The High Court of England and Wales delivered on Friday a long-awaited verdict in a lawsuit brought against the Vatican Secretariat of State by its former investment manager, Raffaele Mincione.
After years of procedural delays and court hearings, a judge rule Feb. 21 that Mincione and his companies “fell below the standards of communication with the State that could be described as good faith conduct,” but cleared him of accusations by the secretariat of conspiracy and fraud.
The decision left both sides claiming victory, with Vatican state media saying the decision “represents a significant vindication of the Secretariat of State’s position,” and Mincione telling The Pillar he is “100% satisfied” with the verdict.
Micione and his companies filed the suit in 2020, asking for declaratory relief from the court, seeking a ruling that they had acted in “good faith” in their dealings with the secretariat shortly after the Vatican publicly accused him of being “speculative and self interested” with its money.
Mincione filed the suit in the wake of the secretariat’s severing ties with his investment company in 2018, purchasing a London building development project from his companies as part of the deal.
In a lengthy interview with The Pillar in 2023, Mincione said that he had abided by the contract he signed with the Secretariat of State, and that investments he made — branded “speculative” and “self interested” by the Vatican — were well within the discretion granted to him by the contracts.
The Secretariat of State went on to record a 100 million euro loss on the building, and the fallout of the project led to a years-long criminal investigation and trial in the Vatican, at the end of which nine people, including Mincione were convicted of financial crimes.
Mincione is currently appealing his sentence of five years in prison and made party to a group liability of hundreds of millions of euros along with eight other individuals.
“Even the British judges have affirmed what has always been argued by the [Vatican prosecutors’ office], namely that Raffaele Mincione acted towards the Secretariat of State 'below the standards' by which good faith conduct is measured,” said Diddi. “I believe that this ruling also underscores the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Vatican Tribunal.”
However, Mincione told The Pillar that far from agreeing with the Vatican court’s verdict, delivered in December 2023, the High Court ruling vindicated him.
“All the accusations that the Vatican prosecutor brought forward were broken into pieces by the London verdict, if you allow me to say that,” Mincione said Friday. “The [UK] judge said ‘no conspiracy,’ ‘no fraud,’ ‘no legal wrongdoing,’ which were the three things that have been splashed on the newspapers for the past five years.”
Mincione managed hundreds of millions of euros in Vatican funds from 2013 until 2018, when the Secretariat of State parted ways with Mincione’s investment fund, forfeiting the balance of its investment with the businessman, while paying millions in penalties for early withdrawal of their investment, receiving in exchange for ownership of a London property development.
In the Feb. 21 UK court ruling, Justice Robin Knowles said that “the issue is simply whether the [Mincione and his companies] acted in good faith… not whether [they] owed duties of good faith, or whether there were consequences if they did not act in good faith.”
“In my judgment, on the facts shown at trial the Claimants fell below the standards of communication with the State that could be described as good faith conduct.”
However, the judge said, “I wish to make quite clear that my declining to declare, in the broad declarations sought, the presence of good faith throughout is just that. It is not a general or overall observation about [Mincione and his companies]. Nor am I addressing here the question whether the [Vatican] would have a claim against [them].”
On the contrary, the judge concluded that Mincione and his companies “also have the benefit of a number of findings in this judgment… which reject very serious allegations levelled against them… including particular allegations of dishonesty and particular allegations of conspiracy.”
“On the other hand,” wrote the judge, “on the evidence I heard at trial, the [Vatican] had reason to consider itself utterly let down in its experience with [Mincione and his companies]. [They] made no attempt to protect the [Vatican] from fraudulent bad actors. They took no care towards the [Vatican] and they put their own interests first.”
—
While the substance of the London’s lawsuit concerns Mincione’s dealings with the Secretariat of State, much of the evidence and testimony in court concerned the actions of Gianluigiu Torzi — another businessman convicted in the Vatican financial crimes trial — who was appointed by the Vatican to act as its agent over the separation from Mincione and the acquisition of the London building at 60 Sloane Ave.
Hired in 2018 by the Vatican’s Secretariat of State to manage its acquisition of the building at 60 Sloane Ave. from Mincione, Torzi structured the deal so that his Luxembourg-registered holding company would take ownership of the building, and he would then convey ownership of the holding company to the Vatican.
Instead, after taking ownership of the building, Torzi restructured the shares of the holding company, passing 30,000 ordinary shares to the Secretariat of State while retaining 3,000 preferential shares for himself that left him in total control of the company and therefore the building.
Prosecutors have argued in Vatican court that Torzi extorted the Holy See for millions for control of the company and with Mincione’s cooperation and conspired to defraud the Secretariat of State over the purchase of the building — and secured convictions in Vatican City court on those charges.
While acknowledging a complicated series of personal business dealings with Torzi, Mincione has denied any criminal action on his part or coordination with Torzi.
Justice Knowles found that: “There was no material dispute that Mr Torzi owed the duties of an agent to the [Vatican] in relation to the transaction. On the facts I have, at least his conduct over the [Luxembourg holding company] shares was in breach of duty, unscrupulous and dishonest.”
But the judge found that, while the Vatican’s lawyers argued Mincione was “acting in complete coordination with Mr Torzi, in full knowledge of his wrongdoing and his (successful) attempt to extort money from the [Vatican],” the evidence he heard at trial led him to conclusions “which do not reach as far.”
Knowles concluded that Mincione became aware of Torzi’s ability and intent to defraud and extort the Secretariat of State only after the transaction to convey ownership of the London building.
“Mr Mincione had the opportunity to try to dissuade Mr Torzi from that course, or to alert or try to assist the [Vatican], but he chose not to do so,” the judge wrote.
“The reason he chose not to do so was because that would further Mr Mincione’s ability to obtain money for the [himself and his companies] from Mr Torzi in circumstances where [Mincione and his companies] considered the transaction had cost them future fund management earnings.”
While the judge found that the “conclusions do not reflect well on Mr Mincione,” he also found that “the conclusions do not establish the [Vatican’s] contention that he had knowledge all along that Mr Torzi was intending to perpetrate a fraud on the [Vatican]. Nor do they assist the [Vatican’s] allegation that Mr Mincione knew Mr Torzi was intending to act in breach of duty to the [Vatican] in November 2018 and that [Mincione and his companies] were ‘instrumental components’ of a conspiracy to defraud the [Vatican] and enrich themselves.”
—
Responding to the judgement, Mincione told The Pillar that “I think I won 99.99% of the points, I would say 100% of the legal points” in the case.
“I would say I am 100% satisfied,” Mincione told The Pillar.
“I don't call this a victory,” he said, “there is nothing happy about it. But I've been treated so badly not only by the press and by the Vatican authorities for the last five years, so in that sense I found it an incredible, incredible result.”
Asked about the judge’s finding that the Vatican “had reason to consider itself utterly let down” by Mincione and his companies, and that they “made no attempt to protect the [Vatican] from fraudulent bad actors,” took “no care towards the [Vatican],” and “put their own interests first,” Mincione countered that he had shown good faith as a partner to the Secretariat of State when they were in business together and that the judge “doesn't want to define good faith, he wants to determine legality.”
“That's important,” Mincione said, because the judge found he had done nothing illegal.
“I arrived in court with a five-and-a-half years jail sentence and 100 million fine hanging over me. For the judge to give me also the higher moral ground would've been very difficult, to be fair,” he said.
“And when it comes to good faith, you can read it,” Mincione said. “When he said that I utterly let them down, it was post-transaction.”
“This is referring to the fact that I did not give assistance to the Vatican after the end of our relationship. That means that I had no obligation whatsoever of assisting somebody that I have no relationship with anymore,” said Mincione.
“The judge said that I didn't offer [the Vatican] assistance when I discovered that Torzi was not a good guy,” Mincione said. “But people forget that ‘good faith’ could not be given, because [Vatican City prosecutor] Diddi had an arrest warrant out for me while he was inviting me to speak to him. Is that a good enough reason for my reluctance, not helping somebody who wants to arrest me? People can decide for themselves.”
Mincione said he was hopeful that the London decision would lead to success in his legal claims in Switzerland, where millions of his assets have been frozen as a result of the Vatican trial.
“I think that soon the Swiss authorities will have to come to terms with what is being vindicated in London shows up the wrongful rogatory request that Vatican prosecutors have brought to block my money there.”
Mincione is also appealing his conviction in Vatican City, where he was found guilty of participating in the illegal misappropriation of Vatican funds in the deal which placed some 200 million euros under the investment manager’s control on the Secretariat of State’s behalf.
Mincione, for his part, has insisted that he signed contracts which were legal under the jurisdictions under which he was operating and had no way of knowing that the Vatican’s money was being illicitly invested with him.
Speaking to The Pillar on Feb. 21, Mincione said that “In the Vatican, even today, nobody is looking for the truth. Everybody is after revenge.”
“I wish the Holy Father was in better health and he would be willing to meet me, to look into my eyes and see if I'm the thief that prosecutors deeply keep insisting I am. That would be my most dear wish, Mincione said. “I'm still Catholic. I'm a bitter Catholic, but I'm still a Catholic.”
