Vatican court convicts Cardinal Becciu in financial misconduct case

In the Vatican the crime of embezzlement has been proven, even though there was no ‘profit seeking’. This is why last December the Papal Tribunal convicted Cardinal Angelo Becciu at first instance over the 100,000 euros from the funds of the Secretariat of State, intended for the Spes Cooperative of the Diocese of Ozieri, Sardinia, where his brother also worked. However, according to what the Bishop of Ozieri confirmed, the money was never spent. Ten months after the five-year prison term, the reasons for the verdict were submitted: more than 700 pages in which President Giuseppe Pignatone thoroughly explained all the decisions taken. In several passages he strongly emphasized that at all stages of the trial, a total of 86 hearings, there was respect for a fair trial, despite the harsh criticism cyclically expressed by the defense because of the five Rescripts of the Pope, the omission material in the hands of the Process Promoter. Justice, and the testimony requested by the defense, but not admitted. Nearly a year ago, the jury had convicted nine of the 10 suspects of some crimes, while acquitting them of others. Specifically, Cardinal Becciu and Raffaele Mincione were found guilty of embezzlement; Enrico Crasso for self-laundering; Gianluigi Torzi and Nicola Squillace for serious fraud and Torzi also for extortion in collaboration with Fabrizio Tirabassi, the same Tirabassi for money laundering. Cecilia Marogna of serious fraud. The case, it will be remembered, developed around the purchase of the London building: it was purchased by the Vatican for over $200 million, but various transactions resulted in a loss of about $140 million. ‘It is clear that the exceptional seriousness of the facts (taken individually and as a whole) in relation to both the amount of money (US$200 million) involved in the embezzlement and the long-term criminal behavior over several years and in completely heterogeneous contexts. , and – above all – because of the quality and high-level role played by the suspect,” the document reads. The huge investment was made in 2014 in Mincione’s high-risk fund. A ‘gamble’ that conflicts with the caution required by Vatican regulations. Much of the sentence reconstructs the subscription to the complex Falcon Oil operation and the subscription by the Secretariat of State to shares in the Athena Capital Commodities Fund and Global Opportunities Fund, attributable to Raffaele Mincione. The Vatican regulations, the rationale goes, would require “prudent governance, aimed primarily at preserving the heritage, even as it seeks to increase it, and assessing profit opportunities, even as they are measured against a possible and still limited possibility of loss.” Therefore, it should have taken into account the risk quotient, the amount of assets invested and the possibility of maintaining some control over the management and costs of the operation. ‘According to these parameters, the investment in the fund managed by Raffaele Mincione ‘certainly constitutes an ‘illegal use’ of those ecclesiastical public goods that the then Deputy Becciu had at his disposal by virtue of his office and of which he was well aware. the nature and therefore the associated legal limits of use.’ The sentence highlights how the ‘General Partner’ Mincione ‘did not undertake any obligation and did not give any guarantee, neither as to the return on the investment nor as to the risk of loss of the entire capital invested’ and ‘the secretariat of the state investor had no supervisory power.’ Furthermore, the Tribunal states that it is not at all true that this reckless use of the Holy See’s money was endorsed by the two Secretaries of State of cardinals who succeeded each other (Tarcisio Bertone and Pietro Parolin). It goes on to note that it ‘certainly could not escape a person of the experience and recognized capabilities of the then deputy Becciu’ who was Mincione, both from press information and from the news collected by the Vatican gendarmerie, which had advised against doing business with him . . “It remains inexplicable that none of the government officials involved in this serious matter at least attempted, after the Falcon Oil operation was finally closed, to end the relationship with Mincione by ‘exiting’ the GOF fund.” And it is not even clear why Raffaele Mincione, who – as a prudent entrepreneur – was assisted by top-level professional teams in all sectors involved in the Falcon Oil – GOF operation, and in particular by law firms with particular experience in English law, Luxembourg law and the law of the European Union’, while the Vatican did not see fit to ‘do the same’. The alleged ignorance of current regulations outside the Tiber is therefore no excuse. It then leads to the arrival of another financier, Torzi. The Tribunal’s verdict found Gianluigi Torzi and Nicola Squillace guilty of serious fraud. It is shown how the new deputy Edgar Peña Parra, who had immediately expressed doubts about the operation, was “misled” and his ratification of the agreements made by Perlasca and Tirabassi took place because he was misled by the reassurances of lawyer Squillace. MAROGNA The Tribunal then considers Becciu’s conduct towards Cecilia Marogna, the female geopolitics expert with intelligence ties, who was instructed by the Secretariat of State to act as an intermediary for the release of a nun kidnapped by jihadists in Mali, as ‘objectively inexplicable’. Becciu transferred 575,000 euros to the woman who used them for ‘luxury purchases’. According to the judges, despite having on several occasions “documentary certainty that Marogna had spent the money he sent her for personal, mostly luxurious purposes, the cardinal did nothing.” According to what he himself stated, he asked Marogna for an explanation several times and each time he was ‘satisfied’ with the woman’s claim that the accusations were not true,” the Vatican Tribunal wrote. ‘Even while fully aware of the absolute seriousness of the facts of which (at least) Marogna played the leading role, Cardinal Becciu did not submit a complaint, report or even a simple statement; in fact, he did not distance himself from Marogna, even in the statements he made as a defendant, in which he continued to support the woman’s professionalism and reliability without ever addressing the issue of the money she spent.’