Listen to the article
Vatican Prosecutors Defy Court Order in Financial Trial, Withholding Evidence
Vatican prosecutors have seemingly defied an appeals court order by refusing to provide defense attorneys with all evidence gathered in the Vatican’s major financial fraud trial, setting the stage for another confrontation in the long-running case.
In a three-page letter issued Thursday, prosecutors stated they would allow appeals court judges to consult the material but declined to deposit the documentation in the court chancery as ordered. They claimed the evidence was “irrelevant” to the trial and could potentially harm Vatican interests.
The dispute centers on a sprawling investigation into a 350-million-euro (approximately $410 million) investment by the Vatican Secretariat of State in London property. In December 2023, following a two-year trial, Cardinal Angelo Becciu and eight others were convicted of various financial crimes, though the prosecution’s overarching theory of a grand fraudulent scheme against the Holy See was dismissed.
Defense lawyers have consistently argued since the trial’s inception in July 2021 that their clients could not receive fair treatment with crucial evidence either redacted or completely withheld by the prosecution. They specifically cited full interrogations of a key prosecution witness and contents from his confiscated laptops and cellphones as vital missing evidence.
The appeals court on March 17 sided with the defense, ordering prosecutors to deposit “all the acts and documents of the investigation in their integral version” in the chancery by April 30. Thursday’s response from prosecutors repeated their objections to this ruling, claiming the material was irrelevant and “could pose a grave danger” to public interest if provided to defense lawyers.
Instead of complying with the order, prosecutors told judges the material remained in their offices and was available for “consultation” to the judges via USB drive—but not to the defense teams.
Luigi Panella, attorney for money manager Enrico Crasso, expressed outrage at the prosecutors’ stance. “In what country in the world can it be that the acts of an investigation are shown to the judge but not to the defense?” Panella said in a telephone interview. “What concept of ‘fair trial’ can this type of statement represent?”
The appeals court had previously determined that prosecutors’ refusal to provide complete evidence to the defense in the initial trial nullified the original indictment. The court declared a partial mistrial and ordered a retrial, making the prosecutors’ continued resistance particularly significant.
Other defense attorneys have characterized the situation as unprecedented. Attorneys Cataldo Intrieri and Massimo Bassi, representing former Vatican official Fabrizio Tirabassi, urged the court to dismiss the trial entirely, questioning “how a fair judgment can be reached under these conditions.”
Cardinal Becciu’s legal team, attorneys Fabio Viglione and Maria Concetta Marzo, argued that prosecutors cannot “unilaterally decide which documents the defense has the right to access,” emphasizing that proper defense rights require “full access to the documents.”
The Vatican case has faced another setback as Swiss federal prosecutors recently shelved a parallel investigation initiated in 2020. The investigation stemmed from accusations by the Vatican Secretariat of State against Crasso for embezzlement, fraud, and disloyal administration—charges mirroring those in the Vatican tribunal.
Swiss federal prosecutor Annina Scherrer noted in her April 23 decision that the Vatican tribunal had definitively acquitted Crasso of the same charges. More troublingly, Scherrer expressed “a certain surprise” that her requests to question key witnesses had been refused after being sent to the Vatican Secretary of State for evaluation, suggesting the Secretariat’s “influence” over the supposedly independent Vatican judicial system.
The next hearing in the Vatican appeals process is scheduled for June 22, where the court will need to address the prosecutors’ apparent defiance of its order—a decision that could have significant implications for the integrity of the Vatican’s judicial processes.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
6 Comments
Interesting developments in the Vatican financial trial. It seems the prosecutors are still withholding key evidence, despite court orders. This raises questions about transparency and due process in these high-profile cases.
The Vatican’s secretive approach to this investigation is concerning. If they have nothing to hide, why not provide full access to the evidence as required? Lack of transparency can undermine public trust.
Agreed. Withholding evidence is a worrying sign, especially for a case involving the Vatican’s finances. The defense deserves a fair trial with full access to the relevant documentation.
It’s troubling to see the Vatican prosecutors defy a court order in this financial trial. Upholding the rule of law and due process should be paramount, even for such a powerful institution. This raises red flags about the integrity of the proceedings.
This is a complex and high-stakes case, but the Vatican’s actions suggest they have something to hide. Refusing to provide full evidence to the defense undermines the credibility of the trial. Transparency and accountability should be the guiding principles.
The Vatican’s handling of this case seems unnecessarily opaque. Claiming certain evidence is “irrelevant” or could “harm Vatican interests” is a weak excuse to deny the defense their full rights. Transparency should be the priority.