Video: The single sentence that could decide the fate of "fall guy" ex-Rangers owner Craig Whyte

The prosecutor's assertion came as a High Court jury heard conflicting views over the interpretation of a single sentence in the takeover share purchase agreement, which has become a key factor in deciding the fate of Mr Whyte.

Donald Findlay QC, defending, in his summing up says Mr Whyte is the "fall guy" for the state of the club, dismissed that any crime had been committed, asserting that the fact the agreement refers to using "third party funding" implies that the money had conditions attached.

Before Mr Whyte took over Rangers in May 2011, the Ibrox club was 85% owned by Sir David Murray - but was sold for £1 with conditions contained in a share purchase agreement including paying off a £18 million debt with Lloyds Banking Group. The business went into administration nine months later.

The prosecutors maintained that the key to Whyte's guilt came in his signing up to a share purchase agreement which included a clause that has proved crucial in the case, that said he and his company Wavetower "warrant and undertakes" that it has "immediately available from its own and third party resources on an unconditional basis (subject only to completion) the cash resources necessary...."

But Mr Prentice pointed out that his share purchase agreement obligations to pay off Rangers' debt were met with a secret £24 million loan from London-based agency Ticketus against future club season ticket sales which was conditional on him becoming the club owner.

A further £1m from investment firm Merchant Turnaround and £3m from the Jerome Pension Fund was not Mr Whyte's money and there was no authority to release the funds be either directors or trustees, said Mr Prentice.

Whyte, 46, denies the two charges against him, one of acquiring the club fraudulently in May 2011 and another of “financial assistance” under the Companies Act – which centres on the £18m payment, between Whyte’s Wavetower company and Rangers, using London-based agency Ticketus to clear the bank debt with Lloyds.

Part of the allegations against Whyte is that he pretended to Murray and others that “funds were available” to make all agreed-to payments.

These are said to also include, the £2.8m “small tax case” liability, the £1.7m health-and-safety liability plus £5m for the playing squad.

Mr Findlay said: "From the moment [it was] insisted that [the words] 'third party resources' were put into the share purchase agreement, Murray was under notice.

"You now know that that money is subject to some form of condition, because it has to be. Third party funding, by its very nature, cannot be unconditional."

And the QC added, leaning back with his hands in his pockets: "When those words were put into the agreement, what did Murray's advisers do about it? Ab-so-lutely nothing. Why not? Because what mattered was getting the deal over the line. David was badly let down by those advisers. Third party resources was an alarm bell ringing and nobody bothered."

But Mr Prentice had earlier dismissed the 'third party resources' argument telling the jury: "Well you heard the evidence, you would have to question why put the word 'unconditional' in, what's being achieved here.

"The Crown say none of it, not a penny of it was Mr Whyte's not a penny of it, and all if it was conditional on a number of things occurring before it could be paid."

Mr Murray referred to the Ticketus deal as "selling the future" and said he would not have sold to Whyte had he known of its existence, while Mr Prentice said Mr Whyte took active steps to ensure that the season ticket deal was not revealed.

To underscore that argument, a letter from February 9, 2012 - five days before the Whyte-led club went into administration - was produced written by key Murray adviser and lawyer David Horne to Whyte's solicitor Gary Withey asking for details of the Ticketus deal after details of it emerged in the media.

He wrote: You will, of course appreciate that such an arrangement is different from the confirmations and assurances given to the seller by Craig Whyte about the source of funding at the time of the transaction. The seller has also been informed by private individuals who claim to have seen extracts of your firm's client account that payments were made into that account by Ticketus and the amounts paid by Ticketus were used to fund payments made on behalf of the purchaser to the bank.

"You have confirmed to me in your letter of January 3, 2012, that the club has not lent any money to the purchaser or provided security on behalf of any borrowings of the purchasers."

He asked for details from Mr Withey to satisfy Mr Murray that there had been "no breach of the share purchase agreement".

Mr Prentice told the jury: "Was that made up to disguise the fact that they knew about this, or is this genuine concern expressed once it was realised what had occurred.

"In my submission it is plain there was dishonest representation made regarding funds and as a consequence Murray transferred the majority controlling stake of Rangers to Wavetower and consequently Craig Whyte and would not have done so had he known the true circumstances."

And the prosecutor concluded: "For all the apparent complexity and vast volume of material, this case, is in my submission is essentially very very simple. Our case is that Craig Whyte deceived [to get] money by maintaining he had funds immediately available on an unconditional basis subject to completion. And he utilised a club asset, the purchase price of season tickets for the purpose of the acquisition of the majority shareholding and that amounts, in my submission, to financial assistance.

"Ultimately this case is about whether Mr Whyte warranted that he had money and was in a position to proceed with the transaction and he plainly did not, not on any view. Not a single penny of it. And that false and dishonest misrepresentation induced Murray to do something he would not have otherwise done, namely transfer the club.

Mr Findlay however, accused the Crown of a "revisionist view of history" in picking on a "few words" out of in excess of 400,000 pages involved in the case.

Mr Findlay said that Murray and his team knew there were other investors at an early stage but did not seek to find out anything further.

He pointed out that a previous deal to buy the club failed when Mr Murray arrived at the Dorchester Hotel in London to conclude matters to find that it involved turning part of Ibrox into flats.

Mr Findlay also pointed to earlier references in emails and notes to Ticketus funding, and said none of Mr Murray's advisers bothered to check what that entailed.

"Can I prove to you that in fact Murray knew about the Ticketus deal, I'd say no I can't. Can I prove to you that he ought to have known about the Ticketus deal, then I'd say yes I can because there were very clear indicators that Ticketus had some role to play in this. And given the farce of the Dorchester, they ought to have gone out of their way to find out."

Mr Prentice earlier said in his summing up that by causing Rangers to enter the Ticketus contract Mr Whyte used an asset of the club to meet his obligations under the share purchase agreement and that also amounted to financial assistance in breach of the Companies Act legislation. It was argued that the effect of the Ticketus contract was that the club effectively funded the purchase of its own shares.

Mr Prentice indicated that one of the get-out clauses of such a deal was that the assistance was given in good faith in the interests of the company.

But he added: "How can it be good faith if you conceal what you are doing from the target company. In my submission, that undermines good faith. There is no evidence it was in the interests of the company."

In explaining the the law, he told the jury fraud involved a " false pretence, dishonestly made in order to bring about some definite practical result" and suggested "it is not necessary that the result should be actual gain to the offender or loss to someone".

"Dishonest representation [in this case] is that the funds were [not] immediately available on an unconditional basis," Mr Prentice argued.

"The practical result was Mr Murray disposed of the majority shareholding in the club. Had Murray known the true position, he would not have sold the shares," he said.

Mr Findlay is due to complete his concluding comments and Judge Lady Stacey is due to give her summing up to the jury on Monday.

The case continues.