Our Politics newsletter is now daily. Join thousands of others and get the latest Scottish politics news sent straight to your inbox. Subscribe Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

LAWYERS last night said Michelle Thomson would have “very tricky” questions to answer if she is quizzed by police over mortgage fraud.

Campaigning solicitor Mike Dailly said that there is no obvious legal reason to explain Thomson’s use of back-to-back mortgages as she built her buy-to-let property empire.

And he said establishing Thomson as the Mrs A named in the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal that led to the striking off of her solicitor Christopher Hales was crucial for the Crown as they consider their next move.

Dailly, who has built a career helping working people at the Govan Law Centre, said: “It’s difficult to think of the kind of scenarios that might explain all this in a way that is within the law.

“If we accept the proposition that the Mrs A in the tribunal decision is Michelle Thomson, then she has a lot of questions to answer.

“If the police and the Crown follow the evidence that emerges from the tribunal, with the very solid admissions made by Christopher Hales, then it will take them to the three individuals who were instructing Mr Hales.”

Dailly added: “Mr Hales has made full admissions to allegations against him and the SSDT have made it plain that the Mrs A in the redacted judgment appears to have been involved in potential criminal activity.

“From the judgment, Mrs A is directly instructing Mr Hales to do the back-to-back deals and to set up the cashback deals.”

(Image: Callum Moffat/Daily Record)

Dailly said that innocent explanations for the deals were hard to imagine.

He said: “Is it plausible that the clients were not the ones who were instigating the cashback deals and the back-to-back sales that have all the hallmarks of

mortgage fraud?

“Is it possible that the solicitor was doing all this himself? If so, why didn’t all the cashbacks go to him? Clearly there is a paper trail to follow and the Crown won’t take too long to get to who did what.

“Michelle Thomson is entitled to say she has always acted within the law but if we take the proposition that she is Mrs A, she is going to have to answer some very difficult questions.”

Edinburgh West MP Thomson was suspended by the SNP after questions over her property deals emerged.

Dailly questioned her insistence that she cannot discuss the case because a police inquiry is under way.

He said: “The Scottish Government say that the matter is sub judice and that Mrs Thomson can’t speak. That is not strictly the case for her, as she has not yet been charged with anything.”

Another prominent lawyer approached by the Record said he would be

“astonished” if further criminal charges were not brought by the Crown.

The lawyer pointed to the Law Society of Scotland’s own advice to solicitors in detecting fraud. Six of their red flag indicators are reflected in reports of Thomson’s property deals.

He said: “Looking at this case and bearing in mind much of the evidence will be documentary, looking at movement of money, it is difficult to see it going away.

“It would be wrong to prejudge things but if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it’s normally a duck.

“These cashback deals, involving properties that suddenly soar in value and which are bought twice in the same day, involving third and fourth parties are like caricatures of a fraud case. If they are not juggling the books to deceive the banks, what exactly are they doing?”

The lawyer added: “If it can be proven that the banks were led to believe that properties were bought for sums of money other than those stated in the mortgage terms, this would be a potential fraud. If the Land Register noted false transaction levels, it would be a fraud.”

Lawyer Ian Smart, former chairman of the Law Society, last week blogged: “Unless the findings of the SSDT are wholly inaccurate, and you will note that the facts were agreed by Mr Hales, Thomson personally is toast.”

NO ANSWER

MICHELLE Thomson again refused to clear up why she engaged in back-to-back mortgage deals yesterday.

And her silence over the deals extended to her husband Peter and business partner Frank Gilbride – who also refused to give an explanation.

When Daily Record reporters knocked on the door of Thomson’s detached home in Edinburgh’s Blackhall, she answered the door with an apprehensive smile on her face.

We simply asked if she was able to explain why she was involved in back-to-back mortgage deals.

Launching into what was clearly a well-prepared response, she said: “The statement that went out from my lawyer, and of course you would have received that as well.

“So basically it makes it quite clear that I’m making no further comment at this stage. And that is on the advice of my solicitor and you can reference that, you can see it on Twitter and so on.”

The door was then shut quietly but firmly behind her.

Thomson’s husband Peter arrived home shortly after 5pm on Wednesday.

He brought in the wheelie bins then nipped inside to change from his smart suit into jeans before taking the family dog for a walk.

As he walked back to

the house, he repeatedly glanced towards our car. Our reporter then buzzed the doorbell in the hope we could ask him to explain why his wife had got involved in back-to-back mortgages.

He has been dragged into the scandal as his name was found on some of the mortgage documents.

But he refused to answer the door.

We also approached Michelle’s business partner, former journalist Frank Gilbride.

Gilbride previously ran a news agency but now has a portfolio of buy-to-let properties.

As a co-owner of M&F Properties alongside Thomson, we hoped he would be able to give a reasonable explanation for the firm’s back-to-back mortgage deals.

The first buzz of the doorbell went unanswered but after a firm second push, Gilbride answered the front door of his massive Dunblane home.

We explained we were from the Daily Record and had a few questions to ask him.

He asked what it’s all about – as if the mortgage scandal has just washed over him.

When we ask for a simple explanation for the mortgages, he tried to buy time by picking up his post. Then he insisted he and Thomson acted “perfectly within the law”.

He revealed he plans to consult a lawyer and added: “I’ll speak when I’m ready.”