CRAIG Whyte was the “fall guy” and not “a pantomime villain” when he took over Rangers FC in 2011, the High Court in Glasgow was told yesterday.
Advocate Donald Findlay QC, is defending Whyte, 46, on two charges, one of fraud and the second a breach of the Companies Act.
He told the jury of eight men and seven women in his summing up that his client was “manifestly” not guilty.
Findlay said: “You have seen witness after witness come into court not wanting to take responsibility and sought to absolve themselves for anything that happened.
“It is the playground mentality – it wasn’t me. That is the attitude of so many witnesses in this case.” The Crown alleges that before his takeover of Rangers in 2011, Whyte pretended to then club owner Sir David Murray, and others, that funds were available to make all the required payments to acquire a “controlling and majority stake” in the club.
The court has heard the sale of the club was eventually made to Whyte for £1 but came with obligations to pay an £18m bank debt, a £2.8m “small tax case” bill, £1.7m for stadium repairs, £5m for players and £5m in working capital. Evidence has been led that Whyte used money from the Ticketus lending company secured against future season ticket sales.
The second charge under the Companies Act concerns the £18m payment between Whyte’s Wavetower company and Rangers to clear a bank debt.
Findlay said: “A recurrent theme of what I will say to you is that the Crown approach is wrong, unfair, unjustified and unjustifiable.
“They are asking you to take 10 words from the indictment and that, if you look at those words, Mr Whyte is guilty.
“The Crown are asking you to be selective in the most selective way imaginable. That is just wrong, that is just unfair.”
Findlay said there had been “buck passing, back protecting and blind eye turning” during the trial.
He added: “What we have to do is sweep all that away and look at it in its context and in the real world.
“There have been attempts to portray Craig Whyte as a pantomime villain... that everything was fine until he came along.
“But, that is far from the truth. He is being made to be the fall guy.
The QC asked the jury to consider the “whole evidence in this case” and pointed to an email from chartered accountant Michael McGill, who worked for the Murray Group, which included reference to Whyte’s “other investors”.
Findlay said: “What is the only question if you are really concerned about the source of the money? It is “who are they... what other investors?’.”
The court has heard evidence that no due diligence was done on the deal and Findlay said the Murray side did “absolutely nothing” in that regard.
He told the jury: “Only one conclusion can be drawn from that – it did not matter that there were other investors. It was the deal that mattered.”
He then told the court the Murray team “ought to have known” about any role Ticketus had. Findlay said a “massive organisation” like the Murray Group could have made enquiries to “explain what this is all about”.
Findlay said it was clear Whyte had bought the shares to take over Rangers. He added: “Was there a crime? The defence say that manifestly there was not.”
The trial before Lady Stacey will continue on Monday when Findlay will conclude his summing up before the judge will give her charge to the jury after which they will retire to consider their verdict.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here