GUILTY: Priest Convicted Of Nicking £200 Mass Collection

Court Out: Father Pantisano

A parish priest has been convicted of stealing £200 from his church’s Sunday collection after being caught on CCTV helping himself to the cash.

Father Fortunato Pantisano, 44, fought the charge, but was so unconvincing in the witness box magistrates said his evidence assisted the prosecution case against him.

The Italian-born priest, who was ordained at Westminster Cathedral in 2013, was based at Our Lady of Perpetual Help church in Tynemouth Street, Fulham.

He was found guilty at City of London Magistrates Court of stealing the money, which was never returned, after the second mass of the day on January 7.

Father Pantisano, who has had to move to accommodation at St. Edward’s Convent, Harewood Avenue, Marylebone, was bailed for a pre-sentence report.

The trial heard he was reported to police by parish volunteer John McGranaghan, who had placed the two wicker baskets in a locked office, which could also be accessed from the priest’s house.

“This was the collection from the parishioners for the two masses that morning,” he told the trial. “We went back to count the offertory and there were two empty baskets and the collection had gone.”

He suggested collection money had been going missing at the church recently. “Because of what had been happening in the previous weeks I decided to go back to count the money that day.”

Fortunately CCTV in the office showed Father Pantisano enter via an adjoining door, remove the two baskets containing cash from the room, then return them empty.

Called Police: John McGranaghan

The Diocese of Westminster Director of Resources, Robert Walker told the court there are strict rules regarding the cash collections and individual priests cannot simply help themselves to the money.

“Basically I see the money going from one hand to the other and it is taken without authorisation,” he said regarding the CCTV. “He is taking individual notes from the baskets and leaves with the money.

“There is no reason for him to be in there at that time, particularly as he was suspended.”

Father Pantisano was arrested on April 30 and gave a ‘no comment’ interview at Hammersmith Police Station.

He told the trial he was not suspended and was entitled to be in the office, but could not recall if he had taken any of the collection money.

“I do not remember taking any money. If I did it was not my intention to be dishonest, it was to buy food maybe, I don’t remember.

“Sometimes there are emergencies like homeless needing money or charities or the priests need to buy food.”

Sermon: Father Pantisano

Prosecutor Nathan Paine-Davey asked the priest: “It is not credible to say you do not remember taking the money, is it? It is what has brought you here today.

“You have gone into that office by unlocking the door from your side and taken that money. That’s the truth isn’t it?”

Father Pantisano replied: “I am the parish priest and I have a right to be there. The money is given for the priests to decide what to do.

“I deny stealing and I have no other comment.”

Mr Paine-Davey told the magistrates: “The defendant cannot tell you why he had his hands in the baskets and took them out of view. That is not credible.

“The purpose of removing the baskets was to steal money out of sight of the CCTV and only today we hear this vague, rambling account of what happened.

“You just can’t put your hand in a collection basket. That is dishonesty.”

Guilty: Father Pantisano

Father Pantisano’s lawyer Nina Reinach said: “To be found guilty of this offence would be incredible serious. This is a man of good character who has never been in trouble and that has to be counted to his credit.”

Finding him guilty bench Chairman Stuart McCaighy told the priest: “You took money and envelopes of money from the wicker baskets into a room outside the view of the CCTV.

“You took money from those baskets and you could not give us any reason why you were in the office or a credible explanation why you were taking the money.

“You gave no reason for handling the money or any examples of why the £200 was missing. Your lack of credibility strengthened the case against you.

“We are sure beyond reasonable doubt you dishonestly appropriated this money. The bench find you guilty of this offence.”

In his impact statement Mr Walker said: “This has caused an incredible amount of mistrust between the church and the parishioners. It only takes one person to do something wrong to ruin the reputation of the rest.”

Mr Paine-Davey added: “Clearly this defendant holds a position of trust within the church community. That is an aggravating factor as far as sentencing is concerned.”