The appeal process in the case of the London building on Sloan Avenue has entered a new phase of tension after the defenses of Cardinal Angelo Becciu and financiers Raffaele Mincione and Enrico Crasso directly accused the Vatican prosecution of failing to comply with the court order requiring the full delivery of the investigation material. According to Il Messaggero, the lawyers have now asked the Court of Appeal to declare the definitive nullity of the summons to trial.
The new judicial offensive came after the submission of a joint memorandum to the Vatican Chancellery, in which the lawyers maintain that the office of the Promoter of Justice, led by Alessandro Diddi, handed over documentation that was still partially redacted through omissions and withheld part of the investigative material, claiming it was “not relevant.”
The defenses consider that this action seriously violates the right to defense and contradicts the order issued by the Court itself last month, which required the full deposit of the documents and materials collected during the investigations before April 30.
They accuse the prosecution of unilaterally deciding which evidence can be known
In the document submitted to the court, the lawyers denounce that the prosecution would have “illegitimately” assumed the ability to decide what material can be considered relevant for the process and what documents can be kept hidden.
The memorandum states that the Promoter of Justice “refused to comply” with the Court’s order and especially criticizes the persistence of broad omissions in the documentation delivered.
The confrontation has also escalated due to a proposal attributed to the prosecution to allow only the Court a reserved consultation of certain documents without access for the defenses. The lawyers describe that possibility as a “contra legem” procedure and denounce that there is no legal basis for such a practice.
The content of 31 Perlasca devices at the center of the dispute
One of the most delicate points revealed by Il Messaggero concerns the material seized from Monsignor Alberto Perlasca, a former official of the Secretary of State who later became one of the main witnesses against Cardinal Becciu.
According to the defenses, among the documents that have not yet been delivered is the content of 31 computer devices seized during the investigation. The lawyers consider that this material could prove decisive in reconstructing the real context of the financial operations linked to the purchase of the Sloan Avenue property in London.
The petition submitted to the Court requests not only the definitive nullity of the summons to trial, but also the suspension of the deadlines granted to the parties to prepare defense evidence until all the required documentation is fully delivered.
The process shifts toward questioning the Vatican judicial system
The new clash between the defenses and the prosecution increases pressure on the Vatican judicial system in one of the most relevant processes of recent decades.
Beyond the financial accusations linked to the London real estate investment, the conflict now revolves around procedural guarantees and transparency in the management of evidence within Vatican courts.
The risk, according to some observers of the process, is that the appeal ends up becoming a trial on the functioning of Vatican justice itself and on the system’s capacity to fully guarantee the right to defense.
A case marked by procedural irregularities
The Sloan Avenue case erupted following the controversial purchase of a luxury building in London by the Secretary of State, an operation that generated significant economic losses for the Holy See and opened one of the largest financial scandals of Pope Francis’s pontificate.
In December 2023, the Vatican Tribunal convicted Cardinal Angelo Becciu of embezzlement and other financial offenses. However, on March 17, the Court of Appeal completely annulled the process and ordered a retrial from the beginning after detecting serious irregularities in access to evidence and in the formation of the case file.
From the beginning of the procedure, the defenses denounced the use of exceptional norms and papal rescripts that modified procedural aspects during the development of the case.