and 9 months; temporary disqualification for the same period).
Prosecutor Diddi has also appealed. By contrast, the Secretariat of State and APSA, which had joined the case as civil parties in the first trial, have not.
