Vatican Trial: Cardinal Becciu’s Defense Plea

Cardinal Angelo Becciu’s defense took aim at the “tainted” testimonies, “absurd and baseless” accusations, investigations led with a “prejudiced eye,” a weak accusatory structure repudiated by the debates, and a general “desire to ‘monstrify’ the cardinal.”

The lawyers Fabio Viglione and Maria Concetta Marzo contested the charges pressed against the cardinal, who is accused of abuse of power, embezzlement, and of subornation—crimes for which the Promoter of Justice has asked seven years and three months in prison, as well as a fine of 10,329 euros and a perpetual ban on holding public office.

The Cardinal Was Not Enriched

“The cardinal was not personally enriched. The accusation itself does not contest a cent of personal advantage” in the three accusations: the sale of the London building, payments to a charity in Sardinia managed by the cardinal’s brother, and sums given to Cecilia Marogna.

“The ambitious accusations were not supported” by documentary proofs, exhibits, and testimonials, concluded Cardinal Becciu’s defense.

The Role of Alberto Perlasca

The lawyers also charged Rev. Msgr. Perlasca, former head of the Administrative Office of the Secretariat of State, who was first under investigation then became a “key witness” after submitting a statement accusing the cardinal, his former hierarchical superior. This was a statement written during the trial about the indications of Genoveffa Ciferri and of Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui.

With the submission of this document, the lawyers said “the Rubicon has been crossed,” in the sense that “Perlasca changed the history of the trial. He derailed and diverted the course of the investigation.” In this way, “there was no clarification but only a target to hit”: Cardinal Becciu.

Threats, Deductions, and Invectives

The defense also cited the series of threats, inferences, and invectives which had emerged since the start of the investigation against the cardinal, the “victim” of a media campaign and also, as he said himself, “of a conspiracy.” Often, this load of affronts and insults was only “artifice” meant to distract from “the lack of basis for the accusations.”

The lawyer insisted on the falsity of the accusations that Mincione’s Athena Capital Global Opportunities investment fund used the money coming from Peter’s Pence, the charity of the faithful.

The Sardinia Affair

The payments of 125,000 euros to Ozieri’s Caritas and the charity Spes for the rehabilitation of those in need, managed by the cardinal’s brother, were swept away with a wave of the hand: “How is it possible that two donations, which certainly were proven to be charitable, are being turned into embezzlement?”

The Cecilia Marogna Affair

Finally, much attention was given to the transfers made with the Secretariat of State’s money to Cecilia Marogna’s Slovenian Logsic firm. She was put in charge of mediating the liberation of a Colombian missionary sister in Mali who was abducted in 2017. Cecilia Marogna spent the money on luxury products such as handbags, clothing, and buildings.

On this subject, the lawyer Marzo underlined the total ignorance of Becciu concerning the expenditures made by Marogna: “He was the first to be deceived—Cecilia Marogna was not authorized to spend a single euro.”

Will this defense convince the judges? The fact remains that numerous points remain obscure or undecided.