02.21.06
Extradition
I can’t believe it. My second cousin, David Bermingham, is to be extradited to the US from the UK in relation to Enron but under anti-terrorism legislation. The wrath of the Evil Empire has come scarily close to home.
update: they can appeal to the Lords…
Ray said,
February 21, 2006 at 2:26 pm
When did wanting to prosecute multi-million dollar fraudsters become the mark of an Evil Empire? Just curious…
Sarah said,
February 21, 2006 at 2:49 pm
well, there are two things.
Firstly, it’s just a bit odd that the company he allegedly defrauded refuses to make a complaint about the alleged fraud. Secondly, the country in which he commited the alleged fraud and of which he his a citizen refuses to try him.
Instead he’s to go to the US, rot in a Texas jail for a few years awaiting trial, break himself on costs hiring a US legal team who will tell him that his only hope is to plea bargain so he can do his time and get home to see his wife and children.
If he did anything, he defrauded a British bank (who as I say has never complained about him) in Britain and he is British. All he’s saying is, can I have British justice please? They’ve said, no. You get Bush justice. If you were him, you’d be fairly shitting it now.
Ray said,
February 21, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Sure, but how does this relate to the Evil Empire? It’s not like he’s being shipped to Cuba or Abu Ghraib, after all.
They’re being charged with fraud, and the fraud (if it took place) was organised in the US, and was part of a series of related frauds that took place in the US. Are you opposed to extradition in general?
Sarah said,
February 21, 2006 at 3:24 pm
well the reason they want him is nothing to do with what he did. They want him to give evidence against senior Enron people. So he’s just a pawn really that they can lean on with threats of indeterminate jail sentences unless he tells them what they want to hear. What is horrible personally is that they can just stick him in jail and not give him a trial for years. You know what they say about justice delayed being justice denied. And Texas is about as close to Cuba as you want to get. He told me that the justice system in the US works entirely through plea bargaining. No one can afford to plead not guilty or they’ll just leave you in jail forever. You find something to plead guilty to, do a sentence and get out as fast as you can. This is not justice.
I’m not against extradition for the obvious cases. If you commit a crime in a country and then scarper off somewhere else, obviously you should be extradited. But the crime that he is accused of didn’t take place in the US. If he did anything he did it in Britain against a British company. Let him do his time in Britain (if found guilty of anything) so it won’t cost him his house and he can see his children once in a while.
Instead he’s going off to the States for what maybe years and not see his family. On a personal level its pretty devastating.
Gerry said,
February 21, 2006 at 3:29 pm
I think what we have here is white collar criminals getting just desserts for once. It’s clear the fraud they are accused of being invovled in was in collusion with a US company and as there is a wide-ranging invesigation and court case going on it makes sense for them to be tried there.
I don’t see the relevance of what the bank is doing – are you alleging that the bank was complicit in the fraud or that there was no fraud and that there is no case to answer?
Are you also saying that that there is no possibility of a fair trial and treatment in the US under any cisrcumstances? That’s a pretty extreme view for a member of FG.
I’m sorry your cousin is going to go to jail; but really I am more sorry for all the people who lost their jobs and pensions in Enron and weren’t offered the fraudulent possibility of making a split on a $7M over-valuation that your cousin was too morally spineless to resist.
Sarah said,
February 21, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Gerry if he did anything, I have no problem what so ever with him getting just desserts. But I do think he is entitled to be tried and jailed in his own country and not in Texas. Come on…this is Jeb Bush territory.
And there are wider issues here. He is the first of the people to be sent under the anti-terrorism legislation but there are plenty more waiting in the wings with perhaps more sympathetic cases..
but the bottom line is this: The US can successfully have British citizens extradited to the US without having to produce any prima facia evidence of a crime. They pretty much just send for anyone and under the legislation they can get them.
It’s the old story…when they came for the communists I said nothing bla bla . When they came for me, there was no one left. They’ve come for the wanker millionaire bankers Gerry. When will they come for you?
Ray said,
February 21, 2006 at 3:41 pm
I really don’t think the experience of white-collar criminals in Texas is very close to the experience of detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
Re. sticking him in jail for years without trial – is indefinite detention actually allowed? Can he be detained for longer in the US without charge than he could be in the UK? I mean, _of course_ he’s going to tell you that he has no choice but to cop a plea – you’re a journalist that might do an article about him. Are you going on anything else here? Do you think his treatment at the hands of the US criminal justice system is uniquely harsh?
The crime that he is being accused of was planned in the US, and it was planned as part of a series of crimes that took place largely in the US. If his trial took place in the UK, then some people from the US would have to be extradited to the UK for the case. But those people are facing a series of charges in the US, so it makes sense for Mohammed to go to the mountain. (And practically speaking, in cases of large-scale, conspiratorial white-collar crime like this, if you insist that everyone involved is charged in the country where they committed the offense you are insisting on many prosecutions in lots of different jurisdictions for some cases, which is just impossible.)
Ray said,
February 21, 2006 at 3:46 pm
(Jeb Bush territory is Florida, btw. And it’s not like your cousin is facing execution – Texas is hard on black murderers, but does it have a bad rep on fraudsters?)
tom said,
February 21, 2006 at 4:15 pm
surely the salient point is that anti-terrorist legislation is being used against individuals who are quite obviously not terrorists, nor are they accused of being terrorists.
what better evidence could there be that the ‘tough’ laws rail-roaded through Congress / Parliament in order to combat “the new reality of global terrorism” end up being used against any and all of us as the authorities see fit. I believe this is what is known as the erosion of civil liberties.
For the benefit of Ray and Gerry: this individual has not been convicted of anything, we do not even know what the evidence against them is. Despite this, he is being extradited to America to stand trial / rot on remand thanks to the creative use of anti-terrorist legislation.
Do you really have no problem with that?
Sarah said,
February 21, 2006 at 4:22 pm
thank you Tom. You know what’s interesting? If David was a Moroccan immigrant accused of actual involvement in terrorism and extradited on the basis of some really dodgy testimony rung from a prisoner on remand in jail in the US – all the liberals would be jumping up and down and demanding that something must be done! But if its a rich white guy? F*ck him.
We have the deserving and the undeserving victims and see how they are selected.
Ray said,
February 21, 2006 at 4:33 pm
I did ask if Sarah had a problem with the concept of extradition or not. If you’re okay with extradition to the US in general, then why is this case so awful? The US hasn’t had to present evidence to the UK courts but (judging by that Bloomberg article) they would have no problem doing so – these guys really did have a series of meetings with Enron executives and a crime really was committed. Yes, it could mean spending time rotting on remand, but that is true of US citizens charged in the US, and is also true of UK citizens charged in the UK.
This is very, very different from extraditing someone on the basis of unknown allegations by unknown informants about a crime that might not exist, to a place where the US has said their laws do not apply. The fact that a rich white guy can afford to take a case all the way to the House of Lords, and remain at liberty in the UK for the two years the case takes, is another significant difference, don’t you think?
Laughman said,
February 21, 2006 at 4:39 pm
What he did or didn’t do is immaterial.
What is sinister here, and smacks of an Evil Empire, is the use of anti-terrorist legislation for a purpose that has absolutely nothing to do with defeating terrorism.
Ray said,
February 21, 2006 at 4:45 pm
So extraditions without evidence are fine for people accused of being Nasty, but not for accountants who clean out your pension fund?
tom said,
February 21, 2006 at 4:49 pm
I don’t mean to be funny Ray but what exactly is your point?
You don’t care because detainees in Guantanamo are worse off?
What exactly?
Ray said,
February 21, 2006 at 5:02 pm
My point is that if you’re okay with extradition, then you must be okay with people being extradited on the basis of the evidence of prisoners, of rotting on remand in foreign jails, of facing the expense of foreign lawyers who’ll try to persuade you to take a plea bargain. In this case, sure, the extradition used anti-terror legislation so that evidence didn’t have to be presented in the UK, but it’s not clear to me that there was no evidence that could have been presented. (And if the legislation is bad when used against fraudsteres, why is it good when used against suspected terrorists?)
If you’re going to talk about the Evil Empire – as Sarah did in her starting post, and that I was responding to – then you’re talking about things that are much worse than this. Things that are actually happening, like people being deported to prisons where they may _never_ be charged, where they have _no_ lawyers, cases where we know that the evidence is weak to non-existent (as for most of the people in Guantanamo), where people will be held in conditions that amount to torture.
tom said,
February 21, 2006 at 5:13 pm
well, I’m OK with extradition with all the usual caveats (including the existence of some sort of clear evidence that satisfies the government in question that there is a case to answer, and that there will be a fair trial).
that goes for terrrorist suspects or white collar criminals equally.
in this case, on the back of anti-terrorist legislation, those basic protections seems to have been cast aside. And you are cheering on from the sidelines.
Ray said,
February 21, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Not really. I think the legislation that says the US doesn’t have to present evidence is bad, but I don’t think this is a particularly bad application of it, for two reasons
i) it looks like there really is evidence that could be presented, enough for a prima facie case at least.
ii) they’re not being extradited to indefinitely extended solitary confinement in Cuba. They’re going to have a proper trial, with real lawyers, with no more delays than they’d face in the UK (or than a US citizen would face in their situation).
tom said,
February 21, 2006 at 5:30 pm
it’s a bad application of it because what was passed through Congress (rightly or wrongly) in order to deal with a terrorist threat is now being used against apparently anyone the US wants to question.
you don’t have much natural sympathy with the victims in this case (nor do I) but you can be sure, in fact you can be certain, that exactly the same powers will be used against people you do have sympathy with. What next – Shannon protesters? don’t bet against it.
I wonder if you will be so blase about the US Justice System then?
Ray said,
February 21, 2006 at 5:35 pm
It’s not the US justice system, btw, its the UK justice system that changed the laws on extradition (in response to a request from the US, most probably).
I don’t think Shannon protesters should be charged with crimes by anyone, the US government or the Irish government, so I’m not sure the argument holds.
Gerry said,
February 21, 2006 at 6:14 pm
I think you nearly accused me of being a liberal Sarah, steady. Point is, Sarah/tom, that the evidence against this guy certainly points to his having a case to answer. The fact that this legislation means that he will actually stand trial is a good thing as opposed to trying to keep it in the uk where he knows no-one really cares and the PPC might not bother particularly if his employer decides not to bother pursuing it as it doesn’t want the embarassment. If he didn’t believe this I doubt he would be fighting so hard to avoid going somewhere where he will probably have to pay for his crime, if he did it.
I don’t for a minute believe this bollocks about how he is going rot in jail until he admits to something. There is a bill of rights int he US Sarah. There is the concept of bail. And Texas is subject to federal law. whatever, he didn’t appear to have any problem heading over to texas in order to set the scam up (allegedly). He should have considered then whatever risk there was of Justice Texas Style.
To reverse your question Tom, what’s your point: that they should repeal this legislation becasue some rich guy has to go to trial? boo-hoo, who’s the liberal here?
Sarah said,
February 21, 2006 at 7:24 pm
hmm. I’ll clarify some points and reflect on others overnight
1. I agree with extradition provided the country seeking extradition presents excellent evidence against the alleged criminal. The anti-terrorism legislation removes this obligation and I was against that way before I knew anything about my cousin’s situation. You won’t find the Irish sending anyone over there too handily….
2. The US Justice system is shit. They can spend years getting an incredibly complicated case together against Enron – of which his transaction is one small part. So yes, he can be left in jail awaiting trial for anything up to two years. So without being convicted of anything he has to do time. And that is hard time when you’re wife and children and parents are several thousand miles away.
3. Gerry I am afraid to say you are sorely naive about the justice system in the States. It’s a plea bargain paradise. No one can afford the huge legal costs so you have to do a deal. Bill of rights my arse. It’s not just happening in Guantanamo. Are you reading the papers recently or just watching Fox?
4. I still say that you and Ray are picking and choosing victims here. You assume this guy is guilty and let him take the rap. Trust me Ray, if our government caved and brought in similar legislation do you think for one second the yanks wouldn’t hesitate about getting Shannon protestors over on charges of damaging their planes? This is not about an unsympathetic victim. This is about a really poor piece of legislation which fails to protect UK citizens.
saint said,
February 21, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Ray
if as you said
i) it looks like there really is evidence that could be presented, enough for a prima facie case at least.
Why was the extradition not carried out normally where they show evidence to a british court.
Ray said,
February 21, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Saint, I don’t know. Perhaps because they figured, why bother doing something they don’t have to do? Perhaps because they want to keep some evidence back until the disclosure stage over there. Perhaps because they’re still preparing their case – this kind of fraud case can be very complicated and take a lot of work to pull together (as I know from Private Eye).
I think the legislation is bad, as I said to Tom earlier. The Shannon thing is a bit of a red herring though – there are good reasons to hold this fraud trial in the US, that wouldn’t apply to Shannon protesters.
saint said,
February 21, 2006 at 8:01 pm
there are good reasons to hold this fraud trial in the US, that wouldn’t apply to Shannon protesters.
There is also very good reasons for extradition laws requiring proof.
Ray said,
February 21, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Sure. But if this case is the worst result of the change in the extradition laws, I’d say we got off lightly.
Fiona said,
February 22, 2006 at 3:48 am
Can he make an application that the extradition violates his A6 rights to a fair trial under the ECHR as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK given the paucity of evidence presented for extradition? This might delay things more in the UK and, potentially, keep him in the UK or at least release him from anti-terrorism legislation.
Plea bargaining is difficult and you’re right, it’s almost always necessary in the US because of the huge cost of legal advice, but perhaps he can apply for coverage by whistleblower legislation if he was an employee? ANyway, the most important thing is to get the best possible lawyer in the States and in the UK – they’ll do everything they can for him and give him the best advice. If he can afford it he should be fighting the extradition order in the UK courts incl. ECHR based claims, preferably with a barrister from Matrix but it won’t be cheap.
I hope everything works out for him and for his family.
tom said,
February 22, 2006 at 10:56 am
Again Ray, I don’t mean to be funny but when you say “But if this case is the worst result of the change in the extradition laws, I’d say we got off lightly” it suggests to me that you just don’t ‘get it’. This is as far as I know just the first example of anti-terrorism laws being used in this way (ie on people who are not terrorist suspects). others are on the way, others you probably won’t like.
WRT shannon protesters, whether you think they should or shouldn’t be charged is irrelevant. the fact is that these powers will be used against others and now that the precedent has been set, we are well down the slippery slope, or if you prefer the wedge is getting a little thicker by the minute, whatever.
if you have no principled objection to people being shipped over to the states without evidence against them being presented, then you are simply asking us to decide matters of human rights on whether Ray thinks someone is a “good” person or a “bad” person. or at least as far as I can tell that is what you are saying.
Gerry said,
February 22, 2006 at 12:17 pm
The innocent have nothing to fear Tom.
i am changing my mind on this one though I think these three are up to their necks in it and are running scared using their deep pokets to get out of ever facing trial.
In fairness to Sarah, and it seems you have some contact with this guy, you might think he is actually innocent and he probably thinks he is, or at least his only crime is getting caught as “everyone is at it” and “nobody got hurt”. This is the typical pathology of the white collar criminal.
However, I think that if the judge decided to go through the process of looking for prima facia evidence then he would get it and they would be extradited anyway. But fairly. There is something wrong with no evidence having to be presented. The confusion in this case is that it represents a case where the outcome is probably just. But we do have to look at the justice of the means and they are wrong.
gerry
Fiona said,
February 22, 2006 at 12:54 pm
The problem, Gerry, is that in high high profile cases like this the innocent have plenty to fear, including bankrupting themselves in the process of trying to prove their innocence.
Sarah said,
February 22, 2006 at 12:55 pm
actually gerry, I won’t make any claims about his innocence or guilt. I’ve tried to read the details of the supposed fraud and the most I can make out of it is that they pulled a fast one. Whether this translates into fraud is another thing. I do think its odd that NatWest haven’t complained. They didn’t lose any money on the deal – I think the allegation is that they could have made more. What I object to is the extradition – it makes the punishment completely disproportionate to the supposed crime. If he was tried in Britan he would be out on bail until the trial..then if he was convicted he would do his time in England where his family could see him occasionally. This way, he is shipped off and god knows when he’ll back, irrespective of whether he is guilty or innocent.
Interestingly on white collar crime I read a (n?) hilarious survey some time ago about senior executives and golf. Asked if they ever cheated at golf, they all replied – no. Then they were asked specific questions about golf, such as, had they ever moved a ball etc. In loads of the answers they admitted that they had – i.e. they had cheated! Power of self-delusion or what.
Ray said,
February 22, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Tom, I think I’ve said a few times that I _do_ object to people being shipped abroad without evidence being presented. Yesterday’s 5.19 post, for example (and the two points I made there stand)
There are two differences I can see with Shannon protesters being charged
i) I don’t think the Shannon protesters should be charged with anything, but I do think fraudsters should be charged
ii) There are good reasons to have the fraud trial in the US, reasons that don’t apply to any possible Shannon case.
Since I’ve already said that I think evidence-free extraditions are a bad thing, I don’t know why you think I’d be contradicting myself to argue that evidence-free extraditions of people who I don’t think should be charged with anything are _worse_, especially when there’s no reason why they should be charged in a different jurisdiction.
You are focussing on the fact that this extradition took place without evidence being presented, but Sarah seems to be mainly objecting to the extradition itself – but not to the principle of extradition, even though all of the problems she points to (separation from family, remand in a different country, pressure to plea bargain) would apply to anyone who was extradited.
Sarah said,
February 22, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Ray,
Just to clarify I object to the extradition without evidence. And while I’m at it there are a few other priniciples of extradition which I think should apply and which do apply in Ireland e.g. the crime in the foreign country has to be a crime in the home country, the sentences have to be similiar (e.g. no extradition for a crime with a death penalty). But when you say
“I don’t think the Shannon protesters should be charged with anything, but I do think fraudsters should be charged
ii) There are good reasons to have the fraud trial in the US, reasons that don’t apply to any possible Shannon case.”
The point is that this is your opinion of the merits of two particular cases. The US government may hold a completely different one. That’s why WE need good laws in our OWN country to protect us from rogue governments. The anti-terrorism legislation is bad law. David is only the first to be extradited under it. There will be more.
Ray said,
February 22, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Sarah, I know you _also_ object to the without-evidence element, but many of the things that you have said are awful about this case would apply even if evidence had been presented.
Re. Shannon… In this case you can object to the extradition because no evidence was presented, and you can object to it because extradition is itself a punishment before conviction. If the US sought to extradite some Shannon protesters I could object because I don’t think they’re guilty AND because there’s no need for them to be tried there instead of here AND because no evidence was presented AND because extradition is itself a punishment. None of those reasons for objecting contradict each other, as far as I can see.
Gerry said,
February 23, 2006 at 9:47 am
Fry ‘em and let God work it out.
P O'Neill said,
February 23, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Mr Bermingham should get Irish citizenship and take up residence here. Allow Ireland’s legendary ineffectiveness in extradition to work in his favour. But I think they will win either at further appeal or political decision of the Home Secretary.
Leon said,
February 27, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Has the European Conevention on Human Rights already been discussed?
Sarah said,
February 27, 2006 at 1:27 pm
not yet I think. However, 2 updates:
1. He won’t play the Green Card. He says we’d deport him as quick as the Brits.
2. They can appeal to the Law Lords. He has higher hopes of them.