The case of the Natwest, or Enron, Three is: American prosecutors have alleged: Now, the crime, if there was one, was committed on British soil against a British company. However, US attorneys have successfully argued that the UKs Extradition Act 2003 applies not just to suspected terrorists, but also to white-collar criminals such as the Natwest Three*. The Extradition Act was set up following 9/11 in a bid for closer co-operation between the US & UK in combating terrorism. There have been Extradition Acts before but: Liberty considers the Act to be However, even if we as UK citizens accept that co-operation such as this is required to combat terrorism US citizens cannot yet be extradited to Britain in a similar way. Nor can British Citizens who have committed crimes or acts of terror on British Soil. A number of requests for the extradition of British Citizens wanted on terrorism or murder charges have been denied. Similar requests have been constantly refused by the US. This is not intended to be a anti-US rant. America has been used as the example in this post as an example of a lack of co-operation between two close allies. If our closest ally will not extradite wanted criminals/terrorists, what is the point of the Extradition Act remaining on the Books? What implications does this have on the future of the special relationship as it becomes ever more apparent that the UK is a very minor partner? *Despite Natwest considering that no crime had been committed and the fact that the alleged criminals had paid tax upon their ill gotten gains.