[1] In 2002, they were indicted in Houston, Texas, on seven counts of wire fraud against their former employer, Greenwich NatWest, as part of the Enron scandal.
The payment, which was formally agreed on 22 March 2000, resulted in large profits for Swap Sub, enriching several Enron employees who had acquired ownership interests in the partnership.
[8] According to the Statement of Facts which was signed by all three defendants as part of their eventual plea bargain, the Three realized in early 2000 that, because of rises in the stock prices of Enron and Rhythms, NatWest's interest in Swap Sub "had quite some value".
[10] Shortly afterwards, Fastow contacted Gary Mulgrew in late February or early March 2000 and offered to purchase NatWest's interest in Swap Sub.
[13] Later that month, the three bankers learned that the "unspecified financial opportunity" which had been mentioned to Mulgrew involved their personally acquiring a portion of NatWest's stake in Swap Sub.
[16] The Three concealed both their dealings with Fastow and Kopper, and the fact that they now had a financial interest in the company that bought Swap Sub, from their superiors at NatWest.
[20] In November 2001 the three bankers, having now moved to work at Royal Bank of Canada, learned that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was investigating Fastow and voluntarily met with the British Financial Services Authority (FSA) to discuss the deal.
[25] The warrants were among the first issued by Enron prosecutors; media reports speculated that their main purpose was to induce the Three into a plea bargain whereby they would testify against Kopper and Fastow (seen as more important prosecution targets) in exchange for reduced sentences.
[26][27] During the long delay caused by the decision of the Three to fight extradition, however, Kopper and Fastow both pleaded guilty and entered into plea bargains themselves.
Also no certainty of making money ...[30]Prosecutors alleged that the use of the word "robbery" in the presentation showed that the Three knew that they were planning to commit a crime.
[32] The Three responded by suing Britain's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in the High Court of Justice, seeking judicial review to force a prosecution in the UK which would have taken precedence over the US investigation.
[citation needed] In response the SFO issued a statement defending its decision to defer to prosecutors in the US: When we considered a submission by the three former NatWest employees that we should open an investigation for potential prosecution in this jurisdiction the balanced view we took was that the US authorities had a stronger call on the matter.
The defendants were already indicted in the US in an investigation that had been in progress for some time and where the evidence had already been marshaled and assessed[23]After a significant delay, the extradition was endorsed by Home Secretary Charles Clarke in May 2005.
They spent one night in that city's Federal Detention Center before being released into the custody of their attorney, under a requirement that they wear electronic monitoring devices.
On 21 July, a judge ruled that the Three could go free on bond but could not leave the Houston area, could not meet with each other without their lawyers present, and were required to raise between $80,000 and $150,000 by the end of the month.
[36] US immigration services gave them permission to accept employment in the US for a period of one year, but, because of the judge's order, they were not permitted to leave the Houston area to seek or obtain work.
[42] On 6 August 2007, the Three asked the judge in the case to order six former colleagues living in Britain to provide video testimony for their defence.
In a court filing explaining this request, they alleged that "[s]everal individuals now refuse to travel to the United States to appear on defendants' behalf because they feel, or have been, threatened by the [US] government".
[3][46][47] In the plea agreement, the Three pleaded guilty to count four of the indictment, relating to the email from London to Houston of the final Swap Sub sale documents.
[46] However, an article in The Daily Telegraph argued that the guilty pleas were motivated not by actual guilt, but rather by the prospect of further delays before the trial and possible 35-year sentences if convicted.
[48] The original indictment alleged that the Three knew that NatWest's stake was worth far more than the $1 million it was being sold for; the statement of facts claimed only that bankers believed it was likely that they would make significant amounts of money as a result of the transaction, based on information that they concealed from their employer.
[28][46] In August 2010 Bermingham and Mulgrew appeared in a video on ungagged.net, a site devoted to attacking the US Department of Justice's handling of the Enron collapse.
[58] For example, The Independent wrote that the men saw themselves as "womanising buccaneers who played as hard and as fast as they pursued their deals", and The Sunday Times described Mulgrew as "fiercely competitive" with "a massive ego" and "scars on his arms" from his former career as a nightclub bouncer.
"[59]M: Communications co-founder Nick Miles added: It is not a matter of whether or not they are guilty – although they have always expressed their innocence... Our role was to convince editors of the validity of our argument: that Britain's new extradition laws have anomalies.
But perhaps even more of an achievement is that the public perception of the three has been turned from that of apparently wealthy bankers, alleged to have been involved in an £11m fraud and attempting to escape justice, to deeply wronged men being ripped from the bosoms of their families, destined for servitude in a vile penitentiary.
[61]The Three feature as victims of British justice in the £500,000 documentary Taking Liberties, made by Bermingham's film finance acquaintance.
[30] Supporters of the Three claim that when the extradition law was passed in the wake of 11 September the British government stated that it was only to be used in the so-called war against terror and if the treaty was ratified by the US.
)[citation needed] The Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, allowed an emergency debate, on 12 July 2006, on both the treaty and the 'Natwest Three' after a request by Liberal Democrat MP Nick Clegg.
[71] On 12 July 2006, a former Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) executive and FBI prosecution witness Neil Coulbeck had been found dead, after committing suicide by slitting his wrists.
The case of the NatWest Three was cited in Parliament in relation to the 2020 US extradition request for Mike Lynch, founder of software company Autonomy.