The admission of guilt to wire fraud by the NatWest Three is a messy and unsatisfactory end to one of the biggest business crime dramas – Lord Black of Crossharbour aside – in recent years. Supporters of the three bankers resent the way that the US’s well-muscled extraterritorial arm has prevailed without anything having been proved in court. Meanwhile, those who had no sympathy for the British bankers might believe that they have got off lightly for their alleged offences.

So no chapters are properly closed by this case. There are merely hints of things to come.

Alistair Graham, of White & Case, who has his own interest in US extradition procedures by acting for Ian Norris, the former chief of Morgan Crucible who faces price-fixing charges in America, says that it was inevitable that the NatWest Three would have to accept a plea-bargain deal since the absence of any British witnesses meant that the defence would be fighting “with one arm tied behind its back”.

“One can understand why witnesses are reluctant to go to the US,” Graham says. “It’s very stressful and you don’t know how you might be putting yourself at risk. So if you [the defence] cannot compel witnesses to give evidence, it immediately creates a big problem.”

So we are back to the underlying disparity in the UK-US extradition arrangements (spiced up, maybe, by the recent revelation that the US believes that it has the right to kidnap British citizens). The American Department of Justice may preen itself on its global pursuit of business people in the name of justice but it ends up with a squalid “behind closed doors” poker game where it is the American prosecutors who hold all the cards. “There is a growing feeling of anger in the City about this issue and a widespread feeling that the law should be reexamined,” Louise Delahunty, of Simmons & Simmons, says.

As it happens, the issue was put last week to the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, by Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat MP, but there is no sign of the Government budging. In a written reply the Home Secretary rejected the proposal of a “forum amendment” by observing: “I am satisfied that the Extradition Act 2003 already contains full and effective safeguards for the rights of requested persons... Home Office ministers have consistently made it clear that the new extradition treaty with the United States is not one-sided.”

But many UK lawyers remain unconvinced and are frustrated that the “new start” promised by Gordon Brown’s premiership has not extended to these extradition arrangements. Graham says: “It’s very depressing that the Government still does not understand the implications of its own legislation. Gordon Brown has a golden opportunity to do something [that is, amend the extradition legislation] that both the civil liberties and businesses lobbies support – and, even more important, is the right thing to do.” Meanwhile, life goes on and business has to accommodate itself to what seems to be an increasingly sinister threat. Delahunty and the international corporate crime group at Simmons & Simmons now advise their clients on the risk management issues associated with senior executives facing white-collar crime accusations from outside the UK. As she points out, the controversy with the US is just the tip of the iceberg. The European arrest warrant exposes British business people to being yanked off to new accession states where justice – as in America – cannot be relied upon and where old political grudges may surface in the form of trumped-up fraud or corruption charges. Moreover, the Extradition Act 2003 also exposes Britons to fast-track extradition processes to a host of other jurisdictions around the world where, as Delahunty comments: “You are never going to get a fair trial.”

Faced by these threats, some countries – such as France and Germany – have made it quite clear that they will not allow their own nationals to be extradited. The UK, of course, has not. So as John Smart, a partner with Ernst & Young specialising in these matters, explains, it is critical that business people should adopt a proactive approach towards understanding the law wherever in the world they operate. “Board members can’t leave it to their compliance officers,” he says.

Even in an era of international financial reporting standards there is no guarantee that figures – such as valuations – will be interpreted in the same way. The growth of globalisation has not led yet to consistency in rules or enforcement, he says, so it is essential to grasp what is legal in the specific jurisdictions where you work. “It is very easy to fall foul of the local accounting rules,” he says (equivalent, you might say, to the local law’s take on the naming of teddy bears).

It is also important, Delahunty emphasises, to understand what the local extradition arrangements are and the relative benefits of fighting them or complying with them. As matters stand, Graham points out, business people may be caught in a Kafkesque situation where the pragmatic response to any accusation is to admit guilt – even if innocent – simply to avoid something worse.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Are top lawyers worth their huge fees?
• Solicitor forced to retire claims 'ageism'
• Drug case failure may be last straw for SFO