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
EBA seeks to allay Simm divergence concerns
EU validator pledges to co-ordinate with global regulators, but retains ability to act alone “if needed”
FRTB models find salvation in US Basel III proposal
Changes to P&L attribution test and NMRFs make IMA viable for US banks, risk managers say
US blows the floors off Basel III
Barr criticises “downward deviations” in US rule; Bowman rejects “blind adherence” to global standards
Basel III endgame – a timeline
A review of Risk.net’s coverage of the US implementation saga
Leaked EU plans offer extra temporary relief for FRTB models
Risk factors would need only two observations to be modellable. Do changes foreshadow US Basel III?
Iosco chief talks cyber, AI and clearing
Buenaventura discusses Iosco’s role in aiding market resilience and cross-border co-operation
US regulators bid to save FRTB IMA, but it’s no small task
Even if industry wish-list is granted, a 2028 start date might be too soon for model adoption
Hopes rise for cross-product netting under SA-CCR
Banks want rule change in Basel III endgame to lower capital costs of clearing UST repos