A Briton living in west Cork faces possible extradition to the US in connection with an alleged $26 million (€29.2 million) fraud from three American banks following a Supreme Court decision yesterday. The five-judge Supreme Court overturned a High Court decision against the extradition proceedings.

The High Court had found the offence for which the extradition of Mr Albert John Oldridge is sought did not correspond with an offence in Irish law. It has been alleged that Mr Oldridge (72), of Caheragh, Drimoleague, Co Cork, and five others defraudedMichigan National Bank, Swiss Cantobank and Security Bank of Manistee.

In April 1996, a US magistrate returned an indictment against Mr Oldridge, accusing him of various offences described as "wire fraud". When the extradition proceedings came before Dublin District Court in December 1997, Judge Haughton adjourned the case and asked the High Court to declare if there were offences here which corresponded to those offences in respect of which Mr Oldridge's extradition was sought.

The High Court found there was no corresponding offence. The trial judge also noted that, under the Agreement on Extradition between Ireland and the US (the Washington Treaty), an offence is an extraditable offence only if it is punishable under the law of both countries by imprisonment for a period of more than one year. Yesterday, delivering the Supreme Court's reserved judgment, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said if the allegations were well founded, Mr Oldridge would properly be described as having participated in a conspiracy even though his alleged role was confined to lulling the banks involved into a false sense of security.

The corresponding offence here was conspiracy to defraud, contrary to common law.

The Chief Justice noted that conspiracy to defraud is a common law misdemeanour which is punishable by imprisonment for life or any lesser term here.

Under US law, Mr Oldridge could face a maximum penalty of five-years in jail.

In those circumstances, counsel for Mr Oldridge had properly conceded that the finding of the High Court judge that the requirements of Article 2 of the Washington Treaty had not been met could not be supported.