VATICAN CITY (RNS) — Judges at the Vatican’s highest appeals court reviewing the convictions of six defendants, including Cardinal Angelo Becciu, in a landmark Vatican financial trial are now being asked to weigh the legal consequences of actions taken by Pope Francis during the investigation.
The late pontiff’s role in the investigation has been repeatedly called into question during what has been called “the Vatican trial of the century,” which started in 2021 and revolves around a London real estate investment.
In 2019, the Vatican’s Secretariat of State became embroiled in the controversial purchase of a former Harrods warehouse in London that cost the religious institution $400 million. The nine individuals involved in the purchase — financiers, Vatican officers and Becciu (who was the Vatican Substitute at the time, the third-highest-ranking official at the Vatican) — were charged in connection with the deal. In 2023, they were found guilty on various counts, including fraud, embezzlement and money laundering.
Becciu was found guilty of embezzlement and sentenced to five years and six months in prison, barred from public office and ordered to pay an $8,000 fine.
During the investigations, Pope Francis issued several decrees, known as rescripta ex audientia, which empowered the Vatican prosecutors and gendarmes to carry out arrests and to seize critical evidence. According to the defendants, those papal decrees undermined the rule of law in the Vatican City state because they were tailored to the individuals involved in the London investment.
At the fifth appeal hearing before the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura on Tuesday (Feb. 3), Mario Zanchetti, the lawyer of Gianluigi Torzi, who was hired by the Vatican Secretariat of State as a middleman in the London property purchase, sharply criticized the Byzantine legal means used to obtain the convictions.
Cardinal Angelo Becciu talks to journalists in Rome on Sept. 25, 2020. (AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia, File)
Zanchetti said the prosecutor’s methods “transformed the Vatican legal code into a fascist system,” which undermined the validity of the entire trial. “I am not accusing Pope Francis,” he said, adding that the pontiff had likely not been well informed. Zanchetti argued, however, that even in countries such as Russia and Iran, laws must be made public and that this requirement was not met in the case of the rescripta, rendering his client’s arrest unlawful.
The head of the three-judge panel of the Vatican appellate court, Archbishop Alejandro Arellano Cedillo, who is also the dean of the Vatican’s judicial tribunal known as the Roman Rota, intervened to ask that the late pope not be dragged into the proceedings.
If the papal decrees were to be considered administrative acts, Zanchetti suggested “a way out” for the Vatican judges, who might be hesitant to call Francis’ actions into question. The judges could assess how the decrees were interpreted and applied, without ruling on their validity. Under that approach, he said, the court could determine that prosecutors exceeded the scope of the rescripta, invalidating their use.
Zanchetti argued that Pope Leo XIV, who is also a canon lawyer, could allow the judges to determine whether Francis’ decrees were legally “ineffective,” which would nullify all evidence seized by Vatican gendarmes and severely undermine the prosecution’s case.
The Vatican chief prosecutor, Alessandro Diddi, already had to abstain from participating in the appeal after his conduct in the original trial was called into question and he was accused of witness tampering. In mid-January, the Signatura rejected the appeal of the Vatican prosecutor that sought harsher sentences. The defendants are now asking that their sentences be either overturned or reduced.
Other defense lawyers echoed concerns over what they consider a lack of rule of law in the Vatican. The lawyer of Enrico Crasso, who was the financial adviser for the Vatican secretary of state for almost three decades and was sentenced to seven years in prison after being found guilty of embezzlement and fraud, described the rescriptum as a “ridiculous discretionary power” that was handed to Vatican prosecutors.
“There have never been in 2,000 years of the church’s history secret rescriptum,” he said.
Defense lawyers also lamented that the full video of the testimony by Monsignor Alberto Perlasca, ex-bursar at the Secretariat of State who became a key witness in the proceedings, was never shared with the defense. They reiterated long-standing objections that evidence collected during the investigation was not fully disclosed.
The defense also raised the issue of the alleged cooperation between Vatican gendarmes and the Italian intelligence services to investigate the lives of the accused, well before the start of the formal investigation.
Massimo Bassi, the defense lawyer of the Vatican employee Fabrizio Tirabassi, quoted a speech by Pope Leo to secret service agents in December when he underlined the importance of safeguarding the rights of individuals and of due process.
“The activities of the security services must be regulated by laws that are duly enacted and published, subject to oversight and supervision by the judiciary, and with budgets that are monitored through public and transparent controls,” Leo said.
The trial is set to continue this week, with defense arguments scheduled before judges begin deliberations.
