“The review court did not proceed to verify whether the omitted transmission of the defense briefs to which documents and minutes of the statements made by the suspect were attached, memories produced in the Vatican trial and transmitted to the Italian judicial authority under the rogatory, would have could have assumed a weight and a probative significance of decisiveness, such as to require their full evaluation already by the investigating judge, with reference to the existence of indicative elements of the crime “. This is what the judges of the Third Criminal Section of the Cassation write in the reasons for the sentence of 12 October last with which the cancellation was ordered with postponement after the appeal presented by the defenders of Gianluigi Torzi, the lawyers Marco Franco and Ambra Giovene. The appeal concerned the order of the Rome Review Court which had confirmed the precautionary measure issued against the broker by the Roman investigating judge for the hypothesis of self-laundering of the money obtained by the Vatican for the acquisition of ownership of the London building. “In fact, if the pleadings, if they contain mere defensive perspectives, cannot have the connotation of a decisiveness under this profile, the factual elements also contained in the annexes can instead realize it, since they are not mere information coming from the defense – the judges write – Since the person subjected to the investigations has already produced evidence for the defense in the foreign proceeding in which he is being simultaneously investigated, the review court should have examined whether the cognitive basis submitted to the investigating judge in the precautionary office for the adoption of the measure had been complete with the documentary elements acquired. through the letters rogatory, first of all evaluating whether they (…) presented the characteristics of decisiveness and therefore it was necessary to transmit them to the investigating judge for his complete examination “. The supreme judges have therefore ordered that the matter be returned to the Court of Liberty again to proceed with the verifications “in order to establish the consequences of the failure to transmit to the investigating judge the defensive documentation acquired following the judicial assistance received from the Vatican State”. “The Supreme Court has stigmatized the fact that the investigating judge did not have the opportunity to make an objective and complete assessment based also on defensive elements, produced to the Vatican judge and that the Rome prosecutor did not send to the investigating judge”, he tells the Adnkronos. ‘lawyer Marco Franco, defender together with the broker’s colleague Ambra Giovene. “The motivation seems to leave room for the Review for a new overall assessment – adds the criminal lawyer – We hope that, having passed almost a year since the issue of the precautionary measure, and not having escaped Torzi, participating in the extradition procedure in England, regardless of what the outcome of the Review will be, there is a more serene attitude on the part of the Prosecutor’s Office towards an ascertainment of the truth in the absence of deprivation of liberty “.