Reform UK’s £72m windfall from two cryptocurrency billionaires is turning Westminster into a playground for a very simple question: who pays for politics, and how much is too much?
The money comes from Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne, who until recently lived in Hong Kong and Thailand. They have both now returned to the UK. Their combined donations are legal under current law, but the government plans to change that law — and it has already promised that the new rules will apply with retroactive force. That promise, made by a cabinet minister, is now the centre of a row that shows no signs of fading.
The Law As It Stands
Under current UK law, there is no limit on how much anyone can give to a political party, provided the donor is registered to vote in the UK. A British citizen living abroad can give as much as they want, as long as they meet that registration test.
The government wants to change that. The proposed new law would cap donations from British voters living abroad at £100,000 each per year, backdated to 25 March. The cap would apply retrospectively, meaning any gift above that amount given on or after that date would be illegal under the new law — even if the law itself does not exist yet.
The Date That Changed Everything
The date of 25 March was not plucked from nowhere. Ministers argue it marks the publication of a report by Philip Rycroft, a retired civil servant. The report’s first recommendation was that there should be “an annual cap on political donations from British voters living abroad.”
On the same day, Steve Reed, then a cabinet minister, told the Commons that the cap would be £100,000 per year. He also said it would “apply retrospectively” from that date onwards. The law at the time had not changed, and the law now has not changed either.
That is the core of the dispute. The government has announced a rule that does not exist, applied it to events that happened before it was enacted, and left the details of the rule itself unresolved.
Farage’s Case
Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, told Chris Mason unequivocally that the money from both men is legal under the law as it stands. He was far less sure about whether the donations would be legal under the law the government hopes to pass shortly.
“Both these donations are 100% compliant with the law today, of that there is no question whatsoever,” Farage said.
When Mason pointed out the date, Farage pushed back: “Retrospectively declaring donations illegal – that simply cannot be,” he said, adding “you cannot confiscate money that has been given legally within the law as it stands.”
That is a political argument, not a legal one. If the government changes the law, the law changes — and the legality of past actions shifts with it. We do not know how the courts would rule in this case.
What We Do Not Know
There are two unknowns that make the whole situation harder to resolve. First, Reform UK has refused to say when Delo and Harborne moved back to the UK. Second, the government has not yet decided what constitutes a “genuine and ongoing connection to the United Kingdom” for a donor returning from abroad.
Baroness Taylor, the Communities Minister, told the Lords that Brits returning from abroad and wanting to donate without limit “must demonstrate a genuine and ongoing connection to the United Kingdom.” She said the government is “considering how we will strengthen the residency requirements, including ensuring that the length of time spent in the UK aligns with broader government policy.”
The hurdles look likely to be quite high. Folk in government, publicly and privately, are leaning into making that point. Farage picked a scrap with them in his interview with Mason, and the government is hitting back.
If Delo and Harborne do not clear the hurdles, the delay could stretch out for years. Reform would not get hold of their vast sums of money until the legal tests are met — and the government has not said how long that process might take.
The Threat Behind The Row
Farage has threatened that a Reform government would cut off party funding from the trades unions if the government goes ahead with trying to limit his capacity to raise money from these two donors. The unions are already feeling the pressure.
Labour received £5m from affiliated unions last year and £12m the year before, in 2024, the year of the last general election. The unions have their own interest in this fight, and they are making it known.
| Who | Role | Position |
|---|---|---|
| Ben Delo | Cryptocurrency billionaire | Donated to Reform UK |
| Christopher Harborne | Cryptocurrency billionaire | Donated to Reform UK |
| Nigel Farage | Leader of Reform UK | Says donations are legal today |
| Steve Reed | Former cabinet minister | Announced retrospective cap |
| Baroness Taylor | Communities Minister | Defended residency tests |
The Questions That Remain
The row raises several questions that have no easy answers:
- Should there be a limit on the proportion of a party’s funding that can come from one individual?
- Should there be a limit on what donors based in the UK can give per year, as well as a cap on donations from Brits abroad?
- Should the law allow retrospective application of new caps?
- What counts as “residency” for a donor who has lived abroad?
Some argue that a domestic cap of somewhere between £500,000 and £1m per year could push parties toward smaller, more numerous donations. Others see it as a step toward state funding of political parties — a proposal that may not prove wildly popular.
The Scale Of The Windfall
The £72m figure is the headline, and it is doing the work. The donations are transforming the debate at Westminster about politics and money. All of the political parties are aware of their own narrow self-interest in this — as well as their own sense of the wider good.
The row has mileage in it yet. The government has planned a change in the law, applied it to events that happened before it was enacted, and left the details unresolved. Farage has threatened retaliation if the cap passes.
The row is not going away soon. The law is not yet on the books, and the government has not settled the residency requirements that will define who counts as a donor living abroad.
The Verdict
The row turns on a law that does not exist yet, a backdated promise from a cabinet minister, and a billionaire donor whose return to the UK is unverified. That is an uncomfortable position for everyone involved.
Farage is right that the money is legal today. He is also right that the government’s retrospective move is questionable. The question arises from the donations themselves and the proposed law, not from the government’s announcement alone.
The row is not about Farage’s honesty. It is about the government’s willingness to rewrite history. The government promised a cap that applies from a date when the law allowed unlimited giving. It then defended that promise by citing the law as it stood — the very law it is changing.
The row will continue until the law is settled, the residency tests are defined, and the government decides whether it is willing to enforce a rule that it announced before it existed. Until then, the donations stand as a warning: the money in politics is not going away, and neither is the fight over how to regulate it.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.