News
The US plea bargaining system is in the dock after the NatWest Three pleaded guilty to one of the seven charges of wire fraud against them, lawyers say.
Former British bankers David Bermingham, Giles Darby and Gary Mulgrew were accused of conspiring with Enron executives to defraud NatWest bank of $19m, dividing $7m among themselves.
Each admitted a single wire fraud charge. This carries up to five years in prison but under the plea agreement with US prosecutors, they will serve 37 months.
The three, who had consistently protested their innocence, will also have to pay $7.35m in restitution to the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Gary Summers, barrister at Seven Bedford Row, says: “Facing very substantial prison sentences (without parole) under the guidelines is a powerful inducement to a defendant to do a deal with the US authorities.”
They will be accused of “selling out”, he says, but it is understandable with “Uncle Sam’s silver hammer about to come down on their heads”.
Nicholas Medcroft, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers, says that in light of the dramatic change in plea, the case is prompting a debate about the US practice of plea bargaining.
“The practice attracts criticism. It is said it is a blunt tool, used to threaten, coerce or induce defendants to plead guilty in a way which may not serve justice,” he says.
Had the NatWest Three not done a deal, Medcroft adds, they would have been forced to remain in the US, far from their families, incurring enormous legal fees and facing 30 years in jail if convicted.
“It is argued that a guilty plea in those circumstances is not a meaningful acceptance of responsibility but a pragmatic response to the Kafkaesque situation they were in,” he says.
