Important case in the US against the Vatican dismissed
Today, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed
with prejudice the lawsuit filed in 2002 by the insurance commissioners of five states
– Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, Oklahoma and Arkansas – against the Holy See.
The
plaintiffs in the case withdrew their claims definitively due to an absence of evidence
supporting the accusations.
Below we publish the Statement of Lawyer Jeffery
S. Lena, Counsel for the Holy See regarding this Dismissal.
Statement
of Jeffrey S. Lena Regarding Dismissal of Dale v. Colagiovanni
I.
Introduction
Today, the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Mississippi dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit filed in 2002 by the insurance
commissioners of five states – Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, Oklahoma and Arkansas
– against the Holy See. The dismissal “with prejudice” means that the U.S. District
Court terminated the Dale v. Colagiovanni case with a definitive judgment
that bars the insurance commissioners from ever reviving their claims.
The
dismissal was not the result of any settlement agreement. The request for dismissal
was filed by the insurance commissioners of their own accord without any form of
payment or other consideration being made to the commissioners by the Holy See
or any other entity or individual.
The insurance commissioners’ original lawsuit,
filed in 2001, was based upon the criminal activity of Martin Frankel and his co-conspirators
from 1991 to 1999. Frankel, operating under the pseudonym “David Rosse,” acquired
and looted several insurance companies in the above-mentioned states. The insurance
commissioners added the Holy See as a defendant to the lawsuit – which alleged
violations of the federal criminal fraud statutes and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) – on May 9, 2002.
As shown by the
pertinent facts and the insurance commissioners’ decision to dismiss their own
case with prejudice, the Holy See had nothing to do with Frankel’s scheme to acquire
and loot insurance companies. The commissioners’ decision to pursue fraud, conspiracy,
and racketeering claims against the Holy See was wrong.
II. Important Facts
The
Holy See was first approached by Frankel’s associates in 1998 under the false pretense
that “Rosse,” purportedly a wealthy financier from the United States, wished to
donate millions of dollars to the Catholic Church to help the poor. Through his
associates, “Rosse” proposed helping the poor by creating and funding a charitable
foundation in the Vatican. Unbeknownst to the Holy See, Frankel’s secret intention
was to use the foundation in his ongoing scheme to buy and loot insurance companies.
The
Holy See categorically rejected the notion that “Rosse” could ever create a
Vatican foundation. In particular, on September 7, 1998, Holy See Secretary of State
Angelo Cardinal Sodano, writing in his own hand, rejected outright the idea of a
donation by “Rosse” and instructed that no such foundation could ever be created in
the Vatican.
Faced with the Holy See’s unambiguous rejection, Frankel pursued
a new scheme. He created a fake foundation in the British Virgin Islands that he denominated
the “St. Francis of Assisi Foundation to Serve and Help the Poor and Alleviate
Suffering” (“SFAF”). Posing as the Vatican’s “financial advisor,” Frankel falsely
claimed that SFAF was affiliated with the Holy See and that Pope John Paul II had
personally authorized the funding of the foundation. Through these machinations,
the Holy See became the unwitting victim of Frankel’s fraud, which sought to trade
on the Holy See’s name and reputation to continue to purchase and loot insurance
companies.
The Holy See consistently repudiated any notion that it was connected
to SFAF. When an insurance company targeted by Frankel inquired in January 1999 whether
SFAF was affiliated with the Vatican, the Holy See responded in writing that “no
such Foundation has the approval of the Holy See or exists in the Vatican.” See Attachment
A. When the Mississippi Insurance Department asked the Apostolic Nunciature to
the United States in April 1999 whether the Vatican had provided $1.9 billion to
SFAF – a patently absurd figure amounting to more than eight times the Holy See’s
annual budget – Nunciature officials explicitly told the regulators that the Holy
See had not provided any funds. The Nunciature provided further information to
the Mississippi Insurance Department in June 1999, when it again confirmed through
the General Counsel of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that the
Holy See had no affiliation with SFAF and had never provided any funding to the
foundation. See Attachment B. And when the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut transmitted a formal letter rogatory to the Vatican City State
Tribunal in 2001, Holy See officials, in the spirit of international comity and cooperation,
provided sworn testimony explaining that the Holy See had rejected Frankel’s attempt
to create a Vatican foundation and had repeatedly made clear that the Vatican had
nothing to do with h SFAF.1
Despite the Holy See’s ready cooperation with official
inquiries, state insurance regulators sued the Holy See for $600 million in 2002
– even though the Holy See had never received any money from Frankel. As noted
above, the lawsuit charged that the Holy See had engaged in criminal fraud and
racketeering in violation of the federal RICO statute.
1 Attached is the
sworn testimony of Giovanni Battista Cardinal Re before a civil tribunal of the
Vatican City State pursuant to the letter rogatory request of the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. See Attachment C. Cardinal
Re affirmed that the creation of a foundation in the Vatican “was unthinkable and
impossible.” Id. Cardinal Re also testified that, in response to requests
for information related to SFAF, “the Secretariat of State made clear, with certainty,
that such a foundation was not a Vatican foundation and never had anything to do
with the Holy See.” Id.
As today’s dismissal with prejudice shows, the
state insurance regulators’ decision to sue the Holy See for Frankel’s crimes was
unsupported by the evidence. It was also incongruous, since two government investigations
had already concluded – long before the Holy See was ever sued – that it was state
insurance regulators who allowed Frankel’s nine-year scheme to persist unabated.
Indeed, according to reports by the United States General Accounting Office and
the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury, the failures of state regulators included
the followin2 g:
• Failure to act on “red flags” relating to the highly unusual
ownership structure of Frankel’s insurance companies. (GAO Report at 16, 17,
47; Comptroller Report at 17, 18, 19). • Inadequate due diligence at the insurance
company acquisition stage. (GAO Report at 16, 17, 47; Comptroller Report at 18). •
Inadequate assessment of highly unusual and improbable investment activities. (GAO
Report at 16, 22-23, 31, 47; Comptroller Report at 7, 27, 29, 35, 38, 52). •
Inadequate efforts to independently validate the identity and appropriateness of
the insurance companies’ asset custodian.
2 See United States General
Accounting Office, Insurance Regulation: Scandal Highlights Need for
Strengthened Regulatory Oversight (Sept. 2000) (“GAO Report”), available at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/gg00198.pdf (Attachment D); Tennessee Comptroller
of the Treasury, Review of Inaction on the Part of Insurance Division
Employees Involved in the Regulation of Franklin American Life Insurance Company
(July 2000) (“Comptroller Report”), available at http://www.comptroller1. state.tn.us/repository/SA/in003501.pdf
(Attachment E). (GAO Report at 16, 22, 26, 29, 31, 47; Comptroller Report at 23,
25, 26). • Inadequate examinations of the Frankel insurance companies. (GAO
Report at 16, 29, 30; Comptroller Report at 31, 34, 35, 37). • Failure to obtain
necessary securities-related expertise from state securities regulators or contracted
assistance. (GAO Report, at 16, 28; Comptroller Report at 29, 30, 54). • Failure
to communicate with other relevant state agencies. (GAO Report at 16, 17, 21, 27,
28, 35, 36; Comptroller Report at 26). • Failure to communicate properly within
the insurance division. (Comptroller Report at 13, 16, 41, 42). • Failure to
communicate with out-of-state insurance regulators examining the Frankel insurance
companies. (GAO Report at 16, 17, 21, 29, 32, 33, 34, 48). The reports concluded
that if state insurance regulators had not been asleep at the wheel, Frankel’s
scheme either would have never gotten off the ground in 1991 or would have been
halted long before 1999. See GAO Report at 15, 17, 18, 19, 25, 27, 28, 29,
31, 32, 36, 46, 47; Comptroller Report at 13, 14, 18, 23, 25, 28, 31, 35, 42, 50-51,
52, 54.
In short, according to the findings of the Government Accounting Office
and the Tennessee Comptroller, state insurance regulators bore much of the blame
for allowing Frankel’s long-running scheme to continue unchecked. And yet state regulators
turned around and sued the Holy See – a foreign sovereign that had cooperated with
official investigations and that was in no way responsible for Frankel’s crimes.
III.
Conclusion The insurance commissioners’ lawsuit against the Holy See, which
alleged a wide-ranging Vatican conspiracy and cast aspersions upon numerous respected
Holy See officials, perhaps effectively shifted the spotlight from the regulators’
own conduct. But, in the end, the lawsuit resulted in the imposition of major unnecessary litigation
costs upon the Holy See, which was thereby further victimized by Frankel’s fraud.
And the case only served to aggravate any prior errors by state regulators, since
a significant amount of public money was wasted pursuing an ill-conceived lawsuit.
It
is worth noting that Dale v. Colagiovanni was one of three cases filed in the United
States during the 1999-2002 period that alleged misconduct by the Institute for
Religious Works (“IOR”). Like the other two cases – Alperin v. Vatican Bank and Zivkovich
v. Vatican Bank – Dale has now resulted in complete dismissal of all claims.
Once again, sensational allegations of IOR misconduct have crumbled under their
own weight.
That inflammatory allegations against the Holy See and the IOR
are easily disseminated and make good fodder for conspiracy theorists cannot be
doubted. But it would inure to the public’s benefit if those same journalists who
enthusiastically disseminated such allegations when the cases were filed would
pick up their pens to write with equal vigor upon the cases’ demise. To do so would
responsibly reflect the public record that each of the cases died the undignified
death it deserved.
Jeffery S. Lena, Counsel for the Holy See
E-mail:
jlena@sbcglobal.net
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION MIKE CHANEY,
Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Mississippi, in his official
capacity as Receiver of FRANKLIN PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. EMILIO COLAGIOVANNI;
et al., Defendants. ))))))))))) No.
3:01-cv-00663-WHB-LRA ORDER This cause comes to be heard upon Plaintiffs’
Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Claims Against Defendant Holy See a/k/a Vatican
City State (“Holy See”), the Court being informed that the Holy See has no objection
to the Motion or to the form of this Order, and the Court having concluded the
Motion is well taken, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’
claims against the Holy See are hereby dismissed with prejudice. SO ORDERED. Date:
02/1/2012 s/William H. Barbour, Jr. Honorable William H. Barbour United States
District Judge