Inside Operation Branchform: The four-year long SNP probe

The SNP finances investigation could well go down as one of the biggest political scandals in a generation.

Concerns over the funding were dismissed by Ms Sturgeon, with a leaked video from a private meeting of the SNP’s ruling body in March 2021 showing Ms Sturgeon telling members the party “had never been in a stronger financial position”. She also warned of the impact on future donations if anyone went public with their concerns.

It all began in March 2021, when pro-independence campaigner Sean Clerkin alerted authorities to suspected mismanagement of SNP finances. The Herald understands there were 14 complainers in total.

The investigation began by examining the misuse of funds raised in 2017 and 2019, totalling £667,000, earmarked for future independence campaigning.

Alarm bells were sounded when electoral accounts published revealed the SNP had just £97,000 in the bank at the end of 2019, and total net assets of £272,000.

Colin Beattie, then the party’s treasurer, emailed SNP members to provide assurance, stating a “referendum appeal fund” had a £583,501 balance that could be deployed instantaneously”.

But The Herald understands that as part of the police investigation, the SNP operated all of its finances from just one account, with a separate “independence fund” never discovered by investigators.

What follows is the resignation of multiple members of the National Executive Committee, and auditors Johnson Carmichael over concerns about financial transparency.

In June 2021, while police investigate the finances in the background, Murrell donates £107,000 to the party, but it is declared to the Electoral Commission a year late. To date, just £47,620 has been repaid.

Police Scotland launched an official investigation in July 2021, with investigators initially considering whether fraud had been committed. During that fraud investigation various financial irregularities came to light.

Before Operation Branchform reached its height, Ms Sturgeon resigned as first minister and SNP leader in February 2023 – but insisted her decision was not related to the police probe.

Murrell also resigned a month later following a row over the party’s membership numbers. Less than a month later, on April 5, he was arrested as part of Police Scotland’s “day of action”.

Officers had been planning the “day of action” four weeks in advance, with requests for warrants submitted on March 20, 2023, for Murrell’s home he shared with Ms Sturgeon, the driveway of his mother’s home in Dunfermline, Fife, and the SNP HQ in Edinburgh.

Warrants were created on April 3 and the premises were searched two days later, with a now infamous blue forensic tent erected outside the marital home.

That tent has been the subject of much scrutiny, however, officers insist it was a necessity because of the high level of media attention, The Herald understands.

Officers believed the tent was the only way Murrell’s home could be searched thoroughly while preserving the integrity of the scene.

Mr Beattie and Ms Sturgeon were arrested in April and June 2023, respectively, and were interviewed under caution before being released pending further investigation.

Police at the house shared by Peter Murrell and Nicola Sturgeon (Image: PA)

Ms Sturgeon and Murrell both gave “no comment” interviews under advice from solicitors, while Mr Beattie answered some questions and answered no comment to others, it is understood.

While tems were ultimately seized – including the luxury motorhome – items were taken from others close to Murrell and some people within the SNP reached out to investigators to hand over items of concern.

The full scale of Murrell’s offending would not become clear until the indictment was published in court, but the luxury Niesmann+Bischoff iSmove motorhome purchased in Staffordshire, England, by Murrell became a symbol of the investigation.

He bought the motorhome using embezzled funds in late 2020 before having it delivered to the Halbeath Industrial Estate in Dunfermline on January 22, 2021, where he drove it four miles to his mother’s home.

Murrell’s parents were never interviewed as part of the inquiry, with his father passing away during the course of the four-year probe.

By the time of his arrest, police had ruled out fraud due to insufficient evidence, but suspected embezzlement had occurred.

It made the case complex. A total of 516 witness statements were taken by police and tens of thousands of files were considered. Many items of interest had also been purchased from overseas retailers.

Murrell was re-arrested and formally charged with embezzlement in April 2024.

A standard prosecution report was submitted against Murrell to the Crown on May 23, 2024, and contained a “single charge of embezzlement with a date range from 1 January 2016 to 13 January 2023.”

Peter Murrell. (Image: Robert Perry)

Within that one charge, police had referred hundreds of potentially criminal purchases made by Murrell. That included a Jaguar I-Pace, costing £81,277, with Murrell creating a false invoice for £57,500. Murrell sold the car for £47,378 and pocketed the cash. A second car, a Volkswagen Golf, was also bought in 2016, using £16,489 of SNP funds.

Murrell purchased expensive and luxury items – tea sets costing more than £3,000, watches worth more than £9,000 and coffee machines at £5,000.

After extensive review, including reviewing individual documentation and accounting material, it became clear the offending began in August 2010.

This was a case where Police Scotland and the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service worked closely together from the start of the investigation.

The Crown allocated a dedicated team of four procurator fiscal deputes and three paralegals to work exclusively on this case to ensure consistency.

All decisions were reported to Crown Counsel – made up of two independent KCs, who considered the evidence separately before reaching the same conclusion.

Police Scotland also submitted a report to the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) on Ms Sturgeon and Mr Beattie – but it differed to that of Murrell’s.

“On 9 August 2024, police submitted a request for advice and guidance concerning Nicola Sturgeon and Colin Beattie,” documents seen by The Herald state.

“This was not a report seeking the consideration of prosecution. Police did not charge and sought the Crown’s view on the evidence and whether there were further enquiries necessary.”

A report of 542 pages was ultimately submitted, with Crown Counsel ultimately ruling Ms Sturgeon and Mr Beattie should not be charged and there should be “no further inquiries” relating to the pair.

In March 2025, after Murrell appeared at Edinburgh Sheriff Court charged with embezzlement, it was announced no further action would be taken against the former first minister.

Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon speaking to the media outside her home in 2023 (Image: Jane Barlow)

Ms Sturgeon spoke of her relief outside her Glasgow home, telling journalists she was now “completely in the clear”.

She said: “I have done nothing wrong, and I don’t think there was ever a scrap of evidence that I had done anything wrong.”

The police and Crown have come under scrutiny over the decision to take no further action against Ms Sturgeon or Mr Beattie.

The information investigators and prosecutors can give around that is limited to protect the privacy of the pair, given no action was taken.

In the report that officers submitted to the Crown, it did not make any recommendations of charges.

However, it did seek “advice and guidance” on whether there was a sufficiency of evidence to continue investigations.

Police Scotland believed there was a sufficiency to arrest Ms Sturgeon and Mr Beattie as part of the probe.

Former SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon with ex husband Peter Murrell as they cast their votes in the 2019 General Election (Image: PA)

The Crown’s view was sought on whether there was a sufficiency of evidence to take the investigation further, with the decision ultimately taken that there was insufficient admissible evidence of a crime being committed, The Herald understands.

While Ms Sturgeon gave a no comment interview – a process that is common – she provided a written statement to officers following her arrest.

It is understood investigators felt that some questions were answered but others remained. However, further clarity was not sought after the Crown determined there was not enough evidence to continue the investigation.

Questions have been repeatedly asked of how Ms Sturgeon did not notice Murrell’s offending, in capacity as his wife and as his boss in the SNP.

He had been the SNP chief executive since 2001, first appointed by now First Minister John Swinney.

But Ms Sturgeon became party leader in 2014 following the unsuccessful independence referendum, and many questioned the appropriateness of a husband and wife team being at the helm of a political party.

Together, the pair were one of the most powerful political duos in modern British politics.

There are items that have yet to be recovered by police as part of Murrell’s offending, including a £2,500 salt-and-pepper shaker.

The SNP has said it is seeking guidance on how to recoup some of the funds it has lost to Murrell, with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 allowing them to apply to do so.

Murrell was granted legal aid in July 2025 because his financial assets were frozen as part of his embezzlement charge.

But the restraint order obtained by the Crown revealed Murrell’s significant wealth, including two pension funds with a total of £613,496.04.

His “heritable property” – the home he shares with Ms Sturgeon – is listed to the value of £88,632. The £124,550 motorhome is also listed as an asset.

On March 3, 2026, Murrell instructed his legal representatives to explore resolution by way of a guilty plea, with the agreement reached on May 21.

The SNP’s solicitor was advised, in advance of the hearing on Monday, May 25, that Murrell was expected to plead guilty, meaning Mr Swinney knew days before.

While Operation Branchform has concluded, questions remain around the “ringfenced” independence fund.

Police Scotland said it is not launching a fresh investigation after Mr Swinney admitted the cash had been spent on “general” party business, including election campaigning.

John Logue, the Crown Agent, said: “I recognise the significant public and media interest in this case. It is understandable that people wanted more information at earlier stages, but it would not have been appropriate to comment in detail while the criminal investigation and court proceedings were ongoing.

“As in all cases, prosecutors had to protect the investigation and act fairly to everyone involved. Criminal cases require careful, evidence-led preparation and decisions reached through normal legal processes.

“The indictment in this case was served well in advance of the applicable statutory time limits. Decisions about the case were taken independently by prosecutors and Crown Counsel, applying the law to the evidence, and not by reference to political interests.”