A sheriff has reported a man to prosecutors citing a possibility he may have attempted to obtain compensation for an alleged car collision through deception.
The man, named only as PA in court papers, had claimed a stranger had caused thousands of pounds worth of damage to his Honda Accord in 2014.
However, it has since emerged the two drivers alleged to have been involved in the crash knew each other prior to the incident.
Doubts were also raised about how the car had come to be damaged.
In his judgement, Sheriff Pino Di Emidio threw out PA’s claim.
He added: “The circumstances described in this note give rise at least to the suggestion that an attempt has been made to obtain compensation by means of deception.
“The criminal evidential standard did not apply in this case, so I express the matter no higher than that. It is for others to decide whether any further action requires to be taken.”
The Courier understands police have now been instructed to begin an investigation into the case.
Concerns were initially raised after it emerged photos posted on Facebook showed PA at the wedding of the defender, known as RK, despite the two men claiming not to know each other.
Images show PA dressed in a similar outfit to other men who appear to be part of RK’s groom’s party.
Each man is seen wearing a similar traditional short jacket, black shirt and white cravat. They are all wearing kilts but each have different tartan.
The defender later claimed there had not been a groom’s party at the wedding and disagreed with the suggestion he had known the pursuer quite well before the date of the alleged accident.
Sheriff Di Emidio also highlighted discrepancies in PA and RK’s stories as a reason to pass his findings on to prosecutors.
Both men had claimed the collision occurred when RK pulled out onto a road in the Tayside area in front of PA, although neither could name the specific route.
However, an expert witness, who attended the civil case, “was quite clear that the two cars had not been in an accident together”, according to Sheriff Di Emidio.
The sheriff added: “The damage to the Honda could not have been sustained in an accident of the kind described by the pursuer and the defender.”
In his conclusion, Sheriff Di Emidio said: “The onus is on the pursuer to establish on the balance of probabilities when and how the accident happened.
“In my view, he has failed to establish any material facts pertinent to this issue. Both the pursuer and the defender gave evidence in an unsatisfactory manner.”
A spokesman for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said a copy of the sheriff’s judgement had been received, but said no further comments could be made during the live investigation.
