The appeal of the largest criminal trial in the recent history of the Vatican revolves around a delicate issue: whether Pope Francis was manipulated by the prosecution into signing exceptional regulations that decisively influenced the judicial process to the detriment of the defendants.
The trial began in 2021 and examined whether senior Vatican officials committed irregularities in a real estate operation in London that caused multimillion-euro losses.
The verdict came in December 2023 with the conviction, for the first time in history, of a cardinal: Angelo Becciu, although his lawyers stated at the time that they would appeal the verdict.
FABIO VIGLIONE
Counsel for Cardinal Becciu
We believe that the trial demonstrated the absolute innocence of the Cardinal, innocence that we believe and sustain. I repeat, it was demonstrated in the course of the trial.
The second-instance trial began in September 2025 and, in the latest hearings held between February 3 and 5, the defense of the cardinal and the other convicted defendants focused on demonstrating that the process was flawed from the beginning.
They claim they did not receive all the documentation necessary to prepare the case, or have access to all the prosecution’s evidence. Nor were they informed of the new regulations signed by Pope Francis that affected the trial. In fact, they are calling on Pope Leo XIV to intervene to shed light on the matter.
The opposing side argues that the pope has full authority to issue regulations and that the decrees are valid because they came from him. They add that these decrees were not published for security reasons and that this is a customary practice carried out by pontiffs. It was not only Pope Francis who resorted to this system; Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI did so as well.
The trial has reached this stage marked by a series of setbacks for the prosecution. First, Vatican prosecutor Alessandro Diddi attempted to appeal the sentences, considering some of the penalties too lenient. The court rejected his appeal due to a formal defect related to deadlines, which definitively closed the door to any increase in the sentences: in this appeal, the defendants can only seek a reduction or even the annulment of their penalties. The prosecutor ultimately resigned in January.
Once the hearings concluded, the Vatican’s Supreme Court reserved its final decision. The judges must now determine whether the papal decrees were valid, whether the process respected legal guarantees, and, ultimately, whether the trial that marked a turning point in Vatican justice can stand or must be corrected from its very foundations.
