That's right, legislation originally brought in to help fast track extraditions of would-be terrorists is now being used to combat white-collar crime. Or, more specifically, legislation bought in to make it easier for terrorists to be extradited to the USA is being used to combat suspected bank fraudsters.
So let's take a closer look at this:
First off, we have the inevitable yet quite wrong practice of using very aggressive law in an area in which it was not intended to be used. This is legislation accepted on the grounds that it is necessary to combat terrorism, a loss of freedom in some areas to supposedly safeguard freedom in others. So is it acceptable to use this law to combat something as mundane as fraud? No, it isn't, but tough, because the law is there now and isn't going to be repealed any time soon.
Secondly, we have the fact that it is now not necessary for the US to provide prima facie evidence in order to get suspects extradited. Let's leave the America bashing for a second, and overlook the fact that Britain still needs to give probable cause to get a suspect shipped the other way, and instead focus on the fact that British citizens can now be extradited for trial in a foreign country, for a crime that there is no solid evidence that they committed. Obviously the doing away with Habeas Corpus is not enough for the British and US governments; let's just treat suspects like cattle on the off-chance they are guilty and ship them off to America. Er, no. Perhaps, perhaps you could find a way to justify this in a case of suspected terrorism, but for fraud? It isn't what the legislation was intended for, and it's clearly using a forced-through law for political ends.
I said I'd leave the America-bashing alone. In fact I'll actually leave it to Boris Johnson:
They [the US] can, under the 2003 Extradition Act, Hoover over to America, as if by some electromagnetic power, people against whom they are not obliged to produce any prima facie evidence - whereas we have absolutely no such corresponding right to extradite to Britain suspects that we want to.
And finally, there is also the small matter of this suspected crime being committed by British citizens against a British bank, predominantly sited in Britain. The Enron link, and the fact that some portions of the crime took place in the USA and the Cayman Isles, should not be enough to counter the simple fact that this should be a domestic UK issue. Now, I'm quite sure the US legal system will treat them fairly, and that at the end of the day it probably doesn't matter which country they get tried in, but there is a principle here - British citizens should not be whisked off to a foreign country for trial, even if it is politically convenient to do so.
So yes, this is what you get for giving up your freedoms!