How long could Peter Murrell spend in prison?

A hefty custodial sentence is almost certain for Peter Murrell after the former SNP chief executive admitted embezzling more than £400,000 from the party.

Under the Scottish legal system there are no formal sentencing guidelines for embezzlement like there are in England.

That means you have to look to previous case law to see what might happen when the 61-year-old is sentenced next month.

His case is being dealt with in the High Court of Justiciary, where judges can impose a life sentence and an unlimited fine - and people convicted of embezzling more than £100,000 are usually jailed.

Scotland's courts consistently identify the same aggravating factors in embezzlement cases.

These include:

• the amount involved
• how long the offending took place
• whether it only stopped because it was discovered
• the nature and degree of the trust betrayed
• whether the accused held a public office or professional position
• the impact on the victim
• whether the money is recoverable
• and whether there is a need for the sentence to act as a deterrent

In this case, Peter Murrell was chief executive of a political party.

He embezzled more than £400,000 over more than a decade and falsified records to disguise personal spending - so most of those aggravating factors are at a high level.

Former SNP MP Natalie McGarry was jailed for two years after being convicted of embezzling £25,000 from Women for Independence and the Glasgow Regional Association.

If that case is the benchmark - with around a month in jail for every £1,000 embezzled - then Murrell could be behind bars for a very long time.

But other cases point to less jail time.

Beverley Bennie was jailed for 20 months after admitting embezzling £96,371 from a children's charity and a vending firm. That was with a guilty plea.

Emma Hunt, an office manager at an Edinburgh property firm, embezzled over £900,000 and spent it on a lavish lifestyle which included parties, designer goods and holidays.

She was found guilty after a trial and was jailed for three years.

These cases may offer more of a guide to Lord Young when Murrell is back in court on 23 June.

Much will depend on whether the judge thinks an exemplary sentence is required.

The courts released a lengthy list of the items bought by Murrell with SNP funds.

This included a Niesmann+Bischoff luxury motorhome, which he paid £124,550 for in late 2020.

It has been sitting in a police compound since it was seized from the driveway of Murrell's mother's house in Dunfermline in April 2023.

The indictment says Murrell created false documents to disguise the purchase as a legitimate party expense.

Following a guilty plea, prosecutors can seek a confiscation order. The motorhome - or more precisely its current value - would be treated as realisable property representing the benefit of criminal conduct.

Having sat unused in a police yard for over three years, it will have depreciated sharply - perhaps to less than half its original price.

As the victim of crime, the SNP also has a competing claim, but the Crown's interest takes priority.

• Peter Murrell is back in court on Tuesday, 2 June. Follow the story with us online and the BBC news app.

In practice, Lord Young is likely to set a confiscation order reflecting the total benefit from the embezzlement and the motorhome's residual value would simply count toward satisfying that broader order.

It would most likely be sold, with the proceeds applied to the confiscation amount.

Either way, Murrell won't be getting it back.

Murrell is set to face legal action to recover the money he embezzled.

The judge is likely to make a confiscation order which requires payment to the state. The law does not allow the Crown to confiscate property or assets directly - it's an order for payment.

Normally the courts grant six months to pay.

Failure to pay can result in a jail term - but even that doesn't cancel out the debt.

The amount actually recovered in cases like this often falls well short of the amount embezzled - especially if the money has been spent on consumables, holidays, and luxury goods that depreciate.

When that happens, there can be relatively little left to confiscate.

And if there's a shortfall between the amount clawed back by selling these items and the £400,000 total, Murrell would still be liable for that difference.

It may be that when police raided the home Murrell shared with Nicola Sturgeon in April 2023, they recovered all the items that he embezzled.

If he had given some of the items to his estranged wife, it may be possible to recover them - if there is evidence she still has them.

This can happen regardless of whether she knew the items were purchased with embezzled funds.

Proceeds of crimes laws apply in Scotland, and make provision for property in the hands of others to be treated as a "tainted gift" where it can be linked to criminal conduct.

The innocence of the recipient is no defence.

Sturgeon - who was cleared of any wrongdoing after the police investigation - said she had no knowledge or suspicion whatsoever that Murrell had used SNP funds to buy personal items.

She said she had no knowledge that some items on the list had been purchased at all, and that for others she had no reason to doubt Murrell had used his own money.

The list also reveals interesting patterns with bulk buys of similar items in November and December, such as gaming consoles and video games titles such as Grand Theft Auto and FIFA.

Were these gifts being bought in the run-up to Christmas? And if so, will the Crown be looking to get these presents back?