A prominent figure in Perth’s green energy sector has been spared a custodial sentence after admitting to the embezzlement of a substantial £70,000 from his own company. Scott Bathgate, 45, faced judgment at Perth Sheriff Court, where concerns over his personal vulnerabilities within a prison environment played a significant role in the court’s decision.
The court heard how Bathgate systematically diverted company funds over a five-year period. These misappropriated sums, which he channeled into an account he crudely labeled a ‘booze fund,’ were used to finance a lavish lifestyle, including extravagant holidays, numerous restaurant outings, and subscriptions to dating websites. This pattern of financial misconduct represents a profound breach of trust, particularly within a small to medium-sized enterprise where financial integrity is paramount. The Breach of Trust at My Eco Solutions
My Eco Solutions, the Perth-based firm targeted by Bathgate’s actions, was co-founded by him and his business partner, Douglas Hamilton, in 2011. Initially established with a vision to contribute to sustainable energy solutions, the company placed considerable trust in Bathgate, entrusting him with a company bank card and a credit card for business-related emergencies. As the business grew and its operations expanded, Bathgate was given full and unchallenged responsibility for its accounts and overall administration.
However, cracks began to appear in the company’s financial management under Bathgate’s purview. It became increasingly clear that he was struggling to maintain accurate bookkeeping. This disarray led to the company incurring numerous fines for late payments, a fact that his business partner, Mr. Hamilton, remained entirely unaware of, highlighting the deceptive nature of Bathgate’s control over the finances. Uncovering the Deception
The extent of Bathgate’s embezzlement began to unravel in 2016 when the company was advised to operate under a different trading name, prompting a review of its financial structures. The arrival of a new office manager later that year proved to be a pivotal moment. Bathgate’s reluctance to provide his log-in details to the new manager immediately raised suspicions, triggering an internal investigation that would ultimately expose the full scale of his financial malfeasance.
By January 2017, the new office manager successfully gained full access to the business accounts. What she discovered was a clear and systematic pattern of unauthorized transfers of funds directly into Scott Bathgate’s personal account. The revelation that he had used the explicit and brazen name ‘Booze Fund’ for this illicit account underscored the casual disregard with which he treated the company’s money. Douglas Hamilton, upon being informed of these transactions, confirmed their illegitimacy and expressed his dismay, having believed that the original Barclays bank account used for these transactions had long since been closed.
Bathgate subsequently admitted guilt to the charge of embezzling £70,000 by transferring funds from the company’s business account to his personal account for his own personal expenditures and bill payments. Sentencing and Judicial Rationale
Returning to Perth Sheriff Court for his sentencing, Bathgate arrived with a holdall, a physical symbol of his readiness for a potential prison term. However, his solicitor, Lynsey Barber, presented a pre-sentencing report emphasizing her client’s health issues, arguing that he would be ‘extremely vulnerable in a custodial setting.’ She acknowledged the severity of his actions, stating that Bathgate was fully aware of the significant repayment he would need to make and recognized the profound negative impact his ‘conscious decision’ had on the company and its employees.
Sheriff William Wood, in delivering his judgment, acknowledged the gravity of the case. He stated, ‘This case has caused me a great deal of concern. You appear before the court having admitted embezzling £70,000 from the company which trusted you and which you were involved with from its outset.’ The Sheriff further highlighted the tangible cost of Bathgate’s actions: ‘That cash could have improved the financial viability of the company and the lives of the people who worked for it.’
Despite the seriousness, Sheriff Wood ultimately opted against immediate imprisonment. He explained, ‘This sort of deceit over an extended period of time would result in custody being the uppermost in the court’s mind.’ However, he added, ‘I am persuaded that given some time that has elapsed since this dishonesty ended, and taking into account your own vulnerabilities and health issues, custody is not the only way this matter can be dealt with.’
Instead, Bathgate, whose addresses were noted as formerly in Blackford and currently in Scone, was ordered to complete 300 hours of unpaid work within the community. Given Bathgate’s current unemployed status and low income, Sheriff Wood clarified that he could not impose a compensation order at this time. Nevertheless, he expressed a clear expectation: ‘It is hoped that you will find a way to pay back to the company the money you embezzled from them.’
This case serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of financial dishonesty and the complexities involved in judicial sentencing, particularly when personal circumstances intersect with the severity of the crime.
The court heard how Bathgate systematically diverted company funds over a five-year period. These misappropriated sums, which he channeled into an account he crudely labeled a ‘booze fund,’ were used to finance a lavish lifestyle, including extravagant holidays, numerous restaurant outings, and subscriptions to dating websites. This pattern of financial misconduct represents a profound breach of trust, particularly within a small to medium-sized enterprise where financial integrity is paramount. The Breach of Trust at My Eco Solutions
My Eco Solutions, the Perth-based firm targeted by Bathgate’s actions, was co-founded by him and his business partner, Douglas Hamilton, in 2011. Initially established with a vision to contribute to sustainable energy solutions, the company placed considerable trust in Bathgate, entrusting him with a company bank card and a credit card for business-related emergencies. As the business grew and its operations expanded, Bathgate was given full and unchallenged responsibility for its accounts and overall administration.
However, cracks began to appear in the company’s financial management under Bathgate’s purview. It became increasingly clear that he was struggling to maintain accurate bookkeeping. This disarray led to the company incurring numerous fines for late payments, a fact that his business partner, Mr. Hamilton, remained entirely unaware of, highlighting the deceptive nature of Bathgate’s control over the finances. Uncovering the Deception
The extent of Bathgate’s embezzlement began to unravel in 2016 when the company was advised to operate under a different trading name, prompting a review of its financial structures. The arrival of a new office manager later that year proved to be a pivotal moment. Bathgate’s reluctance to provide his log-in details to the new manager immediately raised suspicions, triggering an internal investigation that would ultimately expose the full scale of his financial malfeasance.
By January 2017, the new office manager successfully gained full access to the business accounts. What she discovered was a clear and systematic pattern of unauthorized transfers of funds directly into Scott Bathgate’s personal account. The revelation that he had used the explicit and brazen name ‘Booze Fund’ for this illicit account underscored the casual disregard with which he treated the company’s money. Douglas Hamilton, upon being informed of these transactions, confirmed their illegitimacy and expressed his dismay, having believed that the original Barclays bank account used for these transactions had long since been closed.
Bathgate subsequently admitted guilt to the charge of embezzling £70,000 by transferring funds from the company’s business account to his personal account for his own personal expenditures and bill payments. Sentencing and Judicial Rationale
Returning to Perth Sheriff Court for his sentencing, Bathgate arrived with a holdall, a physical symbol of his readiness for a potential prison term. However, his solicitor, Lynsey Barber, presented a pre-sentencing report emphasizing her client’s health issues, arguing that he would be ‘extremely vulnerable in a custodial setting.’ She acknowledged the severity of his actions, stating that Bathgate was fully aware of the significant repayment he would need to make and recognized the profound negative impact his ‘conscious decision’ had on the company and its employees.
Sheriff William Wood, in delivering his judgment, acknowledged the gravity of the case. He stated, ‘This case has caused me a great deal of concern. You appear before the court having admitted embezzling £70,000 from the company which trusted you and which you were involved with from its outset.’ The Sheriff further highlighted the tangible cost of Bathgate’s actions: ‘That cash could have improved the financial viability of the company and the lives of the people who worked for it.’
Despite the seriousness, Sheriff Wood ultimately opted against immediate imprisonment. He explained, ‘This sort of deceit over an extended period of time would result in custody being the uppermost in the court’s mind.’ However, he added, ‘I am persuaded that given some time that has elapsed since this dishonesty ended, and taking into account your own vulnerabilities and health issues, custody is not the only way this matter can be dealt with.’
Instead, Bathgate, whose addresses were noted as formerly in Blackford and currently in Scone, was ordered to complete 300 hours of unpaid work within the community. Given Bathgate’s current unemployed status and low income, Sheriff Wood clarified that he could not impose a compensation order at this time. Nevertheless, he expressed a clear expectation: ‘It is hoped that you will find a way to pay back to the company the money you embezzled from them.’
This case serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of financial dishonesty and the complexities involved in judicial sentencing, particularly when personal circumstances intersect with the severity of the crime.