Natwest three to face justice in the US?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by frenchperson, Jul 8, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I thought they were banged up awaiting extradition but apparently they are not.

    It is puzzling why they don't simply do a moonlight flit, as I am sure there are plenty of people who would put them up until the media and political furore resulted in the extradition being quashed, particularly if they were likely to benefit from the inevitable book deal and newspaper interviews!

    The prospect of being banged up in a US style jail for 2 years and having to spend shedloads of money on lawyers (which will not be reimbursed if found not guilty) makes the option of legging it from the Keystone Kops very attractive. Any resources deployed to track down the NatWest 3 would be compared in the media to the resources deployed in hunting down absconded murderers, causing even more problems for the authorities.

    Any public appeal for information as to their whereabouts would be widely ignored, because of the contempt the public has for the authorities and their ineptness at tackling violent crime.

    So, pack your bags lads!
  2. At their level, having it on the toes would be taken to signify guilt.
    As directors in a financial area of employment, likelyhood is that they have cover for legal expenses.
    Any income from books etc. would be sequestered under existing legislation.
    The SEC are nasty bstards and would very soon have informants lining up to turn the blokes in.
    Not knowing the full circs it is risky to be dogmatic but it is in the power of UK Govt to stop this dead by bringing charges in the UK.
  3. They could always do it the cheap way and get George Galloway to nip over and stuff the septic justice system with a few well placed verbosities!

    Good luck to these three - I have a feeling they are being s*at on from a very great height. If the crime *was* committed here surely they should be tried here.
  4. The US Justice Department are trigger happy when it comes to indictments.
  5. I'm sure they'll be sweating about meeting their 'special friend' when they go over the pond.
  6. If that were one of my relatives I would gather together a large group of supporters, arm ourselves with baseball bats/samurai swords and and make it clear that the cops would have to get through me first.

    The thought of a few riots would force Blair to change his stance.
  7. It goes against the grain with me to see, the Bosses, the High and Mighty, getting special treatment, however in this case it does seem to me thats something smells in the province of wherever.
    No proof has been offered against them to a UK court, Just bodies Give.
    Its suggested that they will be kept in a US nick for two years before their trail, with the Threat/Promise of plead guilty and get a reduced sentance or look at 20 + years inside.
    And as I understand it the original Act was introduced as a result of 9/11 to enable Terrorists to be 'exported' quickly to the US.
    Also the Act was supposed to be reciprical, but for whatever reason Congress has not passed their side of the "Agreement"
    No keep in UK and as ofence was committed here TRY here.
  8. It's neater than that. The affair was investigated by the police here and it wasn't clear that any offence had been committed. Hence, no prosecution. As has been said, it's a case of bodies, give. Hope the poodle is feeling good.

  9. While i generally like Americans (and have American relatives) I and call me old fashioned, also like being a citizen of a nation. Now as far as im aware in the Uk (and i think in the US) your supposed to be tryed by a jury of your peers, therefore surely they should either be tryed here by a jury of their own countrymen, or the Yanks should fly in a jury of Brits! A foreign nation as far as im concerned is not a persons peer!!!

    By principal alone i belive that no nation on this planet has the right to demand (with no proof or case) a citizen to be "rendered" to them without first proving in a UK court of that persons guilt. Im petty sure my Grandfather fought for this country (and i did too! Though not quite to the same degree as they did in WW2) to not be answerable to another nation!!!!!!!!

    As usual we are just "pawns", commodities as you will that bLair uses to further himself with! What are a few Soldiers here and there, what are a couple of civilains there,if it curries favour with other countries!!

    Rant over, sorry but cr*p like this really grips my sh*t!!!!!!!
  10. The flip side of the coin is that the three want to be tried in UK, in the fairly secure knowledge that the Serious Fraud Office will probably make a hash of the prosecution as only they can do. Even if they don't, the most they will receive is a couple of years in a cushy open nick.

    If tried in the US, they have more of a chance of being found guilty by a system which has proved itself capable of convicting and generally handing out stiffer sentences than the current UK one.
  11. Isn't it insider trading if you tell someone to sell a company at a lose leave the building and buy the share's or the company only to sell it at a profit okay I could be wrong but if its not insider trading its got to be close to conspiracy to fraud since they are not acting in the interest of the client but for themselves wouldn't surprise me if it's even against their terms and conditions of employment.

    If the business enabled them to have a fee between them of $8.1m (£4.5m) would you not think theres a conspiracy or something here since Andrew S. Fastow the Enron Chief Financial Officer if facing 98 charges on fraud and conspiracy could this be one of them since it was Enron's funds that were used and wouldn't he have something to do?

    Is it guilty by association in a Andrew S. Fastow criminal act or just collateral damage?

    If this is the case and in the course of trying to find the truth they did nothing wrong why are they worried about going to the US and presenting their case if there is something wrong aren't the prison sentences softer here in the UK than the US wasn’t that one of the reason Nick Leeson wanted to have his case and sentence here 5 years can be a long time but you are out after 3 if you are good however the average sentence facing most of the Enron Directors is 10 years and the lose of the all assets.

    If this went to UK Court could you imagine the number of cases that would follow if a person had a feeling that they had knowingly been given misleading advise in which the advisor benefited, wouldn’t that put the whole banking and business ethics thing under the microscope and create more problems when trading alsorts of goods?
  12. Another factor is that if the evidence involves financial accounting the technicalities are usually way beyond the capabilities of the man in the street. With that in mind most juries in such a case will find in the favour of the defendent with a 'Not Guilty' decision rather than make a guess and bang a bloke up by mistake.
  13. Think we need to remember this! If the UK Police and Natwest dont want to prosecute then by all acounts these men are innocent!!!

    PS; In the UK your innocent till proven guilty, in the US your Guilty till proven Innocent!!!! who wants innocent men to be inprisoned in a foreign jail for 2 years waiting for a trial!! Even if they are found innocent thats still 2 years in a jail!
  14. It isn't a case of the police/SFO don't want to prosecute. It is that they have decided to allow the US jurisdiction.
    From the Guardian:,,-1817140,00.html

    "Under the fast-track extradition procedure introduced in 2003, the US is no longer required to provide prima facie evidence when seeking to extradite suspects from Britain.

    In the case of the NatWest Three, however, evidence has been provided in court."

    The major bug bear is the lack of evidence required before extradition will be granted. In the case of these three, evidence has been shown however.

    I still think, not withstanding the one sided extradition treaty; they want to be tried in UK, in no small measure, due to the easier ride they would get.