In the Vatican, the crime of embezzlement is established even if there is no “intent to profit”. This is why the Pontifical Tribunal condemned in first instance, last December, Cardinal Angelo Becciu concerning the 100,000 euros coming from the funds of the Secretariat of State intended for the Spes cooperative of the diocese of Ozieri, in Sardinia, where his brother also worked. However, according to what the Bishop of Ozieri confirmed, the money was never spent. Ten months after the sentence to five years in prison, the reasons for the verdict were filed: more than 700 pages in which President Giuseppe Pignatone explains in detail all the decisions taken. In several passages, he forcefully emphasized that in all phases of the trial, totaling 86 hearings, respect for due process was respected, despite the severe criticisms cyclically raised by the defense due to the Pope’s five rescripts, elements omitted held by the Promoter of Justice, and the testimony requested by the defense but not admitted. Nearly a year ago, the jury convicted nine of the ten defendants of some crimes and acquitted them of others. Concretely, Cardinal Becciu and Raffaele Mincione were found guilty of embezzlement; Enrico Crasso for self-laundering; Gianluigi Torzi and Nicola Squillace for aggravated fraud and Torzi also for extortion in collaboration with Fabrizio Tirabassi, the same Tirabassi for self-laundering. Cecilia Marogna of aggravated fraud. The affair, as we remember, developed around the purchase of the London building: it was acquired by the Vatican for more than 200 million dollars, but through various transactions it resulted in a loss of around 140 million. “It is evident the exceptional seriousness of the facts (considered individually and as a whole), both in relation to the amount of money (200 million US dollars) involved in the embezzlement and the criminal behavior prolonged over several years and in totally heterogeneous contexts, and – above all – for the quality and high-level role played by the accused”, we can read in the document. The huge investment was made in 2014 in Mincione’s high-risk fund. A “gamble” contrary to the prudence required by Vatican regulations. A large part of the sentence reconstructs the subscription of the complex Falcon Oil operation and the subscription by the Secretary of State of shares of the Athena Capital Commodities Fund and the Global Opportunities Fund attributable to Raffaele Mincione. Vatican regulations – indicates the motivation – would require “a prudent administration, aiming above all to preserve the patrimony, even when seeking to increase it, evaluating the opportunities for profit even if they are measured in relation to a possibility of possible loss and still contained.” He should therefore have considered the risk quotient, the amount of assets invested and the possibility of retaining a certain control over the management as well as the costs of the operation. “According to these parameters, “the investment in the fund managed by Raffaele Mincione” certainly constitutes an “illicit use” of these ecclesiastical public assets of which the deputy Becciu at the time had the availability due to his function and of which he was well aware of the nature and, therefore, the legal limits of use related to it. In the sentence it is emphasized that the “general partner” Mincione assumed “no commitment and gave no guarantee nor on the performance. of the investment nor on the risk of loss of the entire capital invested” and “the State Secretariat for Investors had no power of control. Furthermore, the Court maintains that it is not at all true. that this imprudent use of the Holy See’s money was approved by the two successive cardinal secretaries of state (Tarcisio Bertone and Pietro Parolin). It is then observed that it “certainly could not escape a person”. of the experience and recognized abilities of the then deputy Becciu” that Mincione was, both according to press information and the information collected by the Vatican gendarmerie which had advised against doing business with him. . “It remains inexplicable that none of the public officials involved in this serious matter attempted, once the Falcon Oil operation was definitively closed, to end relations with Mincione by ‘leaving’ the GOF fund.” And in fact, we do not even understand why “Raffaele Mincione, who – as a prudent entrepreneur – was assisted by high-level professional teams in all sectors involved in the Falcon Oil – GOF operation, and in particular by firms lawyers particularly experienced in English, Luxembourg law and European Union law” while the Vatican did not consider it necessary to “do the same”. The alleged lack of knowledge of the regulations in force beyond the Tiber is therefore no excuse. This then leads to the arrival of another financier, Torzi. The sentence handed down by the Court found Gianluigi Torzi and Nicola Squillace guilty of aggravated fraud. It is demonstrated how the new deputy Edgar Peña Parra, who had immediately expressed doubts about the operation, was “misled” and his ratification of the agreements reached by Perlasca and Tirabassi occurred because he was misled by the assurances received from the lawyer Squillace. MAROGNA The Court then judges “objectively inexplicable” the behavior of Becciu towards Cecilia Marogna, the geopolitical linked to the intelligence services charged by the Secretariat of State to serve as an intermediary for the release of a nun kidnapped in Mali by jihadists. Becciu transferred 575,000 euros to the woman who used them for “luxury purchases”. According to the judges, although the cardinal had on several occasions “the documentary certainty that Marogna had spent the money he had sent him for personal purposes, especially luxurious ones, he did nothing.” Indeed, according to what he himself declared, he repeatedly asked Marogna for explanations and each time he was “satisfied” with the woman’s assertion that the accusations were not not true”, writes the Vatican Tribunal. “Even in full awareness of the absolute seriousness of the facts of which (at least) Marogna was the protagonist, Cardinal Becciu did not file a complaint, a report or even a simple declaration; in reality, he did not distance himself from Marogna even in the statements made as the accused, in which he continued to support the professionalism and reliability of the woman without ever addressing the question of the money she spent.