Mammi stated that the IOR could only lend money in certain cases and that he felt pressured to approve the loan. Mammi said that the Vatican’s Financial Intelligence Authority, (AIF), had not acted in a third-party capacity, but lobbied for the IOR to approve the loan, even though there wasn’t enough coverage.
Mammi was given a document that showed the IOR was authorized for loans under certain conditions. The witness replied that this was true, but that the conditions were not met.
The defense then read another document. It gave a positive opinion about the loan to Secretariat of State, but also raised some serious issues.
Mammi replied dryly, “You might argue that the technical opinion has a positive outlook, but for me it’s negative.”
Mammi also stated that he attended a Secretariat of State meeting after submitting the complaint regarding the London deal. He said nothing about confidentiality. Mammi denied that he had ever said it prior to the complaint.
Although the testimony of the IOR director was sometimes precise and aggressive, it also contained apparent contradictions and personal opinions. Given that the IOR has previously provided larger loans, it is not clear why Mammi decided to file his final report.
Another open question is whether the IOR had sufficient liquidity to support the loan during times of shrinking budgets.
The other witnesses
These days, Antonio Di Iorio, an official of the Apostolic Chamber and notary, and Luca Dal Fabbro (a well-known manager) were also heard.
Di Lorio claimed that he signed papers without knowing the contents.
Dal Fabbro said that the Secretariat of State called him first to assess London’s situation. He also revealed that only the shares of Gianluigi Turzi, the broker, had voting rights. He had then advised the Secretariat of State about other properties he owned in London and he finally renegotiated the loans.
Fabio Perugia was a consultant who helped introduce the Valeur Group in Cardinal Becciu.
Valeur is a Swiss-based company that offers asset management, advisory and trading services, as well as real estate.
Valeur, who wanted to take control of the London building, complained that every Vatican offer was turned down. Perugia, Gianluigi Turzi’s partner for six months, said that it was because of misconduct at the Secretariat of State.
Last but not the least, Cardinal Oscar Cantoni’s testimony on Becciu and his alleged attempt to bribe Perlasca should also be noted. Cantoni testified that Becciu requested him to speak with Perlasca without threat to anyone or anything.
There are many questions, but some conclusions.
Summary: Many questions remain unanswered in relation to the trial of Cardinal Becciu, and other financial crime suspects.
Is Perlasca a credible witness? Francesca Immacolata Chaouqui’s role? Who are her contacts at the Vatican? What is their goal? What role does the IOR play in this affair?
Finally: Do you think there is a danger of questioning the impartiality and independence of the promoter for justice, given that he appears to be receiving messages from people close to the parties involved in the trial’s proceedings?
Only before Perlasca’s second interrogation, the Vatican’s prosecutor made public the situation concerning Chaouqui. However, the Vatican’s prosecutor made known the situation regarding Chaouqui before the second interrogation of Perlasca. This was despite the fact that the call of Becciu was part of an Italian proceeding and not the Vatican trial.
Although no one can predict when or how the trial will end there is one certainty: the credibility of all parties involved is at stake.
Andrea Gagliarducci, an Italian journalist working for Catholic News Agency, is a Vatican analyst for ACI Stampa. He contributes to the National Catholic Register.
