Lawyer for Imran Ahmad wants “clarification” on whether the Lord Advocate believes his client didn’t suffer “career ending” losses in a Rangers fraud probe

Advocate Ewen Campbell told the Court of Session on Wednesday 14 September that he doesn’t know the exact position that the Lord Advocate’s lawyers are taking on the matter.

Mr Campbell has been instructed to act on behalf of the former Rangers director in a compensation claim brought by him to Scotland’s highest civil court.

Mr Ahmad is seeking £60 million compensation from the Scottish prosecution service.

He is alleging that his prosecution into alleged wrongdoing at the club has caused him to lose a lucrative career as a “venture capital entrepreneur.”

But the Lord Advocate is contesting the action.

On Wednesday, Mr Campbell told Lord Harrower during the procedural hearing that he needed more information from the Lord Advocate’s lawyer Gerry Moynihan KC before proceedings begin next year.

He said: “There is a request for the Lord Advocate to clarify the position in the matters detailed. It is not clear from the pleadings precisely what the position is.

“If the Lord Advocate’s position is as extreme as this - the pursuer, who was a successful individual in the financial world, was not impacted at all by a malicious prosecution which alleged fraud and other financial crimes then there must be a basis for this.

“The pursuer submits that he is entitled to know at this stage of proceedings - and given if it is known it cannot be expert evidence it must be documentary or witness statements which provides the basis for it.

“Just to put matters into context my lord. The causation defence has been on record in some form since October 2020 and the Lord Advocate’s has had the pursuer’s statements for four months now.

“Now Mr Moynihan has confirmed to me this morning that there are no finalised witness statements in the hands of the Lord Advocate although there is at least one draft statement.

“But I do make that request for clarification in terms of the position of the Lord Advocate as a matter of fairness and hopefully for the assistance of the court as well.”

Mr Ahmad had previously sought £2 million compensation from the Lord Advocate.

He was one of many men who were prosecuted by the Crown following a police investigation into the circumstances surrounding the takeover of Rangers by businessman Craig Whyte in 2012.

However, nobody was convicted of any wrongdoing and the investigation has previously been described as a “malicious prosecution”.

Mr Ahmad’s legal action against the Lord Advocate is the latest in a long running legal saga.

Last year the club’s former chairman Charles Green received a £6.3 million settlement from the Lord Advocate for being wrongfully prosecuted.

Mr Green also received an apology from the then Lord Advocate James Wolffe KC.

The Crown Office told Mr Green that he’d receive damages for being arrested and wrongfully prosecuted.

Prosecutors have also paid damages in civil cases brought by businessmen David Whitehouse and Paul Clark who were also arrested during the investigation.

Prosecutors admitted Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark were wrongfully arrested and prosecuted - the two men sought a total of £20.8 million from the Crown Office and Police Scotland.

But they later settled their action with each of them receiving £10.3 million each - their legal bills, thought to be worth £3 million each, were also paid for.

At an earlier virtual hearing Mr Moynihan, told Lord Harrower that his client needed more time to assess a report written by a financial expert called Stuart Andrews.

He said the report focused on Mr Ahmad’s participation in a company called Proton Partners International and how much he could have made from the firm.

On Wednesday, Mr Moynihan said that he didn’t have a full picture of Mr Ahmad’s career and that his position reflected that.

He said: “The point here is relatively simple. The case I meet in the Andrews report is that Mr Ahmad lost a career as a venture capital entrepreneur.

“The launch pad into that career.. is success in Rangers and his success in Proton.

“So what I have put in issue in the pleadings was whether Rangers was, as Mr Andrews suggested a career high and whether the Proton was something that was lost as a result of the prosecution or had been lost for other reasons.

“What I am doing is attacking causation of the basis upon which the claim is advanced.

“For example there is a list of other companies - Heavenly Desserts and other things I have not referred to those in the pleadings - for two reasons.

“Firstly I do not yet have my expert’s report in relation to these matters.

“Secondly, these other companies other than Rangers and Proton do not enter the calculation of loss.

“There is no specific loss claimed in respect of loss of opportunity.

“These other examples are simply put forward as the height of transaction that Mr Ahmad would have been involved in had he been a venture capital entrepreneur.

“So that I think I am meeting the case against me pure and simple.”

Lord Harrower said that he expected lawyers for the Lord Advocate to give further information about their position to Mr Ahmad’s legal team.

He said: “I do take on board the pursuer’s point that in fairness to him he needs to know what the Lord Advocate’s position is.

“And I would expect the Lord Advocate to respond to that.

“I appreciate everything that Mr Moynihan has said about that his responding to the case on causation

“But not withstanding that I think it is appropriate for the Lord Advocate to respond at some stage when they are able to do so.”

Lord Harrower also fixed dates for the full hearing in the case. The court will hear the matter between March 1 and March 10 2023.