David Diggins' fraud trial displayed a typically Bermudian version of small-mindedness that arose from a combination of corporate jealousy, incompetence and a rush to judgment, a defence lawyer said yesterday.

And the entire incident should never have reached the Supreme Court because it could have been sorted out internally.

Lawyer Julian Hall made these assertions yesterday during his address to the jury.

A verdict in the trial, which is now in its fourth week, could be reached later today.

Pusine Judge Richard Ground is expected to spend the entire morning giving instructions on the law followed by a summary of the evidence. The jury should begin its deliberations by lunch time.

Diggins, a former senior manager responsible for international loans at the Bank of Butterfield, is accused of falsifying the information on a loan application that advanced nearly 2 million to Gibraltar-based company Neway Properties Ltd.

Mr. Hall suggested that if Roderick Goom, Diggins' immediate boss, had taken the time to contact his client -- Diggins was on vacation at the time (August, 1995) -- to explain a fax that caused Mr. Goom some concern, the outcome would have been much different.

Instead Mr. Hall said that the bank launched into a "fruitless and silly'' investigation into matters they did not really understand and it ended up costing them hundreds of personnel hours and even more money.

Moreover, Mr. Hall said Mr. Goom, who "rode into the bank on a new broom'', set about making wholesale changes to the internal procedures of the credit department.

Even though Mr. Goom testified that he found a document on a photocopier which was addressed to Diggins and it caused him much concern, he never produced a copy to the court to prove his claim.

Consequently, Mr. Hall advised the jury to see Mr. Goom as a less than credible witness.

At the beginning of his Supreme Court trial, Diggins, 49, of Somerset was charged with stealing $2,812,500 and obtaining the money under false pretences and with intent to defraud, inducing Mary Faries to deliver the money to Neway Property Ltd. without proper authorisation on August 29, 1995.

But those charges were dropped when Solicitor General Barrie Meade said he was no longer prepared to proceed on them.

On Monday, the charge that Diggins obtained a valuable security by false pretences on August 28, 1995, and with intent to defraud caused Mary Faries to send $2,812,500 (1,504,991.93 pounds) to the National Westminster Bank in London, was also dropped.

Therefore the jury will decide only one charge, fraudulent false accounting.

It is alleged that on August 25, 1995 Diggins falsified a report and its supporting documents.

In his former position, Diggins processed a loan for a Gibraltar-based company called Neway Properties Ltd.

Based on that application and a memorandum which expanded on information contained in the loan form, the bank advanced 1,875,000 to Neway Properties Ltd. which then bought a West End London property called the Moulin Complex.

The loan was required urgently and the bank alleges that Diggins did not follow proper procedures because he neglected to get a third signature on the loan form and ratification from the senior credit committee.