A former first minister of Scotland is waiting to find out whether she must return gifts given to her by her ex-husband, after he admitted using more than £400,000 of his political party's money to buy them. The case has thrown a spotlight on a little-known legal process: the confiscation order.
At its simplest, the SNP embezzlement case is about Peter Murrell, the former chief executive of the Scottish National Party (SNP), who admitted stealing over £400,000 from the party between 2001 and 2023. Using his access to the SNP's accounting system, he made a string of personal purchases including a luxury campervan, high-end coffee machines, chopsticks, and a 9ct gold pendant bought in Shetland in 2019. That pendant was a gift for his wife, Nicola Sturgeon, who served as Scotland's first minister from 2014 to 2023. After Murrell's confession, the Crown (the public prosecution service in Scotland) has begun legal action to recover the stolen money through a confiscation order. This order can force a convicted criminal to hand over assets or cash equivalent to the value of their ill-gotten gains.
“Explains the SNP embezzlement case, confiscation orders, and whether Nicola Sturgeon must return gifts.”
The case has its roots in a long-running scandal within the SNP. Murrell ran the party as chief executive for over two decades and was married to its most prominent leader. When the embezzlement came to light, it prompted questions about oversight and governance. Sturgeon, who was first minister at the time, has said she was unaware that Murrell was using party funds for personal spending. She later acknowledged that some gifts she received from him, including a £425 necklace from a Shetland shop that she often wore, were bought with embezzled money. In a tearful interview, she described the pain and bewilderment of discovering this, adding, "I loved that necklace and I wore it a lot."
For UK readers, the case matters because it illustrates how the legal system deals with high-profile financial crimes and the recovery of stolen assets. Confiscation orders are a key tool used across the UK to ensure crime does not pay, and this case tests their limits when the stolen funds have been used to buy gifts for a third party. It also raises practical questions: can the court force a person—even a former first minister—to return gifts purchased with stolen money? And what happens if the recipient argues they did not know the source of the funds? The Scottish Legal Aid Board has also been drawn into the controversy after reports that Murrell and his family sold their jointly-owned villa in Portugal before he claimed legal aid. The first minister, John Swinney, has said he had no knowledge of the sale but emphasised that legal aid claims are assessed on strict criteria.
Q: Does Nicola Sturgeon have to give back the gifts? The decision is now with the courts. The Crown has applied for a confiscation order covering the embezzled money, and the court will decide whether that order extends to gifts Murrell bought for Sturgeon. First Minister John Swinney has said he will leave the matter to the judicial process.
Q: What is a confiscation order? A confiscation order is a court order made after a criminal conviction that requires the offender to pay a sum of money equal to the benefits they gained from their crime. It is designed to strip criminals of their illicit assets. In this case, the Crown is seeking to recover the £400,000+ Murrell embezzled.
Q: Could the SNP owe money to HMRC? Possibly. Questions have been raised about whether Murrell claimed back VAT on purchases he said were for party use. The SNP is currently in talks with HM Revenue and Customs about the matter, according to John Swinney.
What happens next is largely in the hands of the courts. The Crown's application for a confiscation order will be heard, and a judge will rule on how much Murrell must repay and whether any of the gifts must be surrendered. There are also ongoing calls from opposition parties for a Holyrood inquiry into the SNP, though the party does not support this. For now, the legal process will determine the fate of the gifts and the extent of the financial recovery.