The NatWest Three case lacks common sense, proportion — and a victim

A head of steam is building up behind the campaign to halt the imminent extradition to the US of the NatWest Three, the trio who face trial (and two years in a tough Texas jail before trial) for an alleged $6 million ‘wire fraud’ against NatWest in connection with the sale of a joint venture between the bank and Enron. Attention has focused on the unequal extradition terms to which the Blair government agreed in its eagerness to be America’s best friend in the War on Terror, allowing US prosecutors to summon British suspects for trial without first having to present evidence against them. But what is really offensive is not the fact that we do not have equal powers to extradite Americans, but that the whole case for throwing the book at Messrs Bermingham, Darby and Mulgrew (who could face Texan sentences ten times longer than the same offence would attract here) is so lacking in common sense and proportion. The alleged crime was committed by British citizens against a British company, and comes within range of US justice only because some of the telecommunications involved passed through US territory. The Texans only pursued the case in the hope that plea-bargaining by the trio would incriminate senior Enron executives. NatWest (now part of Royal Bank of Scotland) never claimed to be the victim of fraud. Our own Financial Services Authority looked at the case and did not instigate a criminal inquiry — apparently reassured by RBS that the joint venture had been sold at a sensible, rather than fraudulent, price. But RBS has refused to release documents that might assist the trio’s final plea to the Home Secretary, John Reid, to review the extradition. Unless Reid decides that now is the moment to stand up to the Americans, lives will be ruined, transatlantic trade and investment will suffer, big-time fraudsters will go about their business undeterred — and Justice will surely blush to see her powers so absurdly misapplied.

Dressing for success