Extraordinary Extradition
It was George Bernard Shaw (1896-1950) who said that England and America were two nations separated by a common language. As The Scotsman tells it, when three former bankers from Britain boarded a plane today headed for Houston, Texas, the gulf got a wee bit wider.
THE three former NatWest bankers accused of an £11 million fraud began their extradition journey to the United States today. The so-called NatWest Three - David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby - boarded a flight from Gatwick to Houston, Texas, after reporting to Croydon police station in south London.
What The Scotsman neglects to mention in its opening paragraph is the name of the other party to the fraud- Enron. And that facts says a great deal about how differently the press, politicians, and law enforcement officials view the issue in the two nations. For one thing, there is a considerable degree of sympathy in England for the bankers, and not without good reason:
The extradition of the so-called 'NatWest Three' has attracted wide-spread criticism as it was sanctioned under a controversial fast-track procedure agreed by British authorities with the US. he treaty with Washington means Britons can be extradited to the US without evidence first being produced that they have a case to answer. It has been bitterly attacked by opposition politicians because the US Congress has yet to ratify the treaty, which means there is no reciprocal arrangement for the extradition of US nationals to the UK.
Today's Financial Times reports an unusual concordance in parliament about the case:
Both houses of parliament on Tuesday night united in a rare and striking protest over the planned extradition to the US on Thursday of the “NatWest three”, piling pressure on the British and US governments to intervene. In the House of Lords, Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers passed a resolution stating the US should be stripped from the list of countries to which the UK allows fast-track extradition until the US Senate ratifies a treaty signed by London and Washington in 2003.
And there's also the mysterious death - possibly a suicide - of a fourth man related to the case:
However, the rows over their bail conditions and the treaty were overshadowed yesterday by the death of Mr Coulbeck, 53, a former colleague of the NatWest Three. Civil rights campaigners said they were troubled by reports that he was being hounded by the FBI. Today forensic police officers took fingerprints from Mr Coulbeck's bedroom window as they scoured the family home in Woodford Green. Mr Coulbeck's wife Susan and grown-up sons Ralph and Christopher remained inside the family home, which is being guarded by police officers.
Finally, photos of the Natwest men are, for the most part, sympathetic portraits. The picture at the top of this post borders on glamorous. The men are clearly posing and the photo taken by a professional and in a studio.
Without exception the US media I read mention Enron in the first sentence, something I interpret to mean that they have as much sympathy for the NatWest 3 as they did for the Enron 3- Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, and Andrew Fastow:
AP via The Houston Chronicle: Three bankers flew out of Britain to face prosecution in the United States on charges related to the Enron Corp. scandal Thursday, leaving behind a political storm over the treaty that was used to secure their extradition.
Financial Times via MSNBC: The three former NatWest investment bankers accused in the US of fraud relating to the collapse of energy trader Enron were on Thursday morning beginning their 10-hour extradition journey to the US.
Bloomberg: One of three British bankers being extradited to the U.S. today on Enron Corp.-related fraud charges said the U.K. government failed him and his former colleagues.
Houston Chronicle: The case of three British bankers who face extradition to Houston today on Enron-related fraud charges took a strange twist when the body of a former colleague was found in woods in east London.
And though the NatWest 3 and their lawyers are are anxious to portray their extradition as a miscarriage of justice and to portray themselves as victims, it seems almost certain that they will receive bail and an oportunity to earn a living in Houston while awaiting trial. That said, given the serious nature of the charges against the three...
The US indictment against the NatWest Three alleges that they plotted with former Enron executives to syphon off some $20m from an Enron debt vehicle held in the Cayman Islands tax haven in 2000. It says the trio persuaded NatWest to sell its stake in the Enron company for $1m - far less than it was worth - and pocketed the difference, a total of $7.35m. The deal happened at a time when the UK bank was fighting against a hostile takeover bid from Royal Bank of Scotland which was ultimately successful.
...it's not clear they could get gainful employment anywhere in the state or anywhere else in the States.
Tags: Natwest3 | Natwest 3 | Enron |
Correction: the information previously appearing here about a website for one of the NatWest 3 was incorrect. I actually posted the site of Free Gary McKinnon, not the site for the NatWest 3 which is entitled "Friends Extradited." Thanks to a thoughtful reader, fg, for pointing out the mistake. For the record, McKinnon is accused by prosecutors in the US of undertaking the "biggest military computer hack of all time." As far as I know he has never been associated in any way with the Enron scandal or any of the NatWest 3. The only thing that I know of that McKinnon has in common with the NatWest 3 is that he is facing extradition to the US. Quite understandably, Gary's webteam follows the developments in the NatWest 3 case very closely.
Update 2: In the material that I removed because of an error, I asked what it was about the US justice system that made the British so uncomfortable. Here's the answer from the Gary McKinnon site:
Gary was indicted by a US court in November 2002, accused of "hacking" into over 90 US Military computer systems from here in the UK. The unjust treatment of British citizens (and others) when facing the might of the US Military "justice" sysem, which practices detention without trial in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, and stands accused of making use of torture by allied regimes ("extraordinary rendition") is an ongoing scandal. It cannot be excused even by a "war on terror". It seems only just that Gary should face any charges in a British court, and to serve any sentence, if he is found guilty, in a British prison.
So what do Gary's friends think, really? That we'd toss a hacker into Guantanamo with al-Qaedists? That we'd pull out his finger nails until he gave up his passwords? But in all seriousness, I do wonder why Gary hasn't yet been brought up on charges in the UK: did he break any of their laws? Does the US even have any evidence against him?
Comments
Stuart,
thanks for your comment.
Contrary to what you seem to have included, I do NOT assume that just because the US legal system wants to prosecute the NatWest 3 it means that the US has a viable case against them. They may think they do, but it doesn't mean they do. I won't be convinced the men broke US law until I see and/or hear the evidence. To hear you tell it, no crime was committed either in the US or upon a US entity. That's plausible but I can't help thinking there must be more to the story. Thanks again for providing a perspective I had yet to hear.
Posted by: Starling | July 15, 2006 12:34 AM
As with almost all US commentators, you miss the point.
The alleged loss was suffered by NatWest, a British Bank, who were advised to sell shares allegedly below value. This took place in London.
The British authorities have decided not to prosecute on this matter. The US authorities have no business doing so.
This is extra territorial reach at its worst.
If it was Enron itself, a US corporation, that had lost out from this, I would have no objection to a US prosecution.
However, there appears to be no suggestion that Enron itself lost out in this deal, and there seems to be no connection here with the financial wrongdoings within Enron itself.
The furore about the extradition is a sideshow, the principle at stake is the seeming ability of the US to prosecute UK citizens under their laws, alleged crimes taking place in the UK which the alleged victim is a UK institution.
Our message to you is - butt out of our affairs.
Posted by: Stuart Walker (England) | July 14, 2006 3:10 PM
Perhaps understandably, you are confusing Gary McKinnon's support web blog FreeGary.org.uk
support site, with the NatWest 3 - David Bermingham, Giles Darby and Gary Mulgrew - support site www.friendsextradited.org
Gary McKinnon's case also involves Extradition to the USA, but he is accused of hacking into over 90 US Military computer systems, something which he admits, but he does not admit to the hugely inflated amount of alleged financial damage, which he is accused of. Gary is facing 70 years in prison in the USA (he is now 40 years old).
Many of the same legal arguments apply, e.g. the lack of any challengable evidence presented to the extradition hearing under the new, unfair Extradition Act 2003 procedures, the fact that UK law and juridiction is perfectly able to try someone in the UK for such alleged offences committed physically from London, by a British citizen.
Therefore there is plenty of of comment about the NatWest 3 case on FreeGary.org.uk, as his case is a few months behind that of the NatWest 3 in the extradition appeals process, and any legal precedents regarding the unfair Extradition
Act 2003.
One of the arguments made on the NatWest 3's website is worth repeating. It shows why so many people feel that British sovereignty has been surrendered unecessarily to the USA:
Posted by: fg | July 14, 2006 12:11 AM