A FORMER MP who is accused of embezzling thousands from a pro-Scottish independence group offered to pay “outstanding” funds, a court has heard.
Natalie McGarry, 40, who represented Glasgow East, is accused of embezzling more than £25,000 from two Scottish independence campaign groups, including Women For Independence (WFI).
She is on trial at Glasgow Sheriff Court charged with misappropriating £21,000 between April 26, 2013, and November 30, 2015, while she was the organisation’s treasurer.
It is alleged McGarry transferred cash made from fundraising into her own personal accounts and failed to send donations intended for Perth and Kinross Foodbank and the charity Positive Prisons, Positive Futures. A second charge she faces is allegedly embezzling £4611 between April 9, 2014 and August 10, 2015. McGarry denies the two charges against her.
Appearing as a witness, WFI co-founder and former health secretary Jeane Freeman discussed her “annoyance” with the time it was taking for McGarry to provide the financial details, including the group’s PayPal account.
Freeman also told the jury that she had no idea PayPal payments from the organisation’s independence Crowdfunder were connected to McGarry’s bank account.
Freeman wrote to McGarry alongside fellow WFI member Carolyn Leckie to demand all receipts and invoices be supplied. In an email dated September 11, 2015, McGarry replied: “I have been taking this extremely seriously.”
In the email, McGarry said she had ordered her own personal bank statements to show evidence, however she said her bank only offered statements from the previous six months, and she had to order earlier ones at a cost of £5 each.
McGarry also returned £6436 of WFI cash that was stored in her bank account, according to the email. “I have transferred the money and sent transcripts for PayPal and have sent the receipts that I have,” she told Freeman and Leckie. She continued: “Perhaps it would be pertinent if you could tell me what figure you see to be outstanding.
“I am more than prepared to pay what you see as the outstanding balance until it is proved undoubtably that the money was paid out, at which point it can be re-imbursed.”
However, it had been revealed earlier in court that McGarry had used a loan to pay back some of the independence organisation’s funds.
Freeman told the jury that she had no idea the £6436 was paid back via a loan. And it would not have been fair, she said, to give McGarry an indication of how much cash was missing until all receipts had been supplied and an investigation had been carried out by Elizabeth Young, the accountant who overtook McGarry’s financial responsibilities at WFI.
In response to McGarry’s email, Freeman told Leckie at 23.29 that McGarry’s comments had left her “pissed off” due to the accused’s attempt to “play the high ground”. Freeman wrote to Leckie that the financial gap would be determined by Young’s investigation. She wrote: “That is the gap and she has to pay it – in full and at once.”
In the court, Freeman said McGarry, who was in charge of finances at WFI, should only have used her own bank account as a temporary hold for the funds before transferring them directly to the WFI account. A WFI bank account was set up – however, McGarry required the signatures of two other campaigners before she reimbursed expenses.
In the meantime, “dozens” of expenses were coming in each day, according to McGarry’s lawyer Allan Mcleod.
And due to the fast nature of the campaign, if WFI members such as McGarry paid for materials out of their own pocket, she should have claimed it back on expenses.
McGarry may have been unable to travel to get the signatures from the other members each time a cheque had to be written.
But Freeman told the court she offered to help McGarry on a number of occasions.
She said: “Natalie McGarry and I lived not too far apart and I travelled a great deal for campaigns and business opportunities and I could have assisted.”
McGarry could also have told the members that the process requiring two signatories was not working.
The jury also heard that Freeman said the accused “from time to time appeared to be quite disorganised”.
However, she was “unwilling” to accept offers of help as the independence group grew in popularity and responsibilities escalated.
The trial, before Sheriff Tom Hughes, continues today.
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 hereComments are closed on this article