Talk:NatWest Three

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rewrite needed[edit]

Article needs major changes after the guilty plea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John a s (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view article[edit]

The article appears written from the point of view that the three ought not to be extradited. It does not mention the point of view that as the crime with which they are charged was largely planned in the United States in order to benefit a Texas-based corporation, it is reasonable to have the trial in Texas. It may also be in order to mention that the United States has a strong legal system that is actually quite effective at prosecuting business fraud. David | Talk 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point hyas been inserted into the article. The second I think is fairly well accepted and understood by all sides. POV tag removed. --Michael C. Price talk 16:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the second point is likely true it certainly isnt well understood, British people dont think much of US justice generally which is what the three were counting on. US justice gives out much longer sentences which is something many UK people would argue is wrong. Perhaps we need an article on the extradition treaty which also affects Gary McKinnon and others. El Rojo 22:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Facts[edit]

I think they are in jail somewhere on the East Coast. I haven't read the Statement of Facts but would like to if someone knows how to get it. It would be interesting to see if the article in the UK press (I have seen it in the entry) is correct. I suppose it will be - which means they really were convicted for screwing up on their English banking contract!? So much for the great conspiracy - wow - what next - indicted for taking lemon in their tea? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleawatchers (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have the reference to find the Statement of Facts that was used in the plea deal. It seems what they pleaded to had nothing to do with the Indictment and was, after all a UK issue involving their employment contract with a UK Bank (not even sure how that's a crime?). Why are we wasting time and money to drag people across here for this? Why can't the Brits have just sorted this themselves - doesn't look like they had much of a chance once the got here. More waste of our tax dollars and I doubt justice has been served in this one. Does anyone know where they are now?```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardorapido (talk • contribs) 23:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a link to it [1]. Grover cleveland (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Grover, thanks I read it. We are reviewing his case as part of a Law degree program. Doesn't the agreed Statement of Facts change your view on this case? I think the blog sums it up well. It looks like they were extradited for one thing, then admitted guilt to another - something to do with their UK Employment contract. Does that not strike you as strange? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey1983 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It changes my view slightly, but not a whole lot. As I understand things, the original allegation in the indictment was that the Three knew that the stake was worth a lot more than $1m at the moment they advised NatWest to sell it. The new story from the statement of facts is that the Three possessed information that made it highly likely that the value of the stake would be worth a lot more than $1m shortly after the deal was completed. They still kept this information hidden from NatWest, and also concealed their financial interest in the acquiring company.
I'm not expert enough in the law to know what kind of legal difference this distinction makes, but it doesn't seem to make much of a moral difference. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Grover, thanks for your helpful input! It seems that the piece of information they failed to share was that they had been asked to invest in an 'unspecified' financial opportunity by Fastow if they left NatWest once they had been taken over by the Bank of Scotland. I included the pertinent part of the Statement of facts at paragraph 20 in the article. I don't know anything about English employment law, so I wonder how we would ever have properly tried this here (and why they were ever extradited in the first place), and on the face of it, that piece of information seems a long way away from 'knowing it was worth more'. I am confused by this case, although I agree with you morally you have ask why they were keeping ANY information from their employer. Our legal analysis here is that AT BEST this should be a civil issue, not a criminal one. The burden of proof in a civil case in the U.S. would require the Bank (who never sought their money back!?- weird since only thy should know what their employment rules say) to show that this piece of information was material and would have altered the decision they made.
Incidentally, we also found an old article from the London Times a few years ago, which two of the men explain the emails and also that they believed the would be likely to make money investing with Fastow (!) because he was such a success at that stage and being invited into a deal with him was very 'exciting'. Amazingly, the article confirms much of what is in the Statement of Facts so many years later, but I was told not to include it as it attributes comments to the men and some of the key parts in it does not contain direct quotes. Do you know if there is any way to get a hold of what they told the FSA originally? According to their supporters website they gave them the full facts - which would be consistent with their approach to the Times. We wonder if they ever thought what they did was a crime. Between going to the FSO and talking to the papers, they didn't make much of an attempt to keep it under wraps!```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey1983 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Times article sounds very interesting. It can definitely be included in the article, as long as its contents are attributed correctly per WP:NPOV and WP:V. As to the guilt, moral or otherwise, of the Three, I confess that I had not realized that their intial advice to accept the $1 million offer predated their acquisition of the option on Southampton. That does seem to lessen their culpability somewhat. However as the statement of facts does point out (sec. 26), the acquisition was not finalized until March 17, by which time the Three knew that they would have a stake in the entity which was doing the purchasing. Even if the Three could be forgiven not passing on a vague "unspecified financial opportunity" when the deal was initially recommended, they must have been aware that they were doing something wrong by the time it was completed. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and that's what they have admitted to. But the S.of Facts also goes onto say (paragraph 29) that 'unbeknownst' to the Three, Fastow mis-represented the position to Enron and made Enron pay way over the odds. So it seems they recommend a fair sale at the time to NatWest, and then knew nothing about Fastow fleecing Enron. Their crime was simply not to inform their employer that they were thinking of investing (paragraph 30 makes clear that by March 28th they still hadn't decided whether or not to invest). Makes you wonder why it's Nat West's money? It gets more complicated because they had resigned on the 20th of March (following the takeover by the Scottish Bank), so I don't know how that changes their duties to their employer (again English employment law!). The angle we are following here at the moment, is whether the extradition was at all fair. On the face of it, it seems a long way away from the justification given at the time for bringing them here. I don't know of many - if any - peole who go to jail for a breach of their fiduciary duty. I imagine its the same in England. We are trying to find the original extradition documents and also the FSA report - by the way the times artice is http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article509608.ece?token=null&offset=24 ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey1983 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I've added some quotes to the article. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]




The BBC Online Page [2] has the story. 

 ...says they persuaded GNW to sell its stake in an Enron subsidiary,
 named Swap Sub, for $1m - despite knowing it was worth much more.

The Statement of FACTS now shows that this allegation was completely false, as were a number of other claims. A ruse to get the men here so that then they could be forced into pleading about a failure under their employment contracts? Discussion welcome - we are doing a project on this and other Extradition cases!!```` 

 The three ended up paying just $251,993 for a stake in Swap Sub on
 which they later made a profit of $7.3m, the indictment claims.

Gordo 18:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Sunday Times today (1 July, page 2) repeats the assertion, included in this article, that the British prosecutors decided that the Natwest three had "no case to answer" (the Times article is not clear, but seems like it may be quoting supporters of the three). But I've never seen evidence that such a determination was made. The cite in the article here to support this proposition (note 18) has nothing to do with the issue. And the Guardian article cited in note 3 appears to contradict that proposition by quoting the head of the Serious Fraud Office as saying that the US evidence against the three would have sufficed under the old extradition treaty (which required presentation of a prima facie case). Does anyone know if there actually is support for the "no case to answer" statement? If not, should there at least be a citation needed comment in the article? (Ok, I admit to being a newbie....). Chucknew 08:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assurance law would only to be used against terrorists[edit]

The text:

When the extradition law was passed in the wake of September 11 the UK government stated that it was only to be used in the war against terrorism.

has been removed by User:Dbiv with the tag this is not true, yet this has been widely reported in the media. What is the evidence that it is false? --Michael C. Price talk 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one that took it out, but as a general comment, there is no requirement to "prove it false", anyone wishing to insert information needs to prove it verifiable (not necessarily the same thing as true), as per WP:V. If it's been widely reported, it should be straightforward to find a citation to verify it. Regards, MartinRe 19:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it make in with a {{Fact}} tag. --Michael C. Price talk 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually interesting to look back at newspaper reports from December 2003 when it was slipped through Parliament. People were warning then that it would be used against businessmen (we all know the Americans are more interested in imprisoning businessmen than terrorists). There were a series of letters warning against how it depended solely on identification of the suspect with no evidence needed. --jmb 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have the text of the treaty anywhere? 80.168.29.18 10:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point. Treaty, I don't know about, but I've added a link to the Extradition Act 2003 which explains the UK law side of it. (and wikilinked in the main text, possibly that should be enough, so may remove the law link) Regards, MartinRe 10:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. We should note in both articles the government claim that the standards of evidence are more-or-less equivilant.. 80.168.29.18 15:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that last remark refers to the British Government, we all know the reputation of the current British Government for honesty. I would be inclined to listen to any source apart from the current British Government and most do seem to have quite different opinions on the Act. If you go back to the newspapers from December 2003 there were lots of warning then about has been shown to have actually happened with the Act.--jmb 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The early execution of this treaty, for a purpose for which it was clearly not intended, is an example of Tony Blair being the "poodle" of President Bush. Employment of the treaty before ratifying it themselves is indicative of the contempt the American Government has for British opinion. This stand point was further substantiated by the public parading of "the three" clad needlessly, and vindictively, in chains entering a Texan court house - a sight many Europeans find abhorrent. Giano | talk 11:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folks, please remember that we're not here to discuss personal opinions of the article, any reference to public opinion should be cited, and government claims are valid additions if they from are reliable sources, regardless of personal opinions of the current government. If there were warnings in 2003 that this would be used for businessmen, and counter government claims, then this is useful, so long as suitable references can be found. Likewise, if mainstream media quote a notable figure as describing the sight of the three in chains as abhorrent, that would similarly be relevant, given a suitable reference. But there is no place for editors personal opinions in wikipedia articles, just cited information. Regards, MartinRe 13:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Notice[edit]

This is old news and hasnt been in thepress for a month. Whivch is why I removed the notice. I am surprised someone put it back when this news is obviously now old. El Rojo 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article: the men retained lawyers on August 12 2006 and a trial date is expected to be set in September (i.e. next month). Developments are happenning all the time. That would seem to make it current. I'm reinserting the tag. Grover cleveland 22:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it isnt in the news in the way it was before so it shouldnt really be there but I dont want to fight El Rojo 21:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a page anywhere that tells us when to use the current tag and when not to? Grover cleveland 22:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just what I was thinking and I have no idea. Probably somewhere in the Wikipedia:Village pump? El Rojo 22:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign of support in Britain[edit]

This section currently summarizes the main arguments of the supporters as follows:

The alleged crime was allegedly committed by British citizens living in Britain against a British company based in London, the nation's capital city. Therefore, any resulting criminal case fell under British legal and territorial jurisdiction and should be tried by a British court.

This passage is unsupported by citations: I'm not sure whether this argument really makes any sense. If the Three had broken into a branch of NatWest in Houston and made off with 12 million dollars from the overnight safe, it would still be an alleged crime "committed by British citizens living in Britain against a British company based in London, the nation's capital city" -- but surely the supporters wouldn't still be claiming that the US had no jurisdiction to prosecute them? It would be much better to have a real quote from one of their leading supporters who, I'm sure, can make a better reasoned argument than this. Grover cleveland 15:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was it was a crime against a British Bank, NatWest, involving ther employment contract (some kind of breach?) That's UK Employment law - nothing to do with the U.S. Also the evidence and witnesses they wanted were all based in the UK, seems strange to bring them here in those circumstances unless you are trying to simply coerce yet another plea deal. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardorapido (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental bias[edit]

This wikipedia page is highly biased in favour of the natwest three. There is no analysis of the crime committed and the harm experienced by Enron investors and employees. It is clear from most news reports and indeed common sense that there is a case to answer by these people.

Well if you can find sources to prove your case Go for it! Certainly my perception was that they hired a good publicity team and got a lot of support just before the extradition which then backfired on them somewhat asit became clear that there was reasonable evidence that they had committed fraud, SqueakBox 15:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The harm wasn't suffered by Enron investors and employees: it was suffered by NatWest investors and employees. Enron didn't lose out from the deal. The page has a reasonably detailed description of the alleged crime -- if you want to add more details that are supported by references please do so. Grover cleveland 16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty plea[edit]

According to BBC News the three have offered a plea of Guilty to the charge of Wire Fraud. Should be added to the article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7116410.stm Malbolge (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial[edit]

We can say the Natwest3 claim it is controversial and ref it as being seen as controversial; but to claim as unsourced fact that it is controversial is POV as there is no universakl consensus that this act is controversial, just the opinion of some. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Controversy itself is not a POV, but the result of conflicting POVs. Significant debate about whether things are just or unjust make things controversial, not the validity of of any claim about a perceived injustice. - See dictionary definition of controversy "A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." Jooler (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Friends Extradited as a Source[edit]

I am concerned about the use of the Friends Extradited website as a source for this article. This website does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. I've tried to find alternative sources where available, but some claims are currently unsupported by any other source:

  • in March 2002 the FSA "concluded that no further action was necessary against the Three"
  • before arrest warrants were issued, "the Three made themselves available to the US Authorites to assist with the case"
  • they "were never contacted" before the indictment was issued.

I'd appreciate anyone who has the time to find other sources for these claims, or they may have to be removed. Cheers, Grover cleveland (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are looking for other sources as part of our project. However, why is the web-site any less reliable than say the various newspaper reports? The website makes it clear they have no position on their innocence or guilt. Most of the newspapers seem to have missed the true nature of the crime. We have already established a seeming 'bias' between the Guardian on the one hand (anti) and the Telgraph (pro) on the other - although there are some articles inconsistant with that view. Can anyone shed light on why this might be - I am not familiar with these newspapers ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey1983 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable source" is a term of art on Wikipedia. It is defined at this link. Even in the absence of such a policy, the fact that the website was set up by the Three's PR team, and even gives Melanie Riley (PR supremo on behalf of the Three) as its contact info would be sufficient to taint its objectivity. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good points, thank you. We are trying to substantiate these points elsewhere ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey1983 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on NatWest Three. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NatWest Three. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NatWest Three. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NatWest_Three&oldid=1205744410"