lawyer from a man cleared in a massive fraud and theft trial vowed to sue the Front Street moneymen.

The move followed a statement from Julian Hall, lawyer for accountant and businessman Cecil Durham, after his client was acquitted that his client would be pursuing the bank for "a considerable amount of money'' for loss of earnings, damage to his reputation and pain and suffering caused to him and his family.

Appleby, Spurling & Kempe lawyer Kelvin Hastings-Smith said: "Mr. Hall -- as an experienced defence attorney -- knows perfectly well that where the Crown prosecutes a case, as it did in this recent trial, it is the Crown, acting through the Attorney General, which decides whether charges should be laid, ...what those charges should be and against whom these charges should be preferred.

"We wish to make it clear that this is what happened in regard to the criminal trial which has just concluded.

"The implication by Mr. Hall that the bank made or influenced those decisions which are entirely in the domain of the Attorney-General is completely without foundation.'' Mr. Durham, co-accused Varnel Curtis and Milton Woods were all cleared of charges in the marathon fraud and theft trial.

Former Bank of Bermuda chief Arnold Todd -- although cleared on six charges of theft -- still faces 11 lesser charges.

The jury was unable to reach agreement on the outstanding allegations despite a day-and-a-half's deliberation.

Mr. Hastings-Smith said: "The civil proceedings which the bank instituted against Mr. Todd have been stayed pending the conclusion of the criminal trial.

"It is anticipated that those proceedings will be pursued to trial following the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.'' It is up to the Attorney General's Chambers whether to allow the outstanding charges against Todd to lie or start a new trial with a fresh jury.

Last night Mr. Hall said: "I am not going to try the case in the newspapers or try to argue the case prematurely.'' He added that evidence in the court case showed that bank chiefs had, long before the start of the criminal case, agreed to lower his indebtedness to the bank because "they accepted a mistake was made in the loan which was made to him''.