Vatican City, Jul 3, 2020 / 04:30 am (CNA).- The Vatican’s financial watchdog authority reported Friday that it received 64 suspicious activity reports in 2019, 15 of which it forwarded to the Promoter of Justice for possible prosecution.
In its annual report, released July 3, the Financial Intelligence Authority (Autorità di Informazione Finanziaria, or AIF) hailed “the rising trend in the ratio between reports to the Promoter of Justice” and cases of suspicious financial activity.
The report comes ahead of a scheduled inspection by Moneyval, the Council of Europe’s anti-money laundering watchdog, which has put pressure on the Vatican to prosecute breaches of financial regulations.
Unlike in previous years, the report was not presented at a Vatican press conference.
The AIF was established by Benedict XVI in 2010 to oversee Vatican financial transactions. It is charged with ensuring that internal banking policies comply with international financial standards.
The number of suspicious activity reports (SARs) is seen as an important indicator of the AIF’s performance. In 2017, there were 150, while in 2018 there were 56.
The AIF forwarded 11 reports to the Promoter of Justice in 2018, four fewer than in 2019.
In the introduction to the new report, AIF director Giuseppe Schlitzer wrote: “Overall, the tendency towards higher quality SARs is strengthening, thanks to the guidelines on more specific anomaly indicators which was provided and a more conscious implementation of a risk-based approach.”
In the introduction Schlitzer said that in 2019 the AIF had “intensified its action in every branch of activity, while consolidating forms of collaboration with other states and jurisdictions.”
“At the system-wide level, also thanks to the Vatican authorities’ strong commitment to fighting money laundering and the financing of terrorism, there was further progress towards a better functioning and international recognition of the jurisdiction,” he wrote.
He noted that the AIF had carried out two onsite inspections at the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR), commonly known as “the Vatican Bank.”
The first, in June, “aimed at assessing the technical compliance with the legal and regulatory framework for payment services.” The second, in August, “consisted in a general compliance assessment in the fields of money laundering and the financing of terrorism.”
The annual report said that the AIF exchanged 66 requests for information with foreign financial intelligence units concerning 373 subjects.
It also said: “Domestic cooperation with the competent authorities of the Holy See and the Vatican City State is intense and led to 24 requests for information and concerned 423 subjects.”
“A marked increase in exchanges with the authorities of the Holy See and Vatican City State was observed as compared with the previous year, which confirms the trend of greater domestic cooperation and exchange of information, as well as greater involvement of Holy See and Vatican City State authorities in countering money-laundering and the financing of terrorism.”
Moneyval was due to carry out a scheduled inspection of the Vatican in spring 2020. But the inspection was delayed due to the coronavirus outbreak.
In a July 3 statement on the AIF’s annual report, the watchdog’s president Carmelo Barbagallo said that the Moneyval evaluation team would begin its inspection of the Holy See and Vatican City State Sept. 29.
“The inspection, which will last about two weeks, was actually scheduled to begin in April but was postponed because of the pandemic. AIF has been tasked with heading the Vatican’s delegation,” he said.
He continued: “Several years have gone by since Moneyval’s first inspection of the Holy See and Vatican City State, which took place in 2012. During this time span, Moneyval has remotely monitored the many advances made by the jurisdiction in the fight to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism. As such, the upcoming inspection is especially important. Its outcome may determine how the jurisdiction is perceived by the financial community.”
“The Moneyval inspection will be broad-based. It will cover both the legislative framework and its effective implementation. It is crucial to arrive well prepared, to highlight the progress achieved in recent years in the system of controls, and to underscore what has been done in recent months to assure further progress.”
Last year was a turbulent period for the financial watchdog.
On Oct. 1, Vatican gendarmes raided the AIF’s offices in connection with a controversial London property deal. This led to the suspension of five employees and officials, including Tommaso Di Ruzza, the AIF’s director. They were also blocked from entering the Vatican.
The Egmont Group, through which 164 financial intelligence authorities share information and coordinate their work, suspended the AIF Nov. 13.
René Brüelhart, a Swiss lawyer who had served as president of the AIF since 2012, resigned Nov. 18.
Marc Odendall, a Swiss-German banker and member of the AIF board, resigned the same day, citing the Egmont Group’s decision and Brüelhart’s departure.
“We cannot access information and we cannot share information. There is no point in staying on the board of an empty shell,” he told the Associated Press.
During an in-flight press conference Nov. 26, Pope Francis confirmed that Di Ruzza remained suspended because of suspected “bad administration.”
“It was AIF that did not control, it seems, the crimes of others. And therefore [it failed] in its duty of controls. I hope that they prove it is not so. Because there is, still, the presumption of innocence,” Pope Francis said.
Barbagallo, an auditor and Italian banking consultant, was named Brüelhart’s successor Nov. 27.
Barbagallo announced in January that the Egmont Group had lifted its suspension of the AIF.
Addressing the incident in his statement on the AIF’s annual report, Barbagallo said: “The suspension was lifted after only two months, once adequate reassurance was provided to Egmont. Crucial to this aim was the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by AIF and the Promoter of Justice.”
“With this memorandum, we were able to assure our foreign counterparts that, should the need arise to seize confidential documents and information, the seizure would be carried out in accordance with the confidentiality standards established by the Egmont Group concerning financial intelligence.”
The Vatican announced the appointment of Schlitzer as director of the AIF April 15. He succeeded Di Ruzza, who completed his five-year term of office January 20, according to the Vatican.
In his July 3 statement Barbagallo said that the AIF hoped to issue “a new statute and the first internal regulation.”
“First and foremost, pursuant to the new statute, the name of the Authority would change to the Supervisory and Financial Information Authority (SFIA), a name that highlights the Authority’s dual nature as intelligence unit and supervisory (and regulatory) authority,” he wrote.
[…]
Yet another steroid fueled popularity contest promoting fraudulence…
Bergoglio is on a warpath to make a handful of recent popes saints. I wouldn’t doubt if he’s going to nominate himself as a saint before he passes…yet, Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s canonization is on a shelf collecting dust…
Let’s make this a lot simpler. It is obvious and undeniable that every pope before Vatican II was a reactionary sinner who is rightfully consigned to the outer darkness and thence forth eternally ignored while every after Vatican II pope is a glorious “Santo Subito” because of course The Council. Once a new pope is elected, he will automatically be called “Saint” in to avoid the tedious and pointless delay and expense in having to wait until he dies and some rigamarole has to be done in the Saint-making sausage factory to beautify and canonize.
Let’s start now and not waste any time: “St. Francis the Great.”
This is good news. John Paul 1, was indeed a saintly man.
What did he actually do that was saintly? Smile for the cameras? John Paul I accomplished precisely zero as pope except being made pope by the same lobbies that made Roncalli as John XXIII and Montini as Paul VI. If he is made a saint, we should all be made saints automatically and thus dispense with the Church, the sacraments, grace, and even Christ Himself.
I, for one, do believe that the Holy Spirit, who works in mysterious ways, does lead the Cardinals to vote for a person that is needed by the Church at the time.
And you know this how? Because he had a cute and innocently-looking smile? Because we should feel sorry for him because he was robbed of years as Pope? Please give us an explication of what you’re aware of regarding his holiness?
Was it the fact of his just being another ordained man saying shallow silly things about the wisdom of Humane Vitae that made him “saintly?”
“saying shallow silly things” says the person who does so regularly.
Be man enough to be specific.
Problem for Team Francis:
A – its chief theologian Cardinal Kasper, promoted by sycophants of the Pontiff Francis such as “Eminence” Cupich, writes and teaches that the faithful “probably don’t need to believe” in the miracle accounts attributed to Jesus as testified by the apostles and evangelists in the New Testament, for example those in this list including the calming of the sea, the Transfiguration, the raising of the widow’s son, the daughter of Jairus and Lazarus, and especially the bodily resurrection of Jesus, which “appearances” were not “objectively TANGIBLE events…it is a mistake to interpret what happened as…a miraculous event…[which] “knocked them over” …. This would lead to the grotesque conclusion that those who first preached faith…were dispensed from faith by having seen…. [the appearances] “were actual encounters with Christ present in the spirit.” (Kasper, Jesus the Christ, the denial of the bodily resurrection being on p. 139 of the 1976 edition).
B – While the contemporary Catholic Church absolves the faithful from believing miracle accounts attested in the Gospels by mere evangelists and apostles, yet the faithful can nevertheless be assured that the “miracles” certified by the Church of Pachamama are all to be believed.
Not a very convincing testimony, your Eminences and Excellencies.
One more comment; I thought to be declared a ‘saint’ in the Church, there would have to be ‘2’ miracles attributed to this person. On here, apparently there was only ‘one’ attributed to JPI. These awards to sainthood seem to be flying off the shelf since Frank took over the ‘holy Chair of Peter…’
Pope John Paul II was shot while he was going to view the Shroud of Turin. When John Paul I died, there had been a three-part series on the Shroud of Turin featured in the Kansas City Star. I remember well how this unfolded. Above the headline banner, in red print, was the announcement of the featured articles each of the three days. Having an interest in the Shroud, and having seen the first article, I was anxious to read the second one. I purchased the newspaper the second day, and the headline that morning announced the death of Pope John Paul I. There, above that headline were two images in red of the crucified Christ, with the notice of the second installment of the series on the Shroud presented in red lettering between them. Rather strange.
Just because you’re not a canonized Saint doesn’t mean you’re a lesser saint. Popes and religious have hordes who labor on promoting their sainthood. Lay people, especially obscure saintly people, don’t have such tireless and savvy advocates. That’s okay because in heaven a saint is a saint. Just strive to be a saint.
Yawn.
I heard rumors that Pope John Paul I was poisoned due to him wanting to investigate corruption in the Vatican Bank. IF true, he would be saintly and likely a martyr, although most of these averments come from unverified sources in the Vatican rumor mill, without any proof to substantiate them thus far.