A Canadian bank executive was brought in as a "Wyatt Earp'' figure to clean up the Wild West approach of the Bank of Bermuda, a lawyer claimed yesterday.

Barrister Julian Hall was speaking during the trial of former bank chief Arnold Todd on 17 charges of theft, fraud and false accounting. Three others also face charges.

Mr. Hall, representing Todd's co-accused Cecil Durham, was cross-examining Bank of Bermuda executive John Fargey at the marathon Supreme Court trial.

He suggested to Mr. Fargey that "heads have rolled'' since the banker was brought from the Royal Bank of Canada in 1989 and that there had been a string of high level figures leaving the bank.

Mr. Fargey said: "I would agree with that -- some have retired, some have resigned and others have left under other circumstances.'' And he admitted that he found standards of loan documentation at the bank when he arrived to be "considerably less than the standard I would expect given my history''.

He added: "We had lenders who were not following the procedures, either intentionally or by default.'' Earlier in the trial, Mr. Hall compared the bank's procedures in the 1980s to something out of the Wild West.

Mr. Fargey agreed with Mr. Hall that the bank's lending rules were "pretty flexible'' during the 1980s.

And he admitted he had seen some loan applications which had not been signed by the prospective borrower.

But he added: "I would not say I saw a lot applications which were not signed.... about a half-dozen of which this (Durham's) was one.'' Mr. Hall quizzed Mr. Fargey over the time scale surrounding Durham's decision to give a signed statement to the bank saying he had never received the cash from a $315,000 loan, arranged by Todd in 1987.

Mr. Fargey agreed that the bank accepted the $315,000 was not owed by Durham and adjusted his "high six-figure'' debt accordingly.

But he insisted under questioning from Crown Counsel Michael Pert QC that Durham had voluntarily made his statement.

Mr. Fargey said: "I know the reductions were made before the document was signed.'' And in response to questions from defence lawyers about written policy documents to be followed by bank officials, he said there was a set of procedures.

But he added: "It deals with the business of honesty and integrity -- if the people do not apply these procedures with honesty and integrity, it doesn't matter if the rules are there or not because they will be ignored.'' Mr. Fargey agreed with Mr. Pert that there was nothing on bank files seen by him which suggested business should be conducted in the way they allegedly were by Todd.

Todd, 56, of Pearman's Hill, Warwick, allegedly committed the offences between 1985 and 1990.

It is claimed he used his position as a senior loan officer at the Bank of Bermuda to submit bogus loan applications and created a network of companies to further his schemes.

Also in the dock are importer Varnel Curtis, 49, of St. Anne's Drive, Southampton; hotel security chief Milton Woods, 61, of Old Road, Southampton; and businessman Durham, 56, of Ramgoat Hill, Smith's Parish.

All face charges relating to the allegations against Todd. The four accused deny all the charges, which involve around $1.2 million.

Earlier, Mr. Fargey agreed with Todd's defence counsel John Perry QC that some condominiums could not be sold to non-Bermudians.

But Mr. Perry claimed that, around the time of Todd's alleged offences, a senior white bank figure approved a 100 percent loan to a white non-Bermudian.

He added that it was "a subterfuge, a dodge'' to allow a Bermudian to buy the condominium because they had not been regarded as a good security for a loan on their own account.

Mr. Perry added that money left the bank on the loan before the building was completed and before the bank had any security.

Mr. Fargey said: "It would not be an appropriate thing to do because the non-Bermudian would not be able to obtain title.'' He added: "I would not say for certain it would not happen -- I would not say for certain it did not happen. It was wrong in the 1990s and 1980s just as it is wrong in 1996.'' The trial continues next Thursday as one of the lawyers involved has to travel overseas on legal business.