Author:
Warbrick Colin,Warbrick Colin
Abstract
In July 2006, three bankers, all UK nationals, were extradited to the United States on charges of conspiracy to defraud their one-time employers, a British bank, a subsidiary of Natwest. The conduct took place under the shadow of the ‘Enron’ affair. The defendants were said to have conspired with senior officials of Enron. Enron was the subject of the largest corporate bankruptcy in US history. In comparison the sums involved in the Enron collapse, those at stake in what the papers called the ‘Natwest Three’ case were small, but the involvement of persons implicated in the Enron affair made the defendants of interest to US prosecutors. The cases enjoyed an unusual public profile, partly because the extraditions took place under the unique legal regime which governs US-UK extradition,1 partly because this case was simply one of several cases in which persons charged with what one might loosely call economic crimes were sought by US prosecutors2 and partly because the defendants argued that their offences (which they denied) were allegations of what were ‘really’ English crimes which should have been proceeded with here. Although the extradition aspects have loomed largest, this last matter, possible conflicts of criminal jurisdiction, is the most interesting.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Law,Political Science and International Relations
Reference34 articles.
1. Hansard HC , Vol 450, c 1396–7 (24 10 2006) (Ms Ryan).
2. Aust A ‘Lockerbie: The Other Case’ (2000) 49 ICLQ 278.
3. The House of Lords finally accepted the position of the House of Commons on the Police and Justice Bill, Hansard HL , Vol 686, cs 649–84 (7 11 2006).
4. Raisi (2002) (unreported).
5. Hansard HC , Vol 450, c 1396 (24 10 2006) (Ms Ryan).
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. I. Conflicts of Criminal Jurisdiction;International and Comparative Law Quarterly;2007-07