Vatican appeals trial could reveal more after WhatsApp messages

Vatican prosecutors and defense lawyers are poised to intensify the long-running financial case centered on a 350 million euro London property, as the Vatican’s appeals trial opens and potentially leans on thousands of private messages that have since surfaced in public, stirring fresh questions about how the Holy See is run.

The original investigation, which began in 2021 and focused on how the Holy See acquired the London luxury property, accuses brokers and Vatican dignitaries of siphoning tens of millions of euros in fees and commissions and then using extortion to extract payment to cede control of the asset. The appeals process could determine whether those charges stand as charged or are revised in light of new evidence, including private communications recently made public.

One of the earliest tangents to the case involved Cardinal Angelo Becciu, once a powerful force within the Vatican and a potential future papal contender. Becciu was convicted of embezzlement for routing 100,000 euros to a charity controlled by his brother and for payments to a self-styled security analyst, actions that culminated in a 5½-year prison sentence. Eight other defendants were convicted of embezzlement, abuse of office, fraud and related charges, though many counts were acquitted. All maintained their innocence and have appealed.

In the two years since those verdicts, thousands of pages of WhatsApp messages and audio exchanges involving several of the participants have become public through investigations and media outlets. The chats, published by Domani, suggest private conduct and behind-the-scenes maneuvering that critics say call into question the fairness and independence of the Vatican’s legal process. Defense lawyers have requested that the chats be admitted as evidence, arguing they bolster claims that the trial occurred in an environment shaped by papal intervention and internal power dynamics. They contend the chats show the investigation was contaminated from the start and that the proceedings did not meet standards of due process. Vatican officials have said the tribunal did not rely on the chats for its verdicts and dismissed their significance, noting that the outcome was based on other evidence.

The scope of the chats has already triggered new criminal complaints in Vatican and Italian courts and is likely to surface again in further appeals and legal wrangling. Even if the messages are admitted, observers caution that they may not necessarily overturn the core verdicts, which were grounded in other documentary and testimonial evidence. Foreign courts, too, may weigh in on the fairness of the proceedings once the Vatican’s cases are resolved, with potential implications for extradition and enforcement of judgments across jurisdictions.

Prosecutor Alessandro Diddi, who led the original case and will prosecute the appeals, has reiterated a drive to revisit many acquittals and to reaffirm a broader theory that a coordinated scheme defrauded the Holy See. Diddi has signaled that he intends to press the court to reconsider aspects of the acquittals and to restore emphasis on the alleged conspiracy framing of the operation, though he declined to comment specifically on the chats when contacted by The Associated Press.

Becciu’s fall from grace was abrupt. The cardinal had once wielded considerable influence within the Secretariat of State but was dismissed in 2020 amid questions about financial misconduct tied to the London investment and related arrangements. The case against Becciu highlighted internal Vatican tensions as the Holy See struggled to reform its finances under intense scrutiny from both within and outside the church.

Perlasca, Becciu’s deputy who headed the Vatican department overseeing the London investment, initially drew scrutiny as a prime suspect. He later shifted his stance, changing lawyers and cooperating with prosecutors after questions about his testimony. He ultimately was not indicted on additional charges and was listed as an injured party entitled to damages, a status that has fed further questions about how the Vatican’s money is managed and audited.

The case’s cast also includes Francesca Chaouqui, a figure linked to the Vatican’s 2015 Vatileaks disclosures and a public relations specialist who, during questioning, was shown to have played a role in persuading Perlasca to alter his testimony against Becciu. Perlasca’s confidante, Genevieve Ciferri, a family friend who had helped manage communications in those chats, has said the messages in question formed a collateral track of the broader investigation and did not form the backbone of the verdicts. Ciferri has characterized the chats as a separate layer of inquiry and noted that the core trials rested on other evidence.

The pope himself became a focal point when the original investigation revealed that Francis issued four secret decrees in 2019 and 2020 expanding prosecutors’ powers and enabling wiretaps that veered from established Vatican procedures. Defense lawyers argued that the decrees underscored an erosion of the separation of powers and cast doubt on the fairness of the process. The tribunal rejected that line of argument, but the subsequent WhatsApp messages painted a deeper portrait of how Francis interacted with investigators and the Perlasca family friend who then influenced testimony. The messages include exchanges in which Francis is described allied with or supportive of Perlasca, and in which Francis is depicted as lending money to Perlasca after Vatican bank accounts were frozen.

The Vatican has defended the process as fair and thorough, insisting that the appeals will rest on the jurisdiction’s due process protections and the strength of the underlying evidence. Still, the evolving record—now augmented by thousands of private messages—keeps alive questions about what more could be revealed and how such revelations might shape future reform efforts within the Vatican’s financial governance structures.

As the appeals proceed, the Holy See’s authorities face the practical matter of how foreign legal systems might respond if the Vatican’s verdicts are upheld, partially upheld, or overturned. If the verdicts become final, Italian, British and other courts may be asked to enforce them, including potential prison sentences or financial damages tied to frozen assets. Some defense lawyers say they are prepared to take broader concerns about due process to higher European tribunals if necessary, including the European Court of Human Rights, while Vatican officials maintain that the appeals process will vindicate the fairness of the original proceedings.

For observers, the coming months will show whether the new material can shift the fundamental assessment of the case or merely add texture to an already sprawling financial saga. The Vatican has argued that it has administered the process in a way that respects legal norms and the rights of the defense, even as critics say the revelations from the chats highlight a moral and procedural complexity that the church is still learning to navigate in its post-reform era.