But do prosecutors really have a case against Becciu?

In his argument July 26, Alessandro Diddi spent the day focused on Becciu, the former sostituto of the secretariat, whose defense Diddi described as "masterpieces of falsification and mystification of reality."

The cardinal, in turn, has declared his "absolute innocence" and himself to be "a faithful servant of the Church" who has "suffered in silence" throughout a process he's called a witch hunt and media smear campaign.

Away from the courtroom hyperbole, though, there is perhaps one thing on which Becciu and Diddi would agree: The case is complicated.

According to the official charge sheet, he is accused of embezzlement and abuse of office, conspiracy, as well as the subornation of witnesses. But how does this break down, and does the evidence add up?

All roads lead through London

According to most media coverage of the trial, the primary focus of the evidence and the charges — including against Cardinal Becciu — is the Secretariat of State's now-infamous purchase of a London building at 60 Sloane Avenue.

But that story, however popular, isn't quite right.

The London deal may be at the center of the trial, but the charges, accusations, and evidence extend back years before the deal was concluded, and well into the months after.

The 2018 acquisition of the building by the secretariat was a messy affair, to put it mildly.

And it was the building's purchase which started the investigation which led to the current trial.

And it was the complicated structuring of the purchase which led to charges of extortion and other crimes for defendants, most notably the businessman Gianluigi Torzi.

But Cardinal Becciu has insisted that he had nothing to do with the purchase of the London building, and that the deal was done after he had left the Secretariat of State in June of 2018 and it was managed by his successor as sostituto, Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra.

In that, Becciu has a point. He did not, so far as the available evidence shows, have anything to do with the decision to buy the building outright, or with approving the details which left the Vatican wide open to (alleged) fraud and extortion.

Still, that is only part of the story.

The purchase of the building — which lost the Vatican more than 100 million euros — was part of a hasty settlement as the secretariat severed ties with the financier Raffaele Mincione, with whom it had invested some 200 million euros in 2014.

That initial investment was approved by Becciu, as was its financing, and the unusual way it was recorded on Vatican balance sheets.

And those actions are part of the prosecution case — though the cardinal has insisted he cannot remember much of what he approved, or explain his reasons, even when presented with documents bearing his signature.

And as has been reported since before the trial began, when the newly created Secretariat for the Economy and Office of the Auditor General tried to look through the Secretariat of State's books for a curia-wide audit in 2015-16, it was Becciu who led the resistance to scrutiny.

According to reporting at the time — and later confirmed both by Cardinal George Pell, the first prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, and Libero Milone, the first auditor general — the secretariat under Becciu's leadership used forbidden accounting practices to effectively hide the whole 200 million euro investment with Mincione from auditors, along with the bank loans used to finance the investment.

Becciu has made several evolving claims in his own defense since.

He has said, at different times, that he never refused to cooperate with Pell and Milone; that Pell and Milone's departments never had the authority to audit the Secretariat of State anyway; and that he did act to shield the specific investments from scrutiny because they were some kind of secret discretionary papal fund outside of Vatican financial laws.

In addition to Pell (who died earlier this year) and Milone's insistence that none of these defenses are true, the plain text of the statutes of both their former departments — issued by Pope Francis — seems clearly to give them total access to and oversight of all Vatican departments and funds, with no exceptions. Read more

• Ed Condon is a co-founder and editor of The Pillar.
• First published in The Pillar.

It will be the first time in the Vatican's 2,000 year history it has had to appear before UK judges. Some are calling it the trial of the century.

The issue involves a complex land deal in London involving a former Harrods warehouse.

The English Courts have been told there are irregularities and abuses in the real estate's purchase in 2014. It will hear whether the Vatican knowingly inflated the price of the building in the British capital.

The Vatican has also been examining the case since last July. It is trying 11 defendants including Cardinal Angelo Becciu on charges of fraud, abuse, providing false information, corruption, money laundering and disclosure of secret documents.

British-Swiss financier Raffaele Mincione (pictured) was among those against whom charges were brought. He's the one bringing charges against the Vatican via the English Courts.

On one side, Vatican prosecutors claim Mincione committed fraud by inflating the price when his companies sold the property in 2018.

On the other, Mincione denies the allegations and stands by the property valuation which he says was provided by independent experts.

Furthermore, the Vatican has provided no evidence of his alleged wrongdoings or of the monetary loss, he says.

Mincione's civil action in England aims to counter publicity and protect his reputation.

The Vatican tried to counter his claim, arguing that English courts had no jurisdiction to rule on its investment.

An English hearing would also interfere with the Vatican's criminal investigation, with "legitimate acts of a foreign state" and would serve "no useful purpose" the Vatican argued.

However, the British judges decided the Vatican's argument of sovereign immunity doesn't exist in this case, because the property deal involved a commercial transaction.

The British court has the right to examine the documents on the sale of real estate, the judges ruled. It also has the right to decide whether all parties to the transaction acted in good faith.

At this point, it is unclear who exactly will be the witnesses in this case or when the case might be heard.

Source

• News.am