VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — Vatican prosecutors defied an appellate court order for full disclosure of related documents in Cardinal Angelo Becciu’s retrial, instead filing redacted documents, including withholding the full interrogation transcript of a key witness in the case.

On April 30, the Office of the Promoter of Justice of Vatican City, formerly led in this case by Alessandro Diddi, filed documentation in the retrial proceedings against Becciu concerning an embezzlement scandal involving a property in London, but did so with omissions and without depositing all investigative materials, despite a March 2026 order from the Vatican Court of Appeal requiring the complete and unredacted submission of all case files to ensure the defendants’ right to defense.

“The Office of the Promoter of Justice has not complied with the order of March 17, 2026, by which the Court expressly required the full deposit of all investigative acts and documents, without any possibility of selection,” said Becciu’s lawyers, Fabio Viglione and Maria Antonietta Marzo.

READ: Pope Leo encourages wealthy nonprofit to continue supporting the Church

The defense alleged that the prosecution filed certain documents with redactions, in direct violation of an appellate court order. Some materials were submitted in full – including exchanges between Genoveffa Ciferri, a close friend of former Becciu aide Alberto Perlasca, and the former promoter of justice – but others were not. Most notably absent was the complete transcript of Perlasca’s interrogation, despite his central role in the case.

The promoter of justice justified the omissions by invoking unspecified risks to “the public good and interest,” arguing that full disclosure could entail serious consequences.

At the same time, the office maintained that the redactions and partial filings would not prejudice the defendants’ rights, asserting that the omitted materials were irrelevant to the charges and therefore unnecessary for the defense.

Defense counsel contested this position, arguing that the prosecution has no authority to determine unilaterally which documents are pertinent. They stated that the partial submission contradicts the meaning of the court’s order and reiterates procedural flaws already identified by the appellate judges. According to the defense, any document not made available to all parties cannot be examined by the court, raising the prospect of further procedural invalidity.

Lawyer Cataldo Intrieri, representing one of the co-defendants, also criticized the prosecution’ conduct. He stated that sensitive information, described by the prosecution itself as potentially harmful to the public interest, “continues to be withheld even from the judges.” He questioned “how a fair trial could proceed under such conditions” and called for a “resolution of the case that would restore the defendants’ reputations.”

The dispute centers in part on the role of Alberto Perlasca, formerly involved in the management of the London property deal on Sloane Avenue. Initially implicated in the transaction, Perlasca later became a key witness for the prosecution.

The defense has suggested that his statements may have been coordinated with other individuals, including Ciferri and members of the prosecution, though no judicial finding on this point is cited in the available documents.

The current procedural conflict follows a significant ruling issued on March 17, 2026, by the Vatican Court of Appeal, presided over by Archbishop Alejandro Arellano Cedillo. In that decision, the court identified violations of procedural guarantees in the original trial against Becciu and eight other defendants, particularly concerning the effective exercise of the right to defense.

The appellate court declared a “relative nullity” of the prior proceedings, which had resulted in a sentence of more than five years’ imprisonment for Becciu on charges including fraud and embezzlement related to the Secretariat of State’s financial operations. While not entirely voiding the original trial, the court determined that the identified defects required a complete retrial.

READ: Bishop Eleganti warned Pope Leo about ‘widespread homosexuality’ within clergy, link to sex abuse

A central element of the ruling was the requirement that all investigative materials be deposited in full, without omissions or selective disclosure, by April 30, 2026. This directive responded to objections raised by defense teams, who had argued that crucial documents had either not been disclosed or had been provided only in redacted form during the initial proceedings.

The case itself concerns the acquisition and subsequent sale of a luxury property on Sloane Avenue in London, a transaction that reportedly resulted in substantial financial losses for the Vatican, estimated at around 200 million euros. The broader investigation also examined the management of funds by the Secretariat of State.

The appellate ruling further addressed the use of a secret rescript issued by Pope Francis on July 2, 2019, which granted expanded investigative powers to the promoter of justice. The court found that such a measure, having direct legal consequences for the defendants, should have been made public, and questioned its validity as applied.

A new hearing has been scheduled for June 22, 2026, at which the timetable for the retrial will be determined. The recent filing of redacted and incomplete documents introduces an additional procedural dispute that the court may need to address before the retrial can proceed.