Three British bankers lose legal battle over US attempt to extradite them.

[DoYouEverWonder]

LATEST: Three British bankers lose legal battle over US attempt to extradite them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/default.stm


Story not posted yet. Just the headline on the BBC crawl at this point. I'm very curious who these three bankers might be?

[Wilms]

1. Probably this case.

Judges to rule in Enron extradition case

Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:41 PM GMT173

LONDON (Reuters) - Two senior British judges are set to rule on Tuesday in a long-running case involving three former NatWest bankers who are fighting extradition to the United States over Enron-related fraud charges.

The former bankers -- David Bermingham, Giles Darby and Gary Mulgrew -- are appealing Home Secretary Charles Clarke's decision to allow their extradition to face trial in the U.S.

They have also challenged the Serious Fraud Office's decision not to investigate their case in Britain.

The three, who worked for NatWest Bank, now part of Royal Bank of Scotland, are alleged to have conspired with Enron executives, including former Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow, over the sale of a stake in an Enron entity in 2000, which made them $7.3 million (4.2 million pounds).

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-20T144149Z_01_L20261335_RTRUKOC_0_UK-FINANCIAL-ENRON-EXTRADITION.xml&archived=False

[wakeme2008]

2. it's there now

Enron trio lose extradition fight
Three British bankers wanted in the US in connection with the Enron scandal have lost their High Court battle against extradition.

David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby had appealed against a decision by the Home Secretary to allow their extradition.

The three former NatWest executives argue they are innocent and should be tried by a British jury.

..one more sentence at link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4735292.stm

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. Interesting

Mr Bermingham has criticised terror laws being used in the extradition


What's this about using terror laws to get these guys?

[magellan]

3. I think it might be these here fellows

US opens Enron case to extradite British bankers

Three British former NatWest bankers accused of conspiring with senior Enron fraudsters to embezzle almost $20m (£11m) will today begin their battle against extradition to the United States.

Gary Mulgrew, David Bermingham and Giles Darby are charged with seven counts of wire fraud and are facing the prospect of a high profile trial a stone's throw from the former Enron headquarters in Houston, Texas.

Their alleged co-conspirators - former Enron chief financial officer Andrew Fastow and his right-hand man at the collapsed energy firm, Michael Kopper - have pleaded guilty to charges relating to the alleged fraud and are cooperating with the US department of justice's Enron taskforce.

more....http://www.guardian.co.uk/enron/story/0,11337,1243622,00.html

[PhilipShore]

5. Reuters: British bankers lose Enron extradition appeal

Reuters
British bankers lose Enron extradition appeal
Feb 21, 2006

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2006-02-21T100815Z_01_WLA7854_RTRUKOC_0_US-FINANCIAL-ENRON-EXTRADITION.xml&archived=False

LONDON (Reuters) - Three former NatWest bankers lost an appeal on Tuesday against extradition to the United States over fraud charges related to collapsed U.S. energy firm Enron.

The judgment said there was no sufficient basis upon which the extradition request ought to have been refused on proportionality grounds.

The bankers -- David Bermingham, Giles Darby and Gary Mulgrew -- had appealed against British Home Secretary Charles Clarke's decision to allow their extradition to face trial in the United States.

The trio also lost an appeal for Britain's Serious Fraud Office to review their case.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. So they think it's okay to come here and steal our money

but then they don't want to come here to face charges for their acts? I'm glad they lost their appeal, bastards.

[iverglas]

12. do I ever wonder ...

So they think it's okay to come here and steal our money

... how some people get so much mileage out of those two little letters: "So ... "

Did these guys say they thought it was okay to go to the US and steal money? I don't think so. So I wonder why you'd say they thought it.

They seem to be asserting their innocence, and asking to be tried under the laws that apply. If the US had wanted the offences with which they are charged to be extraditable, the US might have considered seeking an extradition treaty with the UK that said that. (Damn, I wonder whether the US might be concerned about some other countries wanting treaties like that, and wanting US citizens extradited for doing things that the US just doesn't want to extradite them for. Kinda like that International Criminal Court thingy ...)

That little thing called "the rule of law" prevents things being done to people because somebody doesn't like what they are alleged to have done. It requires that there be a law against what they did, and a law that permits the things to be done to them.

It seems that there is such a law in this case: "terror laws". One Big Law, I guess. Amounting to if we say you did something we don't like, we get to do things to you. Just not really compatible with that old rule of law thing.

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. Seems the judge in England disagrees with you

in this particlur case since he has ruled that they can be extradited.

[iverglas]

14. Seems ...

One of those other devious little words.

I have no clue how you might think that the judge in England disagreed with me. Or why you would say that it seems he did, when it doesn't seem that way at all.

No need to read what I said in order to read my mind, I guess. As is usual around here.

What I said:

It seems that there is such a law in this case: "terror laws".

What Reuters said:

Their case falls under UK legislation in force since January 2004 that was designed to speed up the transfer of suspected terrorists to the United States.

Under treaty, the United States is able to demand a Briton's extradition without having to provide any evidence, but Britain has to prove its case in a U.S. court.

The UK judge applied a treaty validly entered into by the UK. I didn't say otherwise.

You were the one who said:

What's this about using terror laws to get these guys?

... and then a little over two hours later said:

So they think it's okay to come here and steal our money
but then they don't want to come here to face charges for their acts?

I corrected you. The men being extradited have never said, or given you any reason to believe they think, that it's okay for them to go to the US and steal your money.

And your question about "using terror laws" was answered.

So ... you seem to be saying that it's okay to use laws designed to ensure speedy prosecution of people accused of terrorist acts, to extradite people charged with crimes for which they could not normally be extradited.

Have I got it right? If that's not it, I really don't know what you are saying.

Glad you're so sanguine about the abuse of "terror" laws against anybody the US govt doesn't like.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. The extradition treaty is not about terrorism at all

Here it is: 15 page PDF. It does not mention terrorism once. It covers any crime punishable by a year or more in prison in both countries. The most notable feature of the treaty is that for extradition to the US, all that is needed is a copy of a warrant issued by a US judge, and proof that the person in Britain is the person named in the charge. For extradition to the UK, however, there must be evidence that there is a reasonable basis to believe the person charged is guilty. Despite this one-sided treaty, the UK parliament passed it, allowing extradition to the US without evidence; but the US senate has not yet ratified the treaty, because they seem to think it would still make it too easy to extradite people to the UK (pressure for that has come largely from the Irish nationalist lobby).

Now, given when the treaty was written, it's likely that the governments had in mind, when writing it, using it to send suspected terrorists to the USA extremely quickly, but it clearly applies to crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism in any form.

[HuffleClaw]

6. blair still being bush's poodle i see

"...the offences they are charged with are not extradition offences, forcing them to stand trial in the US is unjust and breaches European human rights laws."

well, little piffling things like laws don't concern bushco. and TERROR LAWS? exactly what people said they'd do, use terror laws in completely unrelated cases. for that matter, how often do americans get extradited to other countries? i seem to recall bushco. blocking that cuban terrorist guy from being extradited not so long ago.

[Eugene]

7. BBC Link: Enron trio lose extradition fight

Last Updated: Tuesday, 21 February 2006, 10:21 GMT

Enron trio lose extradition fight

Three British bankers wanted in the US in connection with the Enron scandal have lost
their High Court battle against extradition.

David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby had appealed against a decision by the
Home Secretary to allow their extradition.

The three former NatWest executives argue they are innocent and should be tried by a British jury.

Enron collapsed in 2001 after revealing it inflated profits and hid debts.

<snip>

Full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4735292.stm

[PhilipShore]

8. AP: Three former Enron insiders to testify against Lay, Skilling

Associated Press
Three former Enron insiders to testify against Lay, Skilling
Feb. 21, 2006

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/13923099.htm

HOUSTON - The next three government witnesses in the fraud and conspiracy trial of former Enron chiefs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling are hardly household names but may still deliver testimony that is devastating to the defendants.

They include two government cooperators -- one of whom pleaded guilty to insider trading -- and a former in-house accountant who found financial chaos at a retail energy unit that Enron founder Lay and former Chief Executive Skilling touted publicly as a robust business that would bring in billions of dollars.

Prosecutors' next witnesses will be Paula Rieker, who in May 2004 pleaded guilty to charges of insider trading; Wes Colwell, the former top trading-division accountant who paid the Securities and Exchange Commission $500,000 to settle allegations of manipulating earnings; and Wanda Curry, a former accountant who found contracts overvalued by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Rieker was the top lieutenant to Koenig before becoming the company's corporate secretary. During more than seven days of testimony, Koenig said he, Skilling and Lay -- at different times throughout 2001 -- misled Wall Street and employees about the company's finances. Rieker admitted that in July 2001 she cashed out stock options upon learning that the company's broadband unit lost tens of millions of dollars more in the second quarter than Skilling had earlier told Wall Street the division would lose for the entire year.

[Demeter]

9. How Odd: This Isn't in Tues. NYTimes...

Based on my morning skim through the rag.

It's posted on the website as of 6 AM==didn't make press time. How convenient!

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Seems the judges in England

ruled early in the AM, England time. I don't think you can fault the NYT's for that, even though I don't doubt that they will bury the story anyway.