Reform’s £72m windfall is legal today — and potentially repayable tomorrow

Reform UK says two £36m donations from crypto billionaires are entirely lawful. The awkward truth is that the law may be about to change underneath the money — and the party’s certainty depends on facts it has not publicly proved.

Reform has received £72m in two donations from Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne, each giving £36m within 48 hours. That is not merely a large political contribution; it exceeds the combined donations and membership income received by every UK political party in 2025, according to reported figures. Delo said he wanted to create a “fair fight”; Harborne said he expected nothing personally in return. The party says the money will build its campaign and policy operation ahead of the next general election. ¹
Under the law currently in force, the donations are not automatically unlawful because the donors live, or have lived, abroad. Individuals registered on a UK electoral register — including overseas electors — are permissible donors, and there is currently no general legal limit on how much they can give. The responsibility for checking a donation rests with the party, not the Electoral Commission. ²
But the government is legislating for a £100,000 annual cap on donations from overseas contributors, with provisions designed to count qualifying donations received from 25 March 2026. The draft legislation also covers some people who have recently returned to Britain. It says excess donations may have to be returned once the rules take effect; parliamentary material indicates that pre-commencement donations exceeding the cap could have to be returned within 60 days. ³
That does not yet make Reform’s £72m illegal, nor does it establish that either donor falls within the proposed restrictions. The decisive facts are each donor’s electoral registration, residence and date of return to the UK. Sky News reported that both men were believed to have moved back before the March cut-off, which would take the new cap out of play — but that point is not supported by a published official record in the material available. Reform’s “100% confident” defence is therefore a legal assessment, not independent proof. ⁴
The donations land in a party already under police investigation over alleged attempts to evade foreign-funding rules. The Electoral Commission says it is in contact with the Metropolitan Police, has not approved Reform’s donor-vetting process, and regards possible evasion of donation controls as a matter for the police. The Met says its investigation concerns potential offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. None of that proves the new donations are unlawful. It does, however, make Reform’s demand that everyone simply take its word for the paperwork rather less persuasive. ⁵

The real scandal, if there is one, is not yet a proven breach. It is a system in which two individuals can legally transfer £72m to a party while ministers rush to close the loophole — and then argue over whether the cash arrived just before the door shut. Reform may be right that the donations survive the proposed rules. The government may be right that the rules need changing. Both claims can be true, which is precisely why the public deserves the underlying residency and registration evidence rather than competing assurances.

Reform’s £72m windfall is legal today — and potentially repayable tomorrow

Sources

Footnotes