Vatican appeals court rejects suspension in Becciu financial scandal trial, adjourning to Feb. 2026 amid prosecutorial appeals and defense challenges.
Newsroom (06/10/2025, Gaudium Press ) In a procedural standoff that underscores the intricate legal maneuvering in one of the Holy See’s most scrutinized corruption cases, the Vatican Court of Appeal on Monday rejected a prosecutorial request to suspend proceedings and instead granted an extended adjournment until February 3, 2026. The decision, handed down after a brisk 90-minute hearing in the Vatican’s newly renovated tribunal auditorium, allows defense attorneys ample time to file briefs on preliminary challenges while a parallel recusal bid against the lead prosecutor winds its way through the Vatican’s highest court.
The case, which has captivated global observers for its blend of ecclesiastical intrigue and financial malfeasance, revolves around the Secretariat of State’s ill-fated 2018 investment of nearly 200 million euros in a luxury London property development. Dubbed the “London real estate scandal,” the deal—brokered through a private equity fund managed by Italian financier Raffaele Mincione—ultimately yielded massive losses for Vatican coffers when the property was sold at a steep discount in 2020. Prosecutors alleged a web of embezzlement, fraud, and abuse of office, implicating high-ranking church officials and lay brokers in a scheme that eroded trust in the Vatican’s financial stewardship.
At the heart of the controversy is former Cardinal Angelo Becciu, once a close confidant of Pope Francis and the Vatican’s former sostituto (deputy) for General Affairs. Becciu, stripped of his cardinalatial dignity following his conviction, was sentenced in the first-instance trial to five and a half years in prison for crimes including embezzlement and fraud. Among the more personal allegations was Becciu’s alleged diversion of Vatican funds to support a Sardinian charity operated by his brother, Antonio, a charge that amplified perceptions of nepotism within the Curia. Other defendants include Mincione, convicted of fraud and sentenced to five years and six months; Enrico Crasso, a Monaco-based financial consultant found guilty of involvement in the scheme and sentenced to four years and nine months; and lay broker Gianluigi Torzi, who received a nearly nine-year term for extortion and fraud related to the property’s resale.
The first-degree verdict, delivered in December 2023 after a marathon 105 hearings, marked a watershed moment for Vatican justice under Pope Francis’s reforms, which expanded the Promoter of Justice’s powers to probe financial crimes. Yet the convictions drew immediate appeals from nearly all parties, setting the stage for the current second-degree proceedings that began on September 22, 2025. An upheld verdict, legal experts note, would reinforce the Vatican’s commitment to accountability for its senior clergy, potentially deterring future misconduct amid ongoing scrutiny from international watchdogs like the Council of Europe’s MONEYVAL committee.
Monday’s fourth hearing, presided over by Monsignor Alejandro Arellano Cedillo, centered on a fresh flashpoint: an appeal filed by the Office of the Promoter of Justice against a September 25 appellate court ordinance. That ruling had deemed inadmissible Promoter Alessandro Diddi’s challenge to the first-instance convictions, citing the appeal’s generic grounds and untimely filing of documents—violations of the Vatican’s Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates appeals within three days of a ruling, accompanied by specific grounds. In a dramatic courtroom announcement, Deputy Promoter Roberto Zannotti labeled the ordinance an “abnormal act,” arguing it fell outside procedural norms and risked creating a “procedural stalemate” by preemptively judging the appeal’s merits—a role reserved for the Court of Cassation.
Zannotti warned that the ruling could jeopardize the prosecution’s right to a full review, potentially “short-circuiting” the case and leaving the office without a second layer of scrutiny if the Cassation court later nullified it. To ensure “equality of arms” for all parties, he urged an immediate suspension or adjournment until the Cassation could rule on the matter, as well as a pending recusal motion against Diddi filed by the defenses over alleged prosecutorial overreach in prior investigations.
Defense attorneys pushed back forcefully, portraying the prosecutorial appeal as itself inadmissible under Articles 514 and 515 of the penal code due to its lack of foundation, internal contradictions, and failure to include a timely reservation of appeal rights. Luigi Panella, representing Crasso, highlighted that Diddi’s team—present in court on September 25—had remained silent when the partial sentence was read, forfeiting their chance to signal an intent to challenge it. Gian Domenico Caiazza, Mincione’s counsel, invoked a 2022 precedent in the trial of former Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR) President Caloia, where the Promoter’s office successfully argued for the inadmissibility of a defense appeal on similar grounds of vagueness. “What has changed in three years?” Caiazza queried, accusing the prosecution of selective procedural rigor.
All defense teams submitted a joint memorandum to the court registry in support of their exceptions. After a 35-minute deliberation, Arellano’s panel emerged to read its ordinance, citing Article 508 of the code to deny the suspension bid and ordering that no documents be forwarded to the Cassation on the prosecutorial appeal. In a separate forthcoming ruling, the court will address a disgorgement request from the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA), represented by veteran canon lawyer Giovanni Maria Flick, seeking the release of seized funds from the Centurion investment vehicle.
Turning to broader preliminary hurdles, Arellano granted the parties until November 7, 2025— with replies due by November 28—to submit illustrative memoranda on defense-raised issues. These include the alleged nullity of the 2022 indictment decree and a March 1 ordinance, stemming from incomplete disclosure of investigative files (infamously redacted with “omissis” notations) and the mid-probe efficacy of Pope Francis’s rescripts, which broadened the Promoter’s investigative remit. The Cassation court, meanwhile, faces no deadline on the Diddi recusal, affording it flexibility amid the trial’s deliberate pace.
Lawyers for the accused hailed the outcome as a “Solomonic” compromise, balancing urgency with fairness in a process already marred by accusations of prosecutorial bias and evidentiary gaps. The next hearings are slated for February 3 through 6, 2026, each running from 9 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., signaling that substantive arguments on the merits—potentially reshaping the Vatican’s financial accountability landscape—remain months away. As the gavel fell, the case’s stakes loomed larger: not just the fate of imprisoned financiers and a disgraced cardinal, but the Holy See’s evolving jurisprudence in an era of transparency demands.
- Raju Hasmukh with files from Vatican News
Related Images:
