Natwest Three/Enron Case get stranger...

[Dundeegeorge]

A couple of points Snaw

Two issues for me, the crime in itself looks well suss. BUT here's the thing, British bankers, british bank, crime commited in Britain. WTF are we doing extraditing British citizens to the US, with no burden of proof on their part, in a one sided treaty aimed at helping the fight against terrorism?

No sympathy for them but on general principle I'm pretty fecking unhappy that once again we're taking it up the arse from the US and they give us SFA in return. Not to mention my utter lack of faith in the US justice system or their chance of a fair trial in the home state where the Enron were based and the thing had the biggest impact.

You're forgetting that when George says jump, Princess Toni asks 'how high'.
I wouldn't worry too much about the defendants though, they're neither black, nor ESN (although stupid), so they're unlikely to suffer too much.
And to be fair they did (obviously) use insider knowledge to make dubious money, so ought to expect some kind of censure for that (but i wonder why Natwest didn't have them charged, what else do they know?)

[snaw]

You're forgetting that when George says jump, Princess Toni asks 'how high'.
I wouldn't worry too much about the defendants though, they're neither black, nor ESN (although stupid), so they're unlikely to suffer too much.
And to be fair they did (obviously) use insider knowledge to make dubious money, so ought to expect some kind of censure for that (but i wonder why Natwest didn't have them charged, what else do they know?)

Most likely cause Natwest knew what was going on - it's not unusal for big firms to have to get rid of assets in a hurry for compliance reasons, or tax or whatever - my wife works in IB and she say's this sort of thing isn't necessarily as bad as it looks to the layman.

Either way I'm not up for defending them at all, I'm more upset with the extradition part. That's FUBAR if you ask me, I just can't justify it - if there is a crime then the 'victim' who it was commited against is Natwest from the UK bankers perspective, so why are they getting extradited to the US as part of the Enron thing when the crime was here, and the victim is here, and they lived here. That scares me just a tad.

[Mailman]

Two issues for me, the crime in itself looks well suss. BUT here's the thing, British bankers, british bank, crime commited in Britain. WTF are we doing extraditing British citizens to the US, with no burden of proof on their part, in a one sided treaty aimed at helping the fight against terrorism?

Well obviously you poms are crap at getting blue collar (or what ever colour they are) criminals in to prison and them evil americans are far bettet at actually getting people in to prison.

The last bit is a bit of a red hearing because evidence was provided to both the defence lawyers and the Government. These guys DIDNT get extradited because they had no evidence against them. Even their lawyers admit that there is stuff here that looks bad.

Lets be honest here, its not like GW sent TB an email yesterday asking for these three to be sent business class to Cuba. The original arrest warrants were issued in 2002/2003. Its taken three years to get these guys out of the country...thats not over night...thats over years ffs!

Mailman

[The Lone Gunman]

Extradition legislation is dodgy.

The very fact that you have been extradited means you can not get a fair trial.

[Mailman]

What absolute twaddle TLG.

Mailman

[The Lone Gunman]

What absolute twaddle TLG.

Mailman

No realy, how do you figure that out?
Prosecution presents a case to country of residence. Country of residence decides there is a case to answer. Chap gets extradited.
Jury sees this as an indication of guilt on the grounds tha chap would not be extradited if he was innocent.
Can't you see that?
Can't you hear the whispering, they must have done something or they wouldn't be having these problems.

[snaw]

Well obviously you poms are crap at getting blue collar (or what ever colour they are) criminals in to prison and them evil americans are far bettet at actually getting people in to prison.

The last bit is a bit of a red hearing because evidence was provided to both the defence lawyers and the Government. These guys DIDNT get extradited because they had no evidence against them. Even their lawyers admit that there is stuff here that looks bad.

Lets be honest here, its not like GW sent TB an email yesterday asking for these three to be sent business class to Cuba. The original arrest warrants were issued in 2002/2003. Its taken three years to get these guys out of the country...thats not over night...thats over years ffs!

Mailman

Missing the point entirely but I'll spell it out - British bankers, British bank, crime committed in Britiain. Why are they getting extradited to the US under a terrorism treaty? Why has the treaty not been ratified in the US after all those years you mention?

I couldn't give a toss if they're guilty or not, that's just the detail it's the bigger picture that concerns me.

[Mailman]

No realy, how do you figure that out?
Prosecution presents a case to country of residence. Country of residence decides there is a case to answer. Chap gets extradited.
Jury sees this as an indication of guilt on the grounds tha chap would not be extradited if he was innocent.
Can't you see that?
Can't you hear the whispering, they must have done something or they wouldn't be having these problems.

Again, what absolute twaddle TLG.

You are assuming they are going to get a jury and not just shipped off to the Islamic Butlands in Cuba

Mailman

[BobTheCrate]

This is a dog's dinner of legislation without reciprocity. The US will not ratify because they firstly want to maximise protection for their own citizens and secondly the Irish lobby out there want to protect IRA people.

Secondly, as snaw has repeatedly pointed out, this is yet another example of legislation brought in by Liebour under assurances of 'we need this to counter terrorism', that is being used for anything but counter terrorism.

As such IMO it is utterly wrong and worrying these individuals have been extradited, unless sufficient evidence was produced that would have satisfied their extradition under previous, existing legislation.

Bringing in sweeping powers under the label of basically emergency legislation to counter terrorism; and then arbitrarily applying that legislation to issues nothing to do with terrorism, is plain ugly, vicious and worrying for all of us as individuals.

[Mailman]

Actually, these guys should be worried because unlike this country were serious fraud isnt taken all that serious (how many people can you name that have been locked away by the Serious Fraud Office in the last 10 years?) in this country BUT it is taken very seriously in America.

There was some VERY interesting reading in yesterdays paper about this case.

I wonder how many of you morons read the first paragraph of that article before moving on to the kids section?

Mailman