Vatican prosecutors have openly challenged an appeals court mandate to provide complete evidence files to defense teams in a major financial corruption case, potentially escalating tensions in the protracted legal proceedings.
In a three-page response submitted Thursday, prosecution officials stated they would permit appeals judges to review the disputed materials directly. However, they refused to file the documents with the court registry for defense access as commanded, claiming the evidence was “irrelevant” and could potentially damage Vatican interests.
The appeals court’s response to this defiance remains uncertain, with the next scheduled hearing set for June 22.
The contested evidence stems from prosecutors’ extensive probe into a 350-million-euro (approximately $410 million) property purchase in London made by the Vatican Secretariat of State. Following a two-year legal proceeding that concluded in December 2023, a cardinal and eight additional defendants received convictions on various financial crimes. However, the prosecution’s central allegation of a comprehensive conspiracy to defraud the Holy See was rejected.
Defense counsel maintained throughout the proceedings that their clients were denied fair representation due to crucial evidence being either heavily censored or completely withheld by prosecutors. They specifically highlighted the complete questioning sessions of a primary prosecution witness and materials from his confiscated electronic devices.
Prosecution teams justified their redactions as essential for protecting other active investigations and previously rejected a court directive from October 6, 2021, demanding the evidence release.
Defense lawyer Luigi Panella, representing financial manager Enrico Crasso, contended from the trial’s opening in July 2021 that the charges were invalid because prosecutors concealed evidence from defense teams.
After five years of legal wrangling, the appeals court sided with Panella and fellow defense attorneys on March 17. The court commanded prosecutors to file “all investigation acts and documents in their complete form” with the court registry by April 30.
In Thursday’s response, prosecutors reiterated their opposition to the ruling and maintained the materials were “irrelevant” to the proceedings. They argued releasing the evidence to defense lawyers “could pose a grave danger” to public interests. Prosecutors informed judges the materials remained in their offices and were accessible for judicial “consultation” through USB drives.
The appeals court had concluded that prosecutors’ refusal to share complete evidence with defense teams during the initial trial invalidated the original charges. The court declared a partial mistrial and mandated new proceedings.
Defense lawyers characterized the prosecutors’ response as contempt of court.
“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 questioned during a phone conversation. “What concept of ‘fair trial’ can this type of statement represent?”
Legal representatives Cataldo Intrieri and Massimo Bassi, defending former Vatican administrator Fabrizio Tirabassi, described the prosecutors’ actions as without precedent.
“We wonder how a fair judgment can be reached under these conditions,” they stated in a release urging the court to dismiss the entire case.
Lawyers Fabio Viglione and Maria Concetta Marzo, representing Cardinal Angelo Becciu, argued that prosecutors failed to follow the court’s directive.
“This is precisely the selective discretion that the court has ruled out: the prosecution cannot unilaterally decide which documents the defense has the right to access,” they explained. “The right to defense, the equality of the parties, and the adversarial process require full access to the documents.”
Swiss federal authorities closed their own investigation launched in 2020 after the Vatican Secretariat of State filed complaints against Crasso, their former financial manager, alleging embezzlement, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. These accusations mirrored charges brought against Crasso in Vatican court.
Crasso had overseen the Secretariat of State’s financial portfolio while working at Credit Suisse Italia and Credit Suisse in Switzerland, before establishing his own firm and investment fund that assumed control of Vatican accounts.
In an April 23 decision, Swiss federal prosecutor Annina Scherrer observed that the Vatican tribunal had definitively cleared Crasso and his companies of identical charges, leading to the closure of the Swiss case.
However, in her 31-page decision, Scherrer expressed “a certain surprise” that Vatican prosecutors rejected her requests to interview key witnesses after the requests were clearly forwarded to the Vatican Secretary of State for review. She stated this demonstrated the Secretariat of State’s “influence” over the Vatican’s supposedly independent judicial system.
