(ZENIT News / Vatican City, 02.05.2026).- What began as a financial investigation into a troubled London property deal has evolved into the most complex judicial process ever held inside Vatican City. After a 120-day pause, the appeal phase of the Holy See funds case resumed on February 3, drawing lawyers, prosecutors, and civil parties back into the Vatican tribunal for a series of tense hearings that have exposed deep fault lines over papal authority, due process, and the limits of secrecy in Church governance.
Presided over by Archbishop Alejandro Arellano Cedillo, the Court of Appeal opened its fifth session with more than four hours of arguments from defense attorneys. Seven lawyers took turns challenging the legal foundations of the first-instance verdict, focusing above all on four papal rescripts issued by Pope Francis during the investigation. These confidential measures expanded the powers of the Promoter of Justice, allowing, among other things, broader surveillance tools and precautionary measures.
For the defense, these rescripts are the original sin of the entire process.
Mario Zanchetti, counsel for broker Gianluigi Torzi—arrested inside the Vatican on June 5, 2020—called his client’s detention illegal, arguing it was based on a July 2, 2019 rescript unknown to the defense. He went so far as to claim that the measure effectively turned Vatican criminal procedure into something “authoritarian,” insisting that laws affecting fundamental rights must be published to be valid.
Other attorneys echoed the same line. Luigi Panella, representing Enrico Crasso, described the rescripts as an unprecedented “blank check” given to prosecutors, noting that in two millennia of Church history such sweeping provisions had never remained secret. Fabio Viglione, lawyer for Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, spoke of a structural imbalance between prosecution and defense, pointing out that of 239 seized electronic devices, not a single full copy had been provided to defense teams. Only 16 partial extracts were filed, none of which, he said, met legal standards.
At stake is not only the rescripts themselves, but the integrity of the evidence. Defense lawyers accuse former chief prosecutor Alessandro Diddi—who stepped aside from the appeal on December 12, 2025—of submitting only selected material to the court, despite earlier judicial orders requiring full disclosure. They also highlighted the absence of key documents, including the video of the interrogation of Monsignor Alberto Perlasca, former head of the Secretariat of State’s administrative office and a pivotal witness in the first trial.
Adding another layer of controversy is the so-called “Striano affair.” Pasquale Striano, a former Italian financial police officer, is under investigation in Rome for allegedly accessing institutional databases more than 40,000 times to gather confidential information on politicians, business leaders, and public figures. Defense attorneys revealed that all major defendants in the Vatican trial appear among those whose data were accessed—some as early as May 2019, months before the IOR (the Vatican bank) filed the complaint that triggered the Holy See investigation.
For Cataldo Intrieri, lawyer for Fabrizio Tirabassi, this suggests prior knowledge of the case by unknown actors. He and others asked the Vatican court to obtain files from the Roman prosecutors, arguing that this alone undermines the legitimacy of the entire proceedings.
The following day, February 4, the tone shifted.
Civil parties—the Secretariat of State, the IOR, and APSA (the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See)—together with the Office of the Promoter of Justice, urged the court to dismiss the defense motions as unfounded and procedurally improper.
Giovanni Maria Flick, former president of Italy’s Constitutional Court and counsel for APSA, argued that the papal rescripts did not grant extraordinary powers at all. In his view, they merely adapted an outdated Vatican legal code—dating back to 1913—to modern investigative realities, such as electronic communications. The measures, he said, were designed to protect the Holy See’s primary interests amid an exceptionally complex financial case.
Roberto Lipari, representing the IOR, reminded the court that the Pope is the undisputed source of legislative authority in Vatican City. Papal rescripts, he argued, are normative acts, not administrative improvisations, and have been used similarly by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Their confidentiality, he added, was not negligence but a deliberate choice to safeguard the investigation.
Paola Severino, former Italian justice minister and lawyer for the Secretariat of State, reinforced this point: Pope Francis, as sovereign of Vatican City, holds full legislative, executive, and judicial authority. The non-publication of the rescripts was justified by reasons of state and procedural fairness, she said, warning that public disclosure at such an early stage could have compromised the inquiry and violated the rights of those involved. She also cited Swiss judicial authorities, who reportedly confirmed that Vatican justice respected due process when cooperating on asset seizures linked to the case.
Deputy Promoter of Justice Roberto Zannotti pushed back strongly against claims of unfairness. He described the proceedings as “more than fair,” noting the extraordinary number of hearings and procedural guarantees afforded to defendants. Even Diddi’s withdrawal from the appeal, he said, was proof of the system’s commitment to impartiality.
On February 5, during the seventh hearing, theological heavyweights entered the courtroom—at least intellectually. St. Thomas Aquinas was repeatedly quoted by both sides. Defense lawyers invoked his teaching that a law must be promulgated to bind, while civil parties countered with Aquinas’ definition of law as an ordinance of reason, emphasizing the proportionality and necessity behind the Pope’s choices in a moment of institutional crisis.
Yet tensions remain unresolved. Defense teams continue to press for a declaration of nullity, citing partial disclosures, redacted evidence—including 118 blacked-out messages out of 132 sent by Genoveffa Ciferri to Diddi—and missing portions of Perlasca’s interrogation video. Some have even proposed asking Pope Leo XIV, described by one attorney as a “refined jurist,” to offer guidance on the impasse.
For prosecutors Roberto Zannotti and Settimio Carmignani Caridi, these objections are little more than distractions. Pope Francis, they insist, acted with full awareness of the situation, and subsequent legislation confirms the coherence of his decisions.
Often dubbed the Vatican’s “century trial,” the case centers on the alleged mismanagement of substantial Holy See assets through high-risk financial operations, including the notorious London property transaction. But its implications go far beyond balance sheets.
At its core, this appeal confronts a fundamental question for the post-reform Vatican: how to reconcile papal sovereignty with modern standards of transparency and defendants’ rights, while prosecuting financial wrongdoing inside the world’s smallest state.
The court has reserved its decision on the preliminary issues, postponing further hearings. When proceedings resume, the judges will not merely weigh legal technicalities. They will help define how justice is administered at the heart of the Catholic Church in an era that demands both accountability and credibility.
Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.
