[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Man Tied to Enron Case Found Dead in London Park Man Tied to Enron Case Found Dead in London Park By HEATHER TIMMONS LONDON, July 12 — A British banker who provided evidence to the F.B.I. and the United States Department of Justice about Enron-related transactions has been found dead in an East London park, days ahead of the politically charged extradition of his former colleagues to Houston to stand trial. The banker, who was identified by his former employer, Royal Bank of Scotland, as Neil Coulbeck, was found Tuesday by a passer-by in the park, which is in the Chingford neighborhood of London. Scotland Yard confirmed Wednesday that a body had been found. It said the death was being treated as “unexplained” and that officers from its homicide and serious crime units were investigating. The man appeared to have committed suicide, the British Press Association said. Scotland Yard would not confirm that report. On Thursday, American marshals plan to take into custody three British bankers who worked for NatWest Bank and fly them to the United States. The three were indicted on fraud charges in Federal District Court in Houston in 2002 in connection with transactions tied to Enron, the energy company that collapsed in 2001. Prosecutors say the three were involved with the sale of NatWest’s stake in an Enron asset that gave NatWest less profit than it should have had while personally benefiting the bankers and some Enron executives. The three deny any criminal conduct, and the bank has not pressed charges against them. The fate of the bankers — David Bermingham, Giles Darby and Gary Mulgrew — has ignited widespread outrage in Britain, where they are known as the NatWest Three. British politicians and business executives have criticized their transfer to the United States, asserting that zealous American prosecution of white-collar criminals after a spate of corporate fraud has gone too far. Mr. Coulbeck, 53, provided evidence in the case against the bankers, said two people who worked on the prosecution’s case but who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are no longer involved in it. Mr. Coulbeck had nothing to do with the approval or execution of the transactions in question, these people said, and Mr. Coulbeck was not questioned repeatedly. From 2000 to 2001, Mr. Coulbeck was head of North American financial markets for NatWest’s corporate bank. Royal Bank of Scotland bought NatWest in 2000. Mr. Coulbeck took an early retirement from Royal Bank of Scotland in 2004, the bank said. His last job there was head treasurer. “There is no evidence that Neil was involved in the approval of the transaction under investigation,” the bank said. The bank said Mr. Coulbeck was “a respected, capable and hard-working member of our senior management team.” The political controversy surrounding the case centers on a treaty signed by the United States and Britain that permits either country to extradite citizens of the other while supplying limited evidence for a case. It was introduced as a tool to fight terrorism, but the United States has also used it to try to prosecute white-collar criminals. On Tuesday, the House of Lords passed a resolution to overturn the treaty, and the treaty was debated Wednesday in Parliament. The controversy comes in part because the United States has not ratified the treaty, though it was signed into law in Britain in 2004. It could be months before the United States ratifies the treaty. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee discussed it last year, and a hearing will be held July 19 to explore its impact on Irish-American activists. The three former NatWest bankers have spent more than a year fighting their extradition, pleading with British courts to try them instead, but all their appeals have been denied. Dozens of British chief executives, politicians and human rights activists have asked their government to step in, but the Home Office has refused. “The U.K. government has not protected its citizens enough,” said Mark Spragg, a lawyer for the three bankers. Britain has similar extradition agreements with other countries in Europe, but the United States should be treated as a special case because “those countries don’t try to assert jurisdiction over a number of financial crimes,” he said. “If you send anything electronically and it goes through America, they can claim jurisdiction, which is not the same in Europe or Australia,” Mr. Spragg said. Some of the evidence against the former NatWest bankers is in e-mail form, the people who worked on the prosecution’s case said. British supporters of the bankers, and much of the British news media, say they are in danger of being put into prison cells next to murderers. Prime Minister Tony Blair told Parliament on Wednesday that the three bankers would probably to be granted bail in Houston; some in Britain had considered that unlikely. “American prosecutors will not oppose bail as long as the appropriate conditions are put in place,” he said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
this is probably not getting much publicity in the US but over here there is a large amount of coverage and various public people who are normally reticent are openly condemning the one-sided extradition arrangements and the unjust legal system in the US. its very strange to see "right-wing" business leaders marching and speaking alongside "left-wing" civil liberties activists to jointly decry this treaty. its being lumped in with the questionable legality of the Iraq war, the maverick actions of the security services, the creeping growth of the police state and all that stuff. people are openly referring to "vice-president Blair", calling him a lackey of the Bush administration, calling him a traitor etc. whether the men were guilty of fraud seems to be immaterial. its part of the growing unease that the "special relationship" between the US and the UK is causing too much grief and too much freedom is being sacrificed to feed the politicians' "war on terror". for example, i was stunned this morning when our postman, who is a quiet and uncontroversial man, actually suggested we should suspend diplomatic relations with the US until it stops being a rogue state and a threat to world peace. "Don't get me wrong," he said, "I've got nothing against Americans - just their rotten government." however, he did admit that the UK government is another bunch of rogues too. so that's sort of fair lol is that the nature of the "special relationship" - that the people of the US and the UK are both cursed by bad governments? what seems to really stick in people's throats about the case against these men is that the "crime" did not really affect anyone in the US - if it was fraud, the "victim" was a UK bank. whatever the technicalities of the case, it gives people the feeling that we are being bullied and exploited by the US legal system. and on top of the growing unease about the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the nagging doubts that 9/11 and 7/7 were genuine terrorist acts, there is a feeling that the UK should distance itself from the US. i don't think that would help at all but i can understand why people are talking this way :(
Thanks for the UK viewpoint ruthie. We've posted a few threads here on this intrigue, the best info coming from UK papers.
umm, i forgot to add there's also references in the UK media to serious problems in the US Senate about the treaty originally signed by Ashcroft - it could mean that IRA members given "sanctuary" in the States could be extradited to Britain without the American courts having ANY say in whether there was a case to answer. think about it. an extradition warrant served on a citizen by a foreign government and the country's legal system having NO powers to contest it...this is the reality in the UK right now, courtesy of that despicable man called Blair
So was the original intent of this treaty to allow the U.S. to extradite "moooslim t'rrsts"?
There are no replies to Comment # 6. End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||