A WEALTHY Glasgow businessman, accused by the Scottish Government of extorting money, has received more than £250,000 in legal aid during a landmark court case, The Herald can reveal.

Russell Stirton -- who has alleged links to Glasgow’s underworld -- was targeted by police during a major money laundering investigation in 2004 called Operation Maple.

When a criminal case against Stirton and his business partner Alexander Anderson subsequently failed to materialise the Crown used the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to force the men to prove that assets belonging to them, worth nearly £2 million, were obtained legally.

The civil case began on May 19, 2009 at the Court of Session in Edinburgh and is the longest of its kind ever to be heard in Scotland. It resumes today after a two month break.

However, the length of time the case is taking has prompted fears that the cost to the public purse will exceed the value of assets frozen. Unconfirmed reports claim Stirton and Anderson have been paid £10,000 a month in living expenses from the amount seized. The Crown Office has refused to confirm this nor to reveal how much legal proceedings have cost the taxpayer to date.

In January 2004, Stirton and Anderson were the subject of a police raid when their homes, businesses, other properties, cars and bank accounts were placed under a restraining order, effectively freezing their assets.

Stirton is an ex-paratrooper who describes his business interests as building and property development. Police believed a service station Stirton and Anderson ran in Springburn, Glasgow, was a money-laundering front but a police investigation failed. The Crown then used the Proceeds of Crime Act in an attempt to show that Stirton and Anderson extorted more than £760,000 from a taxi firm in Glasgow. Both men deny the allegations.

Using Freedom of Information legislation The Herald has learned from the Scottish Legal Aid Board (Slab) that Stirton has received legal aid totalling £251,985.09 since July 2010.

Slab said these payments were “interim” claims from Stirton’s legal representatives and that final accounts were still to be submitted. Anderson has received no legal aid.

A spokesman for Slab added: “Russell Stirton was granted legal aid in July 2010, to oppose an application by the Civil Recovery Unit for forfeiture of his assets. Mr Stirton’s application had to meet the stringent statutory tests for civil legal aid -- we assess the merits of the case and assess whether the applicant is financially eligible.

“Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, income received from seized assets for the purpose of living expenses cannot be used to fund legal proceedings. Therefore, the board cannot consider this as income or capital when assessing financial eligibility. However, depending on the decision in the case, if Mr Stirton preserves/ keeps the assets, some or all of the funds held by the Crown, can be used to pay for his legal aid bill and there will therefore be no cost to the taxpayer.”

FOI requests were also made to the Crown Office requesting details of the cost of the case to the tax payer. The Government’s Civil Recovery Unit refused to disclose details but a figure was provided for the last valuation of Stirton and Anderson’s assets, which was made in February 2009. At that time two years ago, £922, 212,22 remained from the initial amount seized.

In some cases Proceeds of Crime legislation has been a resounding success with more than £25m seized since 2003.

However, in 2009 The Herald revealed senior police officers were concerned about its shortcomings and were calling for amendments to the legislation.

The Scottish Police Federation said that an average of just 10% of each criminals’ total assets were being confiscated.

The petition against Stirton and Anderson alleges that between 1993 and 2005 they received income and acquired assets with funds for which there was no legitimate source. Both men deny the allegations.

Last year, Anderson informed the court he and Stirton were to be investigated by the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

He revealed they had received letters from SOCA -- described as the UK’s version of the FBI -- stating that their tax returns were to be scrutinised.