Mammi claimed that the IOR could not provide loans for specific cases, and that he was pressured into providing the loan. He claimed that the Vatican’s Financial Intelligence Authority was not acting as a third party, but that he lobbied IOR to accept the loan — even though he said there wasn’t sufficient coverage.
Mammi was shown a document showing that the IOR was authorized under certain conditions to make loans. Mammi was shown a document that showed the IOR was authorized to make loans under certain conditions. However, the witness stated that it was not true.
The defense then read a second document. This gave the Secretariat of State a positive opinion, while also raising some important issues.
Mammi’s dry response was, “You might think that the technical opinion in favor, but it’s not for me.”
Mammi also claimed that he was a member of the Secretariat of State and had been to a meeting there after making the complaint about the London contract. When Mammi was asked if he had mentioned it before the complaint, his answer was no.
The testimony of the IOR director was not only precise and fast, but it also included apparent contradictions as well as personal opinions. It is still unclear why Mammi filed his report. The IOR has provided greater loans in the past.
It is unknown if the IOR had enough liquidity to make the loan in these times of shrinking funds.
Antonio Di Iorio (an official and notary of Apostolic Chamber) and Luca Dal Fabbro (a well known manager) have been also heard.
Di lorio stated that he just signed papers, without knowing their contents.
Dal Fabbro explained to the Secretariat of State that he had been called by the Secretariat of State first to assess London’s situation. It was so important that he made it known that the only shares with voting rights were those of Gianluigi Torizi, the broker who took over the management. After that, he advised the Secretariat of State regarding other properties he held in London. Finally, he had renegotiated loans.
Fabio Perugia, an advisor, was also involved in the introduction of the Valeur group to Cardinal Becciu.
Valeur is an asset management, advisory, trading and real estate company based in Switzerland.
Valeur wanted to retake the London building but was denied by the Vatican. Perugia had been Gianluigi’s partner for approximately six months. It should be noted that this was due misconduct within the Secretariat of State.
Last, but not least, it is worth noting Cardinal Oscar Cantoni’s testimony regarding Becciu’s alleged attempted bribery to Perlasca. Cantoni testified Becciu asked him for Perlasca’s contact information, but he did not threaten anyone.
Some conclusions, many questions
Summary: There are still many unanswered questions about the Cardinal Becciu trial and the other financial crimes charges against him.
What credibility does Perlasca have as a witness in this case? Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui, what is her role? Who are her contacts at Vatican? What are they trying achieve? What is the role played by the IOR in the matter?
Let’s not forget: Does the promoter of justice have messages from those who are close to the trial participants?
Perlasca was not informed by the Vatican’s prosecutor about the situation with Chaouqui until the second interrogation. He, however, played the telephone call of Becciu to Pope before the beginning of the second interrogation.
It is impossible to predict the outcome of the trial, but one thing is certain: Credibility is at stake.
Andrea Gagliarducci works as an Italian journalist at Catholic News Agency. He is also a Vatican analyst at ACI Stampa. He is also a contributor to The National Catholic Register.