Vatican appeal hearing on Holy See funds tackles four preliminary issues, including Torzi’s summons and Marogna’s appeal. Next session set for Sept 25.
Newsroom (24/09/2025, Gaudium Press ) The second hearing of the Vatican appeal process concerning the management of Holy See funds took place on September 23, 2025, in the new courtroom of the Vatican Tribunal. The two-hour session focused on technical matters, with the court examining four preliminary issues raised by the prosecution and defense teams. Present were three defendants from the first-instance trial: Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, former administrative official Fabrizio Tirabassi, and former financial consultant Enrico Crasso. Notably absent was the Promoter of Justice, Alessandro Diddi, following a recusal motion filed by the defense during the prior hearing, with a ruling still pending from the Vatican Court of Cassation. Representing the Promoter’s Office was Additional Promoter Roberto Zannotti.
Nullity of Summons for Torzi
The hearing, presided over by Monsignor Alejandro Arellano Cedillo, began at 9:22 a.m. with the first issue: a claim of nullity regarding the summons of Gianluigi Torzi, the Anglo-Italian broker sentenced in the first trial to six years in prison, a €6,000 fine, a lifetime ban from public office, and one year of special supervision. Torzi’s attorney, Mario Zanchetti, argued that the summons was invalid due to improper notification, citing a failure to establish a formal domicile at the court’s chancery during Torzi’s precautionary custody on June 5, 2020. Zanchetti claimed that court emails never reached the defense, rendering the notification defective. Zannotti countered that the objection was “unfounded” under current legislation, urging the court to reject the claim.
Marogna’s Appeal Deemed “Inadmissible”
The second issue centered on the “inadmissibility” of Cecilia Marogna’s appeal. Marogna, a Sardinian manager sentenced to three years and nine months with a temporary ban from public office, had her appeal challenged by Zannotti for being filed via email. The Vatican’s 1913 Code of Criminal Procedure requires physical submission of such documents at the chancery. Zannotti argued that Marogna’s appeal was effectively “never filed.” Her attorney, Giuseppe Di Sera, countered with evidence of email confirmation from the same address used by the defense, accusing the prosecution of attempting to exclude Marogna from the proceedings. Zannotti maintained that the law allows only one method of filing—physical submission at the chancery.
ASIF Withdraws Appeal
The third issue was swiftly resolved, as the Authority for Supervision and Financial Information (ASIF) withdrew its appeal. ASIF’s attorney, Anita Titomanlio, stated that the authority “concurs with the first-instance ruling,” effectively endorsing the initial judgment.
Defense Challenges Validity of Promoter’s Appeal
The final issue, which dominated much of the discussion, was the defense’s claim of “inadmissibility” regarding the appeal filed by Promoter of Justice Alessandro Diddi. Massimo Bassi, attorney for Tirabassi, supported by other defense counsel, argued that Diddi’s appeal was invalid due to procedural errors in form and timing. Under the Vatican’s Code of Criminal Procedure, an appeal must be filed within three days of the first-instance ruling, with grounds submitted within eight days, or both appeal and grounds filed within five days of the appeal process’s scheduling (set for March 2025 in this case). The defense contended that Diddi submitted only a prosecutorial brief, not a formal appeal, and that additional grounds were filed five days before the appeal process began, rather than after its scheduling. Citing precedents from prior Vatican cases, the defense argued that if Diddi’s appeal is rejected, first-instance acquittals would become final, narrowing the appeal process to focus solely on convictions and potentially shortening the trial.
Court Adjourns with New Submission Planned
Following a 70-minute suspension—extended from an intended 15 minutes due to technical issues with printers, as explained by Arellano—the court resumed. Zannotti requested permission to submit a new memorandum addressing the defense’s objections, committing to file it with the chancery by 1:00 p.m. on September 24. The court canceled the following morning’s session, scheduling the next hearing for Thursday, September 25.
The ongoing appeal process, marked by these procedural disputes, underscores the complexity of the case, which continues to draw attention for its implications on Vatican financial governance.
- Raju Hasmukh with files from Vatican News
Related Images:
