Global Criminal Media Expert

When the FBI Comes Calling…^®

July 19, 2005

British extradition law casts wide net for the US
WEIRD JUSTICE: Business, human-rights and political figures in Britain are furious that a law meant to share terrorism suspects is being used for financial 'crimes'

By The Associated Press (LONDON)

When Britain signed a treaty with the US in 2003 that drastically reduced the evidence required from US officials seeking to extradite suspected felons, the British government said it was all about speeding up the process of bringing terrorists to justice.

What few expected to see was US authorities using the law to pursue senior executives -- whose alleged offenses either took place mostly in Britain or were not even crimes here -- alongside the likes of Abu Hamza al-Masri, the hook-handed preacher wanted on terrorism charges.

Yet that is what has happened to three NatWest bankers -- David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Derby -- who are facing charges in an 11 million (US$19.4 million) fraud case arising from the Enron Corp collapse, and to Ian Norris, the former chief executive of investment firm Morgan Crucible, who faces price-fixing charges.

Legal experts have cried foul because the treaty is not reciprocal: The US Senate has not yet ratified the treaty, meaning that British officials still must meet a higher burden of evidence when seeking to have suspected criminals brought here for justice.

While the US has signed the treaty, it has not been considered by the Senate because organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union lobby against it.

"The fact is that all these procedures have been curtailed in the name of the war on terror, but it isn't terrorists who are facing the consequences," said Jason Mansell, a London extradition lawyer.

The Home Office said the US has requested the extradition of 45 people under the law since it came into force into January last year, and acknowledged that just three of those cases were related to terrorism. Some 22 cases were connected to fraud or theft-related white-collar offenses, with others ranging from sexual offenses to murder.

Douglas McNabb, a Texas-based criminal defense lawyer who testified as an expert witness on the US legal system at the Bermingham trial, is so convinced that the cases signal "an escalating global US federal criminal prosecution approach" that he is setting up shop in London to provide advice for the rash of cases he expects to follow.

"I think we are going to see more and more of these," McNabb said on a recent reconnaissance trip to London to find office space. "I think people in London are starting to become more worried and these cases shocked them. I don't think that anyone really understood the full implications of this act."

The financial district and some lawmakers are beginning to wake up.

Boris Johnson, a lawmaker for the opposition Conservative Party, has put forth a parliamentary petition calling for Britain to refuse to extradite anyone under the new laws and amend them to require that more evidence be presented by the US. The motion, which has no bearing on government policy but is a gauge of sentiment among lawmakers, has so far garnered 73 signatures.

"It is an absolute disgrace that these men may now be carted off to some Texas jail without even the protection of a preliminary hearing in this country," Johnson said, referring to the NatWest bankers known as the Bermingham Three. "We are not talking about international terrorists here, but British businessmen accused of defrauding a British firm. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of their case I believe those rights and wrongs should be established in a British court of justice."

Law experts said the cases show that only a tenuous link to the US is needed to pursue such cases -- the fast-track process that the new law allowed for means US officials can apply for extradition on hearsay evidence, without a prima facie case against the defendant first having to be made on his home territory.

Experts point out that Britain's business sector is particularly vulnerable because of its international nature and of the vast amount of work it does that involves some contact with the US.

"Even if all of the conduct in an alleged fraud has taken place outside of the US, if one telephone call is made to the US or an e-mail is sent which is routed via the US, then the US can indict a person for the US offense of wire fraud," extradition lawyer Anand Doobay said. "The US has an aggressive jurisdictional reach ... and is increasingly willing to exercise it."

Legal experts believe the cases of Norris and the NatWest bankers will be tests of how far the US can stretch that reach.

There are questions about the legitimacy of pursuing the cases. Nearly all the offenses allegedly committed by the Bermingham Three took place in Britain, and British authorities have shown no appetite for prosecuting them. Norris is being prosecuted for a crime that didn't exist in Britain at the time -- price-fixing or cartel activity did not become illegal until 2003 and the charges relate to the 1990s.

Norris, who has not denied being involved in colluding over the price of carbon brushes in the US and Europe, set an appeal in motion after a British judge ordered that he be delivered to the US Justice Department. Norris is also applying for a judicial review of the legality of the process.

The Bermingham Three are taking the extraordinary step of demanding a judicial review of the failure of the UK Serious Fraud Office to put them on trial in Britain in order to avoid their deportation, which has been ordered by Home Secretary Charles Clarke.

The High Court approved their bid for that review last week, and if that fails they will be allowed to appeal Clarke's ruling.

Human-rights organization Liberty claims the law could breach international human-rights rules.

"It's quite clear to see that it could disrupt your family life if you have to be extradited to the other side of the world," said Doug Jewell, campaigns coordinator for Liberty.

"You have to wait a time to be put on trial ... you are very likely to be held on remand, rather than on bail, and essentially people are not sacks of potatoes to be moved around here, there and everywhere," he said. This story has been viewed 404 times.