Nina Goswami
Jones Day, Travers Smith and White & Case clients Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Royal Bank of Canada have landed a victory in the NatWest Three case, after the former bankers pleaded guilty to fraud.
David Bermingham, Giles Darby and Gary Mulgrew entered guilty pleas to a charge of wire fraud in connection with a secret investment with former executives of the Enron Corporation.
As part of a plea agreement with the US government, the defendants have each agreed to a 37-month prison sentence and agreed to repay approximately $7.3m (£3.6m) to RBS, which now owns NatWest. The men had faced up to 35 years in prison if they were convicted on each of the seven counts of fraud that related to the collapse of Enron in 2001.
Assistant attorney general Alice Fisher of the criminal division said that the NatWest Three's admissions demonstrated that the extent of the fraud at Enron went well beyond US borders.
"These three defendants admitted today that they defrauded NatWest by entering into a secret and illegal deal with officers from Enron - a deal that yielded millions in profits for them personally at the expense of their employer," said Fisher.
Bermingham, Darby and Mulgrew were represented respectively by name partners Dan Cogdell at Cogdell Law Firm, Matt Hennessy at Deguerin Dickson & Hennessy and Reid Figel at Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel.
Travers Smith litigation partner Stephen Paget-Brown, along with Jones Day's US offices, advised RBS. White & Case counsel Bob Bittman from Washington DC acted for Royal Bank of Canada, which was involved in the case because the trio once worked there.
Readers' comments (2)
M.Z.M.Nazim | 30-Nov-2007 1:35 am
Bank Fraud
Who can you trust nowadays. Looks like it is always the people at the top who commit fraud amounting to millions and billions of dollars - but the small man, who may rob a sandwich because he is hungry is given the worst treatment - even subject to third-degree by the police. Robbery in any form cannot be condoned - but the big sharks always get away with the minimum of sentence.
If people in trust are caught in fraudulent deals - whatever their positions, reputations and/or influence may be, the courts should ensure that these people are subjected to the Maximum Sentence possible - so that it will serve as a deterrent to other possible high-level fraudsters.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon Manton | 30-Nov-2007 2:33 pm
Plea Bargaining
This case leaves me feeling distinctly uncomfortable - not because the Defendants committed fraud (they were investigated by the SFO which found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing) but because they were felt they had no choice other than to take a plea bargain. In the post Enron climate there was always the risk of conviction and the Defendants chose not to proceed to trial and risk a much longer sentence. What a double whammy - an unfair and unbalanced extradition treaty and a US justice system compromised by the tendency to resolve cases by plea bargain.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment