EVERYTHING TRANSPARENT, AT THE IOR…BUT HOW MANY QUESTIONS WITHOUT AN ANSWER…

14 Giugno 2019 Pubblicato da Marco Tosatti

Marco Tosatti

Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae (and among the latter, to read the news of yesterday’s pontifical audiences, we have a really big Enemy ….) a couple of days ago the Institute for Works of Religion (IOR) published a statement. We present the Ansa news, with the final comment of Msgr. Giovambattista, Ricca, Prelate of Ior.

(ANSA) – VATICAN CITY, 11 JUNE – The Institute for Works of Religion in 2018 served 14,953 clients representing 5 billion euros of financial resources (5.3 billion in 2017), of which 3.2 billion relating to asset management and custody; it achieved a net profit of 17.5 million euros (31.9 million in 2017), “despite the strong market turbulence during the year and the persistence of still very low interest rates”. This was reported by a note summarizing the 2018 budget of the Vatican bank. “Perhaps you will be a bit surprised by the comparison between the profits of the previous years and the profit of this year. I think, however, that there is also a positive aspect” that “serves to remind us of the secondary nature of the Institute and to keep it at its place”. This is the comment by Msgr. Battista Ricca, prelate of the IOR, to the fall in profits. “Too much money risks making us lose the good of the intellect and believe that we are almost omnipotent. This year – he underlines – we do not run this risk”.

And we refer you to a long and detailed article by Aci Stampa.

Both give figures and data, which, as usual, outline a panorama; how accurate, it is impossible to say. Now, those who know me know that the writer has problems with arithmetic, let alone with finance … but reading these texts immediately gave me some curiosity, or Dubia, if you prefer, that I share with you.

Indeed, friends ore knowledgeable then me comfort us in a first question mark. The values shown, provided they are reliable, cannot be easily explained, unless the “comfort letter” of the auditors is attached. In fact, who knows which are the real assets managed? Who knows the real results? The President of the IOR or the Prelate? Or exclusively the Director General, who at this stage was directly and personally appointed by the Pope? And if these figures have been certified by an external auditor, do IOR customers, ie those interested in management results, have the right to know the certified data? It would be a question to ask – but perhaps there would no answer – to Dr. Milone, a former financial data controller, driven out for daring to check …

Some doubts then (a second Dubia, we could call it) are aroused by the affirmation that Moneyval in 2012 appreciated the results and the activities carried out. We fear it is exactly the opposite. In fact, in the April 2012 report, Moneyval spoke of “a step backwards” made by correcting the Anti-Money Laundering Act that had been issued with the motu proprio of Pope Benedict on 12/31/2010. The correction to the Mote Proprio was made by the then Secretary of State, card. Bertone, without apparently informing the Pope. And we are not aware that those corrections have been revised. Also because Vatican internal sources of the AIF, the Audit Office, a sort of Vatican Central Bank, informed at that time that those who had planned the change of the Anti-Money Laundering Law had been the very person who was subsequently appointed President of the AIF itself, after the forced resignation of card. Attilio Nicora: René Brulhart.

And in this regard it must be remembered that the newspaper La Verità, and the news was never denied, published on 30th May 2019, p. 2 an article by Dino Medici under the title: “The sheriff of the Vatican bank involved in the black funds scandal”. Well, we invite you to read this article, which seeks to shed light on who is the Swiss Brulhart who rewrote the Vatican anti-money laundering law in 2012 and subsequently was appointed AIF President (Financial Information Authority, a supervisory body) instead of the card . Nicora (an appointment that provoked the indignation and resignation of the AIF Board of Directors) and is now involved in a scandal of the Malaysian Development Bhd fund; but perhaps it is not the first scandal … (reported by the Tribune de Geneve). Why is Brulhart the vigilante of the Pope’s bank? La Verità states that he was appointed by the Australian cardinal Geoge Pell. But in reality Pell did not want Brulhart, involved in the revision of the anti-money laundering law already in December 2011, and who was appointed President of AIF in 2013, and Pell wanted to send him away. Instead Pell was kicked out … Curious isn’t it?

If this was the third Dubia, the fourth concerns the reassuring narrative that everything worked well for the last six years in the IOR. After the scandalous expulsion of Gotti Tedeschi (whose reasons were never given), we witnessed the second expulsion of a gentleman: the forced “exit” of his successor, Von Freyberg. This is only explained by rumors that tell the disdain of this correct man. In later times twe have seen the resignation of others, all prestigious Councilors, from Carlo Salvatori (former Unicredito President) to Ann Glendon (former US Ambassador to the Holy See), plus another councilor; a German, if I remember correctly. They resigned “polemically”, with the usual “due respect” towards the Church, by the IOR board of directors. All this involves the system of government, which constitutes the fifth Dubia. Transparency leaves one very doubtful. How did the Pope directly personally and without (apparently) convene neither the Supervisory Board nor the Board of Directors, nominate Mattietti General Manager and Deputy Director? And why shortly after this the same Mattietti was fired and even his entry to his offices was inhibited? Also in this case the explanations provided have been quite far from guaranteeing a sufficient form of transparency.

From resignation to resignation we arrive at the sixth Dubia, the most consistent. Why was the controller Dr. Milone thrown out and threatened with legal action? It was an operation that aroused many doubts about the transparency of the Holy See, thanks to the prestige of Milone. What had he discovered in the accounts? And what accounts had he discovered? Belonging to whom?

Finally there is the story of George Pell. He was committed in a perhaps clumsy manner, perhaps too direct, to obey the Pope’s (verbal) will to bring unity, clarity and transparency to the Vatican’s money world; opposed by the Secretariat of State and other large and small economic powers inside; denied, with the technique of the artichoke pealing, leaf after leaf, by his own Master, who with a series of “rescritti” came back on his own reforms; curiously, just as Pell is investigating some files on financial transactions, he is accused in Australia of improbable sexual assaults, and having the character he has he decides to return to Australia to defend his innocence. But what a coincidence … Is it true or not?