HUNDREDS of pounds made in donations to a pro-independence campaign group website were discovered in the account of an ex-SNP MP who is at the centre of an embezzlement trial, a court has heard.
Natalie McGarry, 40, has been charged with misappropriating more than £25,000 from two campaign groups.
One charge alleges she embezzled £4,661.02 from the Glasgow Regional Association (GRA) of the SNP between April 9, 2014, and August 10 2015.
The second charge accuses her of embezzling £21,000 between April 26, 2013, and November 30, 2015, while she was treasurer of Women for Independence.
McGarry, who was MP for Glasgow East between 2015 and 2017, denies both charges.
Former treasurer for GRA and now councillor Alexander Belic, 35, gave evidence before a 14-strong jury at the trial at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Wednesday.
The witness said he saw a news story in November 2015 with WFI making allegations against McGarry, who was convenor of GRA at the time, which prompted him to review GRA’s finances.
During this review, he claimed he was told hundreds of pounds worth of donations sent via a button on the GRA website went to McGarry’s PayPal account before being transferred to her personal bank account.
READ MORE: War has never been a reason not to replace a UK Prime Minister
Alastair Mitchell, prosecuting, said: “It’s agreed that between 28 and 29 June 2015, £332 was transferred from the PayPal to Natalie McGarry at SNP to another PayPal account to a Clydesdale Bank account which was the personal account of Natalie McGarry.”
Belic replied: “Yes.”
Mitchell asked if there was any reason why the donations button would be linked to McGarry’s personal bank account to which Mr Belic replied no, adding: “There’s no reason we couldn’t receive the money ourselves.”
He added: “All the money that had gone in had gone to a Clydesdale bank account.
“The sort code was enough to establish it was a Clydesdale bank.
“None of the GRA accounts were Clydesdale, they were Bank of Scotland.”
The city councillor also told the jury there were multiple cheques that had been cashed by McGarry which he could not explain.
Mitchell showed the cheques in question to the jury.
Two cheques of £167.01 paid to cash were displayed in court and were said to have been used to cover a storage unit for bank documents.
Mitchell asked if it was normal for cheques to be paid to cash to which Mr Belic replied no.
He added: “These two payments of £167.01 are the price of a storage unit…but there were only two payments, so why weren’t we paying for them all the time?
“It just seemed unusual.”
A £600 cheque filled out from one of GRA’s accounts for property consulting firm Thompson Property Consultants LTD was also displayed.
The court heard that the firm had done a survey on McGarry’s Shettleston constituency office.
Belic said: “I had no idea who Thompson Property Consultants were.
“I phoned them up and I was advised they had conducted a survey for Natalie McGarry’s MP office.
“They had conducted a survey looking at the prospect of splitting it so they conducted some surveying work for her.”
Mitchell asked: “Is there any reason why the GRA would pay for that?”
Mr Belic replied: “None whatsoever”
Another cheque appeared to show £2,000 made out to “Natalie McGarry” in April 2014.
The witness claimed that he was told by McGarry by email that this was for media training accompanied with an invoice totalling £2,310.
Mr Belic said there was no detail of a firm on the invoice and that the corresponding VAT number did not match said media company.
Allan Macleod, defending, later showed the jury an invoice which showed the VAT number linked up to a company called Enterprise Screen Production.
He added: “We were shown a cheque for £2,000 made out to Natalie McGarry.
“The only reason why GRA would pay is if she had incurred an expense perhaps.
“It wasn’t unusual to see funds like that being transferred to Natalie McGarry if she had incurred an expense for that.”
Mr Belic agreed.
The trial continues before Sheriff Tom Hughes.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel