Former Uk NatWest Bankers Face US Courts
LONDON – Three former UK-based bankers who worked for NatWest will now have to go to the US to face Enron-related fraud charges after their court battle fighting extradition to the US was lost in late June. The three – David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby – argued that if they were to be prosecuted for the transactions they undertook, it should be in the UK where they live and where they were based when they completed the deals.
Lawyers for the men say that under the US legal system they could face up to 35 years in prison if they are found guilty of the seven counts of 'wire fraud' they are charged with. It is estimated that the court case will cost each of them $2 million in legal fees and associated expenses.
The three bankers worked for NatWest Bank, which is now part of Royal Bank of Scotland. They are alleged to have conspired with Enron executives over the sale of a stake in an Enron entity in 2000 for less than it was worth, which earned them $7.3 million.
The extradition falls under a new, controversial treaty in force since January 2004, which was designed to speed up the extradition of terror suspects to the US. However, the US has not signed its side of the treaty, so the UK does not have the same power to extradite individuals from the US. There are several other executives in the UK fighting extradition as well.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Capital neutrality key to completing Basel III, says Quarles
Former Republican Fed vice-chair thinks Hill or Bowman could help revive stalled prudential rules
Review of 2024: as markets took a breather, firms switched focus
In the absence of major crises and rules deadlines, financial firms revamped strategy, services and practices
Dora flood pitches banks against vendors
Firms ask vendors for late addendums sometimes unrelated to resiliency, requiring renegotiation
Swiss report fingers Finma on Credit Suisse capital ratio
Parliament says bank would have breached minimum requirements in 2022 without regulatory filter
‘It’s not EU’: Do government bond spreads spell eurozone break-up?
Divergence between EGB yields is in the EU’s make-up; only a shared risk architecture can reunite them
CFTC weighs third-party risk rules for CCPs
Clearing houses could be required to formally identify and monitor critical vendors
Why there is no fence in effective regulatory relationships
A chief risk officer and former bank supervisor says regulators and regulated are on the same side
Snap! Derivatives reports decouple after Emir Refit shake-up
Counterparties find new rules have led to worse data quality, threatening regulators’ oversight of systemic risk