senior bank manager accused of falsifying information on a loan application that advanced nearly 2 million to a foreign company.

Mr. Justice Ground told a Supreme Court jury there was insufficient evidence to support the charge that ex-banker David Diggins used deception to obtain a valuable security and said they were to return a formal not guilty verdict to the charge.

Diggins, the former senior manager responsible for international loans at the Bank of Butterfield, had been accused of obtaining a valuable security by false pretences on August 28, 1995 and with intent to defraud caused Mary Faries to send 1,875,000 ($2,812,500) to the National Westminster Bank in London.

At the start of the trial, Solicitor General Barrie Meade chose not to proceed with charges that Diggins, 49, of Somerset, stole 1,875,000 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.

Mr. Justice Ground also warned the jury that the three dropped charges have no bearing on Diggins' guilt or innocence in respect of the lone charge he still faces.

Now the jury will decide only one charge; that on August 25, 1995 Diggins falsified a report and its supporting documents.

Mr. Justice Ground's ruling came after lawyer Julian Hall, representing Diggins, offered no evidence on behalf of his client.

The case against Diggins stems from a loan he processed 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 alleged 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.

Senior officers at the Bank of Butterfield launched an investigation into Diggins' activities around March, 1996.

Mr. Meade, who began his summation to the jury yesterday after Diggins' lawyer, Julian Hall, of assailed defence assertions that the entire Crown case was based on a "rush to judgment''.

He said the bank was interested in protecting its shareholders and depositors and had a reasonable expectation that Diggins, as an officer of the company, would be a team member in this process.

At its simplest, Mr. Meade said Diggins "ripped off'' the Bank of Butterfield and funneled money from the bank to his friends.

And he tried to hide the real borrowers of the money because the bank of Butterfield would not have approved the funds if it knew the real borrowers were not Neway Properties Ltd. but another company called Tanson that already owed the bank more than $10 million.

To hide these facts, Mr. Meade said Diggins made up a loan form which was "deliberately intended to mislead''.

In the end, the Bank of Butterfield financed the Moulin Complex for more than 100 percent of its selling price. The bank loaned Neway 1,875,000 and the property was actually bought for 1,623,000.

Mr. Meade warned the jury not to be misled by the fact the money had all been repaid (during the trial, the remaining debt of some 375,000 was repaid) because he said that it cost the bank more than the 90,000 it earned in administration and interest from the Neway Properties loan.

Julian Hall, representing Diggins, is expected to start his address to the jury this later afternoon. Mr. Justice Ground's instructions on the law will follow which means that the jury could begin deliberating some time on Thursday.

CHARGE THTROWN OUT -- Exbanker David Diggins now faces just one charge in his Supreme Court trail.