London court assesses convicted Vatican donor’s good faith

Unlock Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, FT Editor, picks her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The Vatican is being sued in the High Court in London by a financier who claims he was unfairly convicted by the Holy See over a British property deal that cost the Vatican more than £100 million.

Lawyers representing Raffaele Mincione argued Wednesday that Vatican Authorities have brought “incoherent and confusing” charges against the businessman, who was convicted of embezzlement and money laundering by the Vatican national court and sentenced to five and a half years in prison for his role. him in the ill-fated transaction. However, Mincione has never served time in prison and is based in London.

In an effort to clear his name, Mincione is seeking a statement from authorities London court that he acted in “good faith” in his dealings with the Vatican. The case — which is expected to include testimony from Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra, one of the Vatican’s most senior leaders at the time of the controversial property deal — will see Mincione’s prosecution by the Holy See in the proceedings, which have been criticized as complicated and unfair.

The civil trial in England stems from the Holy See’s investment in a former Harrods warehouse in Chelsea, one of the wealthiest areas of London. Vatican lose more than £100 million by 2022 when selling assets to private equity group Bain Capital.

The Holy See spent more than 350 million euros to buy back the property between 2014 and 2018, and the losses have led to a review of how the Catholic Church handles its finances.

Mincione is one of seven defendants – including one of the Vatican’s most powerful former officials, Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu – sentenced by the Vatican court in December in a landmark case for their role in a controversial property deal.

The high-profile proceedings – seen as part of Pope Francis’ efforts to clean up the church’s notorious finances – were dubbed “the Vatican’s trial of the century” by Italian media because it was the first time The first such high-ranking church official or their financial advisor was taken to court for alleged misconduct.

Although a highly respected former Italian prosecutor presided over the trial as chief judge, both the defense and independent legal scholars questioned his credibility and fair proceedings of the Vatican tribunal, were also marked by many rule changes during the investigation.

The London lawsuit was originally filed in 2020 before the Vatican trial and while the investigation into the deal was still underway.

In written arguments, Mincione’s lawyer, Charles Samek KC, said the Vatican had made “incoherent and mistaken allegations of conspiracy” and that its claims lacked a “factual basis.” .

Mincione, who will testify on Thursday, has previously argued that the Vatican was aware of the risks and that it lost money because of its own poor decisions.

He said the value of the assets had been substantiated by independent auditors and third-party consultants, and denied any wrongdoing.

Defending the Vatican against this statement, Charles Hollander KC said Mincione saw this transaction as a way to “withdraw money” from the Vatican.

“That involves fraud and misrepresentations by Mr. Mincione,” Hollander said in written arguments. “The events that concern the Vatican court involve deep corruption, fraud and embezzlement over many years.”

He added that the Vatican court “benefited from listening quite clearly to all parties involved. . . reaching long-term conclusions based on previous evidence.”

The Vatican has previously invoked the principle of state immunity to avoid involvement in foreign court proceedings, including prosecutions over a financial scandal in Italy in the 1980s and child sex abuse cases in various countries in recent years.

The Vatican publicly defended the integrity of its court proceedings after the December ruling, stressing that the financial case was complex – in which some defendants were cleared of some or all the wrongdoing – was carried out “with full respect for rights”. of the defendants”.