Vatican appeal court orders review of financial trial investigation
The decision clears the way for new litigation of the evidence, and appears to set a new standard of judicial review for papal acts.
The Vatican City Court of Appeal issued a decision Tuesday ordering a review of the investigation and indictment which opened the landmark financial crimes trial in 2022.
The March 17 decision clears the way for new litigation of the evidence and charges brought against nine people convicted by a Vatican court in 2024, and appeared to set a new standard of judicial review for papal acts.
The ruling effectively reopens argumentation on the controversial conduct of Alessandro Diddi, the lead prosecutor in the case, and the methods used and evidence collected in support of the initial indictment. The judges also ruled that a rescript placed by Pope Francis in July of 2020 constituted an unpublished act of legislative power, which “affected the legitimacy” of the subsequent investigation.
The new phase of the appeal ordered by the court could lead to an eventual dismissal of some charges against some of the nine defendants convicted in the first trial. However, judges made clear in their ruling that they were examining evidence and ruling on arguments in the context of an ongoing appeal — neither ordering a new trial nor vacating the previous hearing and decision.
Neither the original trial nor its verdict and sentences have been vacated, the judges said, and all remain in force.
—
In a 16-page decision dated March 17, the court’s appellate judges accepted complaints of “relative nullity” against acts of the Office of the Promoter of Justice, the Vatican City public prosecutor, finding that prosecutors had no right to redact information from their initial fillings, even if they believed it could be relevant to ongoing criminal investigations.
In canon and Vatican City law, “relative nullity” concerns procedural violations which judges can retroactively examine and correct in the course of judicial proceedings, as opposed to complaints of “absolute nullity” which invalidate the trial.
The judges also issued a complicated ruling in relation to a 2019 rescript of Pope Francis authorizing the criminal investigation into the London financial scandal, which led to the filing of charges in the case.
The rescript, dated July 2, 2019, was one of four such legal instruments issued by Pope Francis authorizing an investigation into the Secretariat of State’s financial dealings, following a complaint by the Institute for Works of Religion.
While rejecting the vast majority of defense appeals and arguments against the rescripts, the judges issued a narrow ruling on the July 2 rescript, in which they ruled the Pope Francis did not make necessary provision for its publication or secrecy.
While accepting that the papal orders were “in fact, the legitimate form of expression of the powers of the Supreme Pontiff,” and “that these findings do not, nor could they, affect the value and nature of the Rescripta,” the judges said that “the failure to publish the Rescriptum on 2 July 2019 affected the legitimacy of some investigative measures adopted on the basis thereof.”
Prosecutors have been ordered to file the entirety of their preliminary investigation by April 30, after which lawyers for both sides have two weeks to submit argumentation, before the court will reconvene June 22 at which time the judges will set new dates for further hearings.
“With regard to the consequences of the observed nullity,” wrote the judges, “the Court deems it appropriate to recall that the wording of Article 495 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not declare the overall nullity of the entire first-instance proceedings: both the trial and the sentence. These, in fact, retain their effects both with respect to the defendants, the civil parties, and the second-instance judges.”
—
The refusal of prosecutors to deposit the full files of their initial investigation into the Secretariat of State’s financial affairs was the subject of numerous objections during the first instance trial, which concluded in December of 2024.
However, appellate judges ruled March 17 that the operative law in Vatican City in 2021, when charges were filed, did not permit the reservation of any material by prosecutors, for any reason.
“The Court considers that the objection of nullity raised by the defendants’ defense is well-founded and must be upheld,” said the ruling. “The provisions that regulate the matter clearly express the principle according to which at the end of the investigative phase, whether formal or summary, all the documents of the procedure must be made available to the accused and his lawyer.”
“No provision of the [relevant penal code] contains any reference to the need to protect the confidentiality of the investigation that would justify a partial or incomplete disclosure of the collected material.”
“The Office of the Promoter of Justice failed to file the full preliminary investigation file and documents were filed, partially redacted, in violation of the provisions of Article 355 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,” the judges ruled. As such, they ordered the full disclosure of all previously redacted materials, after which the court will have the option to either retro-actively sanate the prosecution’s failures or make a ruling that some or all of the charges be dismissed.
—
The ruling Tuesday by appellate judges four regarding rescripts issued by Pope Francis in 2019 and 2020 has presented a complicated legal argument for lawyers and canonists to digest.
In the ruling, the Court of Appeal was quick to dismiss complaints and appeals lodged by defense lawyers against the nature and character of the legal instruments, which lawyers had argued were illegitimate and nullified the entire trial proceedings.
The judges ruled that the substance of two the four rescripts “neither modifies nor supplements the Code of Criminal Procedure and does not appear to have any impact, either directly or indirectly, on the present proceedings or on the position of the individual defendants involved.”
A third of the four rescripts, allowing for electronic surveillance of those under investigation “must be recognized as merely interpretative and adaptive to provisions already in force,” the judges ruled.
However, the judges ruled that one of the four legal instruments, signed by Pope Francis on July 2, 2019, “had an innovative character compared to the provisions in force at the time.”
While issued as a rescript, a legal instrument of executive authority which grants a privilege or dispensation to an individual or specified group, the judges ruled that Francis’ order “must be recognized as having a legislative nature.”
The promulgation of law, as opposed to the exercise of executive power, is subject to different procedural requirements for it to attain force.
According to the judges, the law in force at the time required that criminal investigations of the kind being undertaken by prosecutors looking into the London property scandal “required a formal investigation to be conducted, under penalty of nullity.” However, they said, the wording of the July 2 rescript ordered that “for the necessary investigative activities, the Office of the Promoter of Justice shall proceed in the form of summary proceedings.”
According to the judges, this authorization of “summary proceedings” in place of a “formal investigation” represented the creation of a new legal means of proceeding, making it a law, technically speaking.
As such, they found, the requirement that the new law be published to attain force had not been dealt with in the text of the rescript. Even if the specific investigation “in the form of summary proceedings” needed to remain confidential, the judges reasoned, the fact that such “summary proceedings” could be deployed should have been generally made known.
“In the opinion of this Court, the failure to publish the Rescriptum on 2 July 2019 affected the legitimacy of some investigative measures adopted on the basis thereof,” they concluded.
The judges stated that “these findings do not, nor could they, affect the value and nature of the Rescripta. They are, in fact, the legitimate form of expression of the powers of the Supreme Pontiff, to whom Article 1 of the Fundamental Law of 26 November 2000 (in force at the time of the issuance of the Rescripta) recognizes the fullness of legislative, executive, and judicial powers.”
However, in ruling that Francis was effectively exercising legislative power under the heading of an administrative act, the judges made what appears to be an unprecedented ruling, effectively bringing the procedural legitimacy of papal legal acts under the court’s power of judicial review.
*Jokingly, in the voice of Peregrin Took*
“We’ve had one Exhaustive Litigation of All the Evidence, yes. What about Second Exhaustive Litigation of All the Evidence?”
In seriousness, though, I feel bad for Ed knowing he’ll have to work through this whole mess once again. Thank you so much for all your hard work covering this story! I truly believe it’s important (and thankless) work.