AN admission by Scotland's most senior law officer that the attempted prosecution of the former chief executive of Rangers in connection with an alleged takeover fraud was malicious and unlawful is a "shameful episode in the history of the prosecution services.

That is the view Garry Borland QC, representing Charles Green who is seeking £20 million in damages while suing both the Lord Advocate and the Chief Constable over the collapsed club fraud case.

Charles Green, 67, was arrested five years ago for charges connected to the  “alleged fraudulent acquisition” of the club in 2012 but the prosecution was later abandoned.

Mr Green and others were subjected to criminal proceedings with others in the wake of Craig Whyte's purchase of Rangers from Sir David Murray for a £1 and its subsequent sale before a judge dismissed the charges.

At the Court of Session, Gerry Moynihan QC, for the Lord Advocate, said that the attempted prosecution of Mr Green was not on a proper basis and it is "admitted that there has never been objective probable cause".

READ MORE: Ex-Rangers CEO Charles Green seeks damages for 'significant losses' over fraud prosecution

He said:  "It is admitted that the prosecution of Mr Green had no proper basis. It is admitted there has never been objective probable cause. And it is admitted that in these circumstances malice, in the sense required to give rise to liability in common law, can be inferred.

HeraldScotland: Charles Green

"The import of all of that is the Lord Advocate acknowledges that there has been a malicious prosecution in the sense in which that term is used in our law.   And accordingly there is liability in damages to Mr Green."

Mr Green has maintained that the wrongful arrest and prosecution ruined his life and it understood he is seeking damages in the region of £20 million.

Mr Borland for Mr Green said: "A public admission that Mr Green has been subject to a malicous prosecution, represents a shameful episode in the history of the prosecution services in Scotland. And Mr Green has suffered a gross injustice as a result of this.

The Lord Advocate has already admitted malicious prosecution of the former administrators of Rangers in connection with the collapsed club fraud case.

In an unprecedented development the Lord Advocate also admitted a breach of human rights in the investigation which has led to the former administrators conducting a multi-million pound damages claim to clear their names.

David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, who were joint administrators at the Ibrox club in 2012 following its takeover by Craig Whyte, have already been awarded a huge interim expenses award of £350,000 and £250,000 respectively by Lord Tyre.

The damages cases come three years after former Rangers owner Craig Whyte, who was the last man standing in the fraud conspiracy case, was acquitted of taking over the club by fraud at the end of a seven-week trial.

Mr Whitehouse, of Cheshire, subsequently brought a damages claim against the Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC and the former chief constable of Police Scotland, Phil Gormley, for £9m. Mr Clark, of Surrey, sued for £5m.

All the actions stem from their alleged treatment by the police and prosecution authorities.

Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark won a ruling from a specially convened bench of five judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh last year that the Lord Advocate did not have absolute immunity from a civil damages claim in such circumstances.

Mr Green is suing the Lord Advocate saying the prosecution of him never had any "proper basis" and that it was conducted "without probable cause, in other words it was unjustifiable and should never have been pursued".

He also says that the prosecution was "malicious and therefore wrongful and unlawful".

He is also suing the chief constable for what he says was unlawful detention in connection with the attempted prosecution.

Mr Borland said: "Mr Green seeks substantial damages as a result of the wrongs done to him."

Mr Moynihan said: "It is admitted that the prosecution of Mr Green had no proper basis. It is admitted there has never been objective probable cause. And it is admitted that in these circumstances malice, in the sense required to give rise to liability in common law, can be inferred.

"The import of all of that is the Lord Advocate acknowledges that there has been a malicious prosecution in the sense in which that term is used in our law.   And accordingly there is liability in damages to Mr Green."

The case has been adjourned.