3 BANKERS LOSE EXTRADITION APPEAL IN ENRON CASE
EXECS SAY EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE EXCLUDED, EXTRADITION FORCED VIA POST-9/11 TERROR EXTRADITION TREATY
21 February 2006

Three former executives for Greenwich NatWest, a subsidiary of NatWest Bank, have lost their appeal for refusal of extradition to the US on charges of fraud in connection to the Enron corruption case. The executives may now face up to two years in a federal prison awaiting trial, classified as "fugitives from justice" solely for fighting extradition.

The three executives had attempted to defend themselves against extradition, arguing that the US government had not presented adequate evidence to support the fraud charges, and that they believed they had a fundamental right to face the evidence presented against them.

Arguing that extradition without sufficient evidence would be a violation of their human rights, the three argued they should be allowed to face the charges and defend themselves in London, where the fraud allegedly happened and where the victim of the alleged fraud is based.

The US government, in the course of its investigation into the multi-billion dollar accounting fraud committed by the Enron corporation, to which multiple executives have already pled guilty, charged the three former NatWest bankers with collaborating with two executives at Enron in a scheme to defraud a subsidiary of their employer NatWest.

In fact, the accused Britons have cited their cooperation with the investigation from the beginning. They claim that when evidence of wrongdoing first emerged, they approached authorities and offered documentation to both the UK government and the US SEC, overseeing the investigation.

They also raised the issue of proper jurisdiction. They are accused of defrauding a British firm, which has itself not sought to prosecute them for the alleged fraud. The materials and the witnesses needed to effectively mount a defense are also based in London.

One of the executives has told the BBC, they specifically requested that the UK government investigate and prosecute the allegations, in order to have a hearing and allow the evidence for and against them to be heard, but that the UK government refused to prosecute.

Prior to 9/11, the US government had sought the extradition of a terror suspect, accused of collaborating with the 9/11 hijackers to help train them as pilots; the US reportedly produced no evidence. Under the post-9/11 treaty, no evidence was required to mount a prima facie case against the NatWest bankers; so the UK High Court found that there was no substantial basis for refusing extradition.

The accused will appeal the judgement to the House of Lords, where they believe they may have some relief, as their extradition could pose a serious threat to the normal functioning of UK business, given that any executive could be extradited to the US at any time, on charges not supported by credible evidence.

They intend to use the argument that the precedent opens a Pandora's Box for possible or likely abuses and gives the right to a foreign government to persecute UK citizens with impunity. The US and UK governments so far have taken the position that the charges are relevant to the Enron prosecution, which is located in Texas, and that the executives must face trial there. [s]

• Financial Times: "Ex-NatWest bankers lose Enron extradition appeal"