A lawsuit concerning the misappropriation of the public funds of the Holy See State Council opens in the Vatican Museum. The defense lawyers of the ten defendants made a preliminary request.
(Vatican News Network)A hall of the Vatican Museum was converted into a large courtroom. On Tuesday, July 27, the first trial of the lawsuit concerning the embezzlement of the State Council’s public funds was held. The starting point of this case was the real estate transaction on Sloan Avenue in London. The presiding judge of this trial is Giuseppe Pignatone, and the two judges are Marano (Venerando Marano) and Bonzano (Carlo Bonzano). The first trial that day lasted seven hours, and more than 30 lawyers, journalists, and Vatican guards were present. Only two of the ten defendants were present. They were Ms. Mauro Carlino, who had arrived in the court early in the morning, and Cardinal Angelo Becciu, the former Deputy Secretary of State of the Holy See. The latter was charged with embezzlement of public funds, abuse of power and bribery. The Pope has revoked Cardinal Bechu’s cardinal privileges in September 2020. On the day of the trial, Cardinal Beiqiu attended the whole process and sat in the last row. At the end of the trial, Cardinal Beiqiu stated that although the Pope “sent him for trial”, he was always “loyal to the Pope” and his mood was “calm.” Cardinal Belliu said: “I am confident that the judge will clarify the facts. My big hope is that they will return me an innocence.” In addition, Cardio Belliu announced that he has appointed a lawyer to report to Perlasca (Alberto Perlasca). ) Meng Xi and Ms. Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui filed a defamation accusation.
Ms. Maronia and Torch’s lawyers request an extension
At the beginning of the trial, the President of the Vatican Court Pinea Tone announced the extension of the time limit for the relevant defenders to submit evidence and requests, and included the opinions of the former director of the Vatican Financial Information Authority, René Brülhart, into the main litigation. In the case. Brühlhardt said through his lawyer that although he was hindered in Zurich, he agreed to continue the proceedings. Then Pineatone gave the right to speak to the lawyers. The first lawyer to speak was Fiorino Ruggio, the defender of Ms. Cecilia Marogna. The defendant Ms. Mallonia did not attend in person, and her defense lawyer filed a request for postponement. As the Italian Ministry of Information Security ordered an investigation, Ms. Mallonia’s hearing was accompanied by her written explanation. At the same time, Ms. Malonia made a request to the Holy See State Department, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Italy regarding not having to keep confidential.
Torch’s defense attorney, Ambra Giovene, submitted an application to the clerical office that his client was “legally obstructed” from appearing in court. Torch was restricted by preventive measures, wearing an electronic bracelet, and has an extradition request issued by the United Kingdom on April 28, 2021. Tolch’s lawyer, Giovini, said: “He can’t leave London now.” Another lawyer, Marco Franco, said: “Even if Torch has to accept the permission of a British judge to appear in court, he will be in Rome Dafin. Qi Airport was arrested.” For this reason, Torchi’s defender insisted on postponing the trial.
Claso’s defender
The financial manager Enrico Crasso and Carlo Panella, the defense attorney for his three companies, spoke for more than an hour and asked a number of franchise questions. The first concession related to the elements of civil litigation of the Pontifical Property Administration and the Religious Business Administration. Lawyers said that because they presented a kind of “vague language”, demanding compensation for asset and non-asset losses, including damage to the image caused by the actions of natural persons and legal persons, without explaining the reasons, so this is “unacceptable.” “. Panera pointed out that these elements “cannot constitute three submissions from the same country, and each of them requires a compensation. This may result in triple compensation.” Then, the lawyer complained about the lack of “numerous documents.” Among the 28,000 archived documents, only a part of the documents are available for the defense to read, including 9 USB external hard drives, and the contents are the account details and files of the Swiss bank. The lawyer further emphasized that the defendant did not have sufficient time to prepare his defense.
Protest against the Pope’s decree
Panera also pointed out that there may be legal flaws in the crimes of money laundering and self-laundering committed by Krasso and his company in areas outside the territory of the Vatican. Furthermore, Panera protested that due to the edict issued by Pope Francis on July 2, 2019, the Prosecutor’s Office was authorized to proceed with the case in a simplified form and completed preventive measures. According to the lawyer, the Pope’s edict is an “administrative document”, so he questioned whether “an administrative document can be used to weaken the effectiveness of the current law.” And “because of this procedure alone,” other edicts of the Pope introduced criminal procedures. In this regard, Krasso’s lawyer said that this would make the Vatican’s court “a special court.”
Lawyer of Tila Brasil
All other lawyers echoed Panera’s request and asked for approval to postpone the trial. The defender and lawyer Cataldo Intrieri of Fabrizio Tirabassi (Fabrizio Tirabassi), a former employee of the State Servants of the Holy See, specifically pointed out the missing documents related to his client, such as the search of the State Department of the Holy See in October 2019. Orders and seizure orders, as well as investigations on Tila Brazil’s communications equipment. The lawyer said: “When these contents were taken out, we did not consult us.” The lawyer pointed out that the money of Tilabati himself and his father’s family was seized, and that the money “cannot be seized, because as early as 2013, the property was seized. Already exists”. In addition, Intriri also pointed out that the Roman review court lacked relevant files, which constituted the illegality of the seizure, and the property should be returned to the original owner.
Pelasca and the lawsuit
The next lawyer to speak is Salvino Mondello. He stated that his client, Ms. Carlino, had been interrogated twice, “all other charges were eventually postponed,” and “the defense was not allowed to participate in the technical appraisal.” Then it was the turn of Fabio Viglione, the lawyer of Cardinal Bechu. He complained that Ms. Pelaska’s interrogation lacked documentation, and that the “forensic work of numerous communications equipment” used by Ms. Pelaska also lacked “a series of documents.” The lawyer responded to the words of the litigation agent Mazza, who believed that the five interrogations that Pelaska accepted were “loss of records” and were deemed invalid and “obviously the result of a procedural violation of the guarantee law.” This was especially true for the first interrogation on August 31, 2020: at that time, the monk voluntarily attended, but no defense lawyer was present.
Attorney Giandomenico Caiazza is the defender of the intermediary Raffaele Mincione. The lawyer pointed out that in the documents, he “almost accidentally” learned that there was an arrest warrant issued against Mincione. The date of issuance of this arrest warrant is June 19, 2020, but it “never been executed, and the logic of issuing this arrest warrant is the same as Torch’s arrest warrant.” The lawyer said that if Mincione attended the interrogation that day, he would be arrested.
Severino: “The Pope is the legislator.”
Faced with the requests of the lawyers, the first to respond was Ms. Paola Severino. She is the former Minister of Justice of Italy and a civil litigation lawyer of the Holy See State Department. Ms. Severino reiterated that due to the Pope’s manuscript dated December 26, 2020, the elements of the civil litigation of the Pontifical Property Authority are legally based. This manuscript stipulates that the funds and investment of the Holy See State Council shall be transferred to the Pontifical Property Administration. “The State Council of the Holy See is no longer the holder of assets. Regarding the issue of compensation to the State Council, the legality of the concession was previously worrying. The elements of the proceedings of the Pontifical Property Administration came from this. As for the fact that the Vatican’s court is a “special court”, the former Minister of Justice once again mentioned the “moral connotation” of the current litigation process and repeatedly mentioned “the validity of the Pope’s decree”, emphasizing that “the pope is “Legislatives”: “This is true in all procedures in the Vatican.” Ms. Severino pointed out that due to the norms set by the Pope, the Vatican has established anti-money laundering and anti-self-laundering regulations: “I feel very similar to this. There is Rong Yan.”
Attorney Roberto Lipari represented the Bureau of Religious Affairs in the trial. He emphasized that the Religious Affairs Bureau has also suffered “losses”: “The mission of the Religious Affairs Bureau is to protect those assets used for religious and charitable causes. The incident of illegal use of the Religious Affairs Bureau’s assets is hurting the Religious Affairs Bureau’s signing of new contracts and The ability to forge new relationships. The Bureau of Religious Affairs belongs neither to the Holy See, nor to the Vatican City State.”
Vatican Attorney
The prosecutor Milano returned to the question of the Pope’s edict. He explained that this document expresses the pope’s “supreme authority”: “If you look at this procedure from the eyes of a jurist, you will get a distorted view of the law and find out some meanings that are not in compliance with the civil law. “. Regarding the “speciality” of the Vatican court in the current proceedings, Milano stated that “if it claims that its privilege of reviewing documents shows a power that is not subject to any evaluation, then it will become a special court.”
Explanation of the deputy prosecutor
Diddi, the prosecutor’s deputy, gave a more comprehensive response. He first pointed out: “If we make any mistakes, we are ready to correct them.” Then, Didi responded to every protest made by the lawyer. The first point he clarified is that the defense need not be based on the difference between Italian regulations and Vatican regulations: “We make the rules clear: constantly use a law that has no legal effect here as a reference point, but it is just a transfer of everyone. Attention to what we are going to do here in the next few months.”
Regarding the validity of the Pope’s decree, Didi explained that it was precisely because of the validity of the Pope’s provision that the arrest warrants of Tolci and Mincione were advanced. The latter’s arrest warrant was decided to be issued because June 2020 was the “critical” phase of the investigation, when it was discovered that the two intermediaries were “attempting to mislead” the direction of the investigation. “We believe that preventive measures must be taken.”
In addition, the prosecutor’s deputy also stated that all seized communication materials are currently stored in the safe of the procuratorate. If some documents have not been completed, it is because the current law stipulates that documents related to the procedure can be stored instead of documents from seizure. “The only material that cannot be put in the attachment is the extremely large communication material. These communication materials are stored in a small building, and there is a room full of electronic equipment.” In any case, Didi reiterated that once the court approves the application, it can copy all archived materials. Didi finally said proudly, “During the one-and-a-half years of investigation, no trace of wind has been leaked.”
The court’s decision
After the two sides finished their speeches, the collegiate panel held discussions for an hour and 20 minutes. Subsequently, the presiding judge Pineatone revoked the Vatican’s arrest order against Mincione, while also having reservations about various licenses and requests made by lawyers. In addition, the presiding judge also pronounced that, except for Cardinal Bechu, his former secretary Carlino, and the intermediary Torchi who was legally blocked from attending, all the defendants who did not attend were contempt of the court.
Link URL: www.vaticannews.cn