SNP councillor’s asset ‘giveaway’ to dodge divorce deal
AN SNP councillor pretended to lose all his money gambling to avoid giving his wife a fair divorce settlement, a sheriff ruled.
Dr Imtiaz Majid fabricated claims of a gambling addiction and ‘gave away his interests’ to his brothers to conceal his assets, the judgment states.
Sheriff Morag Galbraith found that Dr Majid, 51, and his two siblings were repeatedly ‘evasive’ as they gave evidence during divorce proceedings.
Her judgment also states that the marital home was ‘inadequately furnished and heated,’ and that Dr Majid refused to pay for his wife Uzma, 42, to have English or driving lessons, limiting her ability to find work.
The medic, of Coatbridge, Lanarkshire, has now been ordered to pay £150,000 to Mrs Majid – who is on benefits and cares for the couple’s two children – to correct the ‘economic imbalance’ she suffered while he was ‘left free to pursue his business and political interests’.
Dr Majid, who appeared in a Yes Scotland video in 2014, nearly became the Nationalist MP for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill last year after being endorsed by Cabinet secretaries Alex Neil and Keith Brown.
Mr Neil said he would be ‘an excellent asset for the SNP’, while Mr Brown called him ‘passionate about independence’.
Dr Majid won a local candidate selection but was disqualified by SNP HQ after failing vetting.
He appeared alongside the First Minister at the recent annual dinner of the Pakistan Welfare Trust, of which he is a trustee.
Soon after he and his wife separated in 2006 – with Mrs Majid fleeing to a women’s refuge in London – Dr Majid sold a house worth £120,000 to his brother Sarfraz and gave his shares in several family businesses to him and his other brother, Asif.
Dr Majid also quit a family firm run by his father, Majid Properties, in which he had a stake of about £120,000.
The judgment, dated September 23, states: ‘[Dr Majid] has chosen to divest himself of a number of capital assets in an effort to defeat the defendant’s [Mrs Majid’s] anticipated claims for financial support on divorce.’
The couple had an arranged marriage in Pakistan in 2002. Mrs Majid, a Pakistani national, then came to live in Scotland with her husband and was granted indefinite leave to stay in the UK in 2004. During the marriage, she cooked and cleaned for his parents and siblings.
Mrs Majid, who was financially dependent on her husband, was ‘continually kept short of money’, the judgment said and her hush earings band refused to give her funds so she could learn English or to drive. She had ‘very little’ knowledge of his financial affairs.
The marriage broke down in September 2006. They briefly reconciled in December 2006, when they conceived a daughter, but split again in 2008.
When Dr Majid instigated divorce proceedings, his wife sought a settlement of £500,000 plus £2,000 a month, saying he ought to have had £369,5000 from the house and share sales.
But Dr Majid claimed to have gambled away most of his money and said he had only £700.
The dispute led to 11 days of at Airdrie Sheriff Court this year. Dr Majid’s brothers said they paid him £125,000 each for shares, initially as a bank transfer but then in cash after an alleged problem at his bank.
Sheriff Galbraith said Asif ‘changed his evidence to such an extent’ she had to remind him he was on oath, and said Dr Majid’s claim about a bank problem ‘is to my mind ludicrous’.
She did not accept the evidence and concluded the episode had been ‘contrived’ to give the impression Dr Majid had cut his ties with the firms.
She said: ‘I found all three Majid brothers evasive in their evidence and did not find any of them credible at all.’
She also said it was ‘perfectly clear’ that Dr Majid’s renunciation of his interest in Majid Properties was ‘to defeat the defender’s [Mrs Majid’s] claim’.
Sheriff Galbraith also found that Dr Majid’s gambling had not affected his assets ‘to any great extent’ and that he was still able to access his ‘substantial’ family assets.
Dr Majid was ordered to pay his estranged wife £150,000 within six months.
His lawyer Hugh Neilson confirmed that his client intended to appeal the judgment.
The SNP said: ‘We understand that Dr Majid intends to appeal, so it would be inappropriate to comment at this stage.’
Mrs Majid was not available at her home in Hamilton last night.
‘Changed his evidence’