Reform UK’s deputy leader has refused to disclose when two crypto billionaires who collectively donated £72million returned to the UK, as new legislation proposes restricting overseas donations to £100,000 for those absent more than 12 months.
The donations represent the largest single influx of private funding in UK political history, fundamentally altering the financial landscape ahead of the next general election. While Richard Tice insists all contributions comply with current and forthcoming laws, questions mount over whether donors Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne meet the residency requirements embedded in the Representation of the People Bill.
Residency rules and the £100,000 cap
The legislation, shaped by Sir Philip Rycroft’s independent review, introduces a £100,000 ceiling on donations from British citizens living abroad. The cap applies to anyone not resident in the UK for electoral purposes for at least twelve months from March 2026, with retrospective effect once enacted.
Rycroft, a former senior civil servant, clarified that donors must spend a full calendar year in the UK before qualifying as domestic contributors. His report flagged significant concerns about tracing overseas funds and the disproportionate influence of wealthy expatriates who choose to be taxed abroad.
The move has drawn criticism from trade unions and opposition MPs who argue the original bill lacked such safeguards after lobbying from Labour-aligned groups. The Rycroft inquiry was launched in response to mounting fears about foreign interference in British politics.
Tice defends compliance amid scrutiny
When questioned on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme about the donors’ timelines, Tice drew a blank. “I’m not their executive assistant responsible for their day-to-day diary,” he said, declining to reveal when Delo returned from Hong Kong or how much time Harborne spends in Britain.
“Everything we’re doing is in accordance with the existing rules and the rules of the legislation that’s going through parliament as we speak,” he added.
He condemned the retrospective nature of the proposed legislation, telling BBC One’s Breakfast that it represented “a socialist government that wants to retrospectively change the rules and regulations in order to protect themselves from a bit of competition.”
Despite the controversy, Tice maintained confidence in Reform’s compliance department, which reviewed the donations against both current and anticipated legal frameworks. The two £36m contributions were announced within 24 hours of each other, dwarfing previous records for party funding.
Political backlash and legal ambiguity
Schools minister Georgia Gould defended the retrospective drafting, arguing that without it, “lots of donations would suddenly start flowing through before the legislation.” She emphasised that Rycroft’s report addressed “really serious issues” of foreign interference and that the retrospective clause was“necessary for good reason”.
The tension reflects deeper divisions over party finance reform. Labour and trade unions have long advocated for stricter controls on foreign donations, while Reform UK champions transparency and individual philanthropy as democratic virtues.
Rycroft’s recommendations focus on preventing opaque funding streams and ensuring fairness in the political marketplace. He noted that overseas-based donors are often difficult to trace, raising questions about accountability and potential undue influence.
The Representation of the People Bill currently contains no overall cap on individual donations, a concession to pressure from union-backed groups seeking to level the playing field ahead of the next election.
Why it Matters
The clash over Reform UK’s £72m windfall and the retrospective residency rules exposes a fundamental shift in British political finance. If the legislation passes in its current form, it could set a precedent for how future donations are scrutinised, particularly from high-net-worth individuals with complex international ties. The controversy also highlights the growing influence of crypto wealth in UK politics, raising urgent questions about transparency, democratic accountability, and the role of expatriates in shaping domestic policy.
