SENTENCING STATEMENTS

A judge may decide to publish a statement after passing sentence on an offender in cases where there is particular public interest; where a case has legal significance; or where providing the reasons for the decision might assist public understanding.

Please note that statements may include graphic details of offences when it is necessary to fully explain the reasons behind a sentencing decision.

Once charges are spent, any statement in relation to them is removed and cannot be provided or acknowledged. Statements published before the launch of the website may be available on request. Please email judicialcomms@scotcourts.gov.uk.

The independence of the judiciary is essential to safeguard people’s rights under law - enabling judges to make decisions impartially based solely on evidence and law, without interference or influence from the government or politicians.

When deciding a sentence, a judge must deal with the offence that the offender has been convicted of, taking into account the unique circumstances of each particular case. The judge will carefully consider the facts that are presented to the Court by both the prosecution and by the defence.

For more information about how judges decide sentences; what sentences are available; and matters such as temporary release, see the independent Scottish Sentencing Council website .

Read more about victims of crime and sentencing.

HMA v Stuart Holloway

Apr 22, 2026

At Edinburgh Sheriff Court, a former RBS banker was sentenced to 21 months imprisonment by Sheriff Walls, after stealing thousands of pounds from business clients. Stuart Holloway pled guilty to offences under the Bribery Act 2010.

On sentencing, Sheriff Walls made the following remarks:

"Stuart Holloway, on 10 March 2026 at a pre-trial hearing, you tendered guilty pleas to offences under the Bribery Act 2010, these being alternatives to charges of extortion in charges 1 and 2 on the indictment. Not guilty pleas were accepted by the Crown in relation to the other charges. The offences were committed between March 2012 and February 2013 when you were employed by the Royal Bank of Scotland as a Relationship Manager in the Global Restructuring Group.

"The GRG was set up with the aim to help SMEs with debt levels of in excess of £1million. It is a matter of public knowledge that the period covered by these offences immediately follows the 2010 financial crisis and was a time of huge challenges for businesses, including RBS which was the beneficiary of significant amounts of taxpayers’ money.

As one would expect, RBS had a policy in place to ensure that gifts and hospitality did not exceed levels which could be construed as seeking to improperly gain business advantage.

"There is very limited information available to me in relation to how these policies were implemented or monitored or how the GRG division was operated. Although I understand there has been significant public interest in the approach taken by GRG – including a report by the Financial Conduct Authority – such issues are not relevant to my task today, which is to identify a sentence which meets the proper purposes of sentencing, in relation to the focused and specific matters for which you are now convicted. Both charges of which you now stand convicted are offences under section 2(3) of the Bribery Act 2010, which makes it an offence to request or accept a financial advantage where that request or acceptance is an improper performance of a relevant function or activity – in this case your role as a senior manager in the RBS.

"In relation to charge 1, between 22 March 2012 and 28 February 2013 you requested and accepted a financial advantage from Gerard D’Agostino whose portfolio of businesses at that time was in debt and referred to GRG. During meetings with him you persistently requested payments be made to you and others in order that certain things be done. The total amounts paid were just under £110K.

"Charge 2 is similar. From the terms of the Crown narrative it appears that you suggested James Gilmour move his highly leveraged business portfolio into GRG where you could secure him a better deal. I am told on your behalf that it was sheer chance that his businesses were handed over to you when he did approach the GRG. In any event, as is accepted by you, your relationship with him ought to have been declared. Once within the GRG group, you made repeated and persistent requests for payments to be made to you and others, again on the understanding that certain things would be done as a result.

"The total money received by you in this was just over £165K, meaning the figure across both charges is £274K.

The offence was committed by you requesting and accepting these sums, in an improper performance of your function within RBS.

"I have considered carefully the terms of the parole board report (prepared in England where you have been living since pleading guilty) and the submission on your behalf by Mr Dignan. These offences were committed at a time when you were a gambling addict. You report that despite having a six-figure salary, you were “earning to gamble.” Gambling addiction is part of the background to these offences, but it is not an excuse. Not all gambling addicts commit offences. Few would have been fortunate enough to have a job such as yours.

"In relation to your offending, it is impossible to conclude that your culpability was anything other than high. You and you alone benefited from these offences which were committed in a calculated and persistent manner over the course of a year. There is no doubt that you knew what you were doing was wrong. The sums involved are on any view significant even although the individuals involved were wealthy.

"However, the harm extends beyond the individual complainers. It is important that businesses and individuals can have confidence in the financial institutions which are entrusted to look after savings, loans and investments. Actions such as those involved in these offences, notwithstanding the passage of time, undermine such confidence – particularly when set against the background of the financial crisis being experienced by business and families at that time.

"I must also consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The aggravations here are that you were in a senior position of trust within RBS and that you deliberately targeted the complainers due to their perceived financial vulnerabilities and/or ability to make payments to you.

"In terms of mitigating factors, I accept that you are genuinely remorseful and have taken commendable steps to address your gambling addiction.

"Although not a mitigating factor as such, I also take into account the inordinately long period of time these cases have taken to get to this stage. You bear some responsibility for that, but even so, you only appeared on petition for the first time in August 2022, over 9 years after the last date on the indictment.

"You also have no previous convictions and so benefit from the presumption that I cannot impose a custodial sentence unless there is no other appropriate means to deal with you.

"These are serious offences. The sums of money involved are high, as is your culpability, and harm caused by your criminal acts. Parliament has seen fit to legislate and place offences of this nature on a statutory footing, such is the importance of honesty and integrity in the conduct of business and commercial activities.

"In all the circumstances, there is no alternative to mark the gravity of these offences other than by the imposition of a custodial sentence. The headline figure I have identified is 26 months as a cumulo sentence for both charges. In view of the procedural history, this will be adjusted by 20% meaning the sentence I impose today is 21 months imprisonment."

22 April 2026