Nigel Farage’s Reform UK was the subject of an undercover sting about donations (Image: Getty)
The Metropolitan Police has launched a criminal investigation into Reform UK donations following an undercover sting.
Two senior figures – long-term Nigel Farage aide Dan Jukes and head of policy James Orr – have been suspended after claims the Party breached foreign donor rules.
A force spokesman said it had received “a number of reports relating to donations and polling involving a political party”.
He added: “All allegations under investigation relate to potential offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
“Detectives continue to liaise closely with the Electoral Commission and Crown Prosecution Service as enquiries progress.”
No arrests have been made.
Rival parties had reported Reform UK to the police over claims by Channel 4 News that Mr Farage’s party took funding from a US firm for three polls it commissioned earlier this year, costing £32,500.
In the film, Mr Jukes and Mr Orr appear to suggest a way around electoral law to secure foreign party donations, one of which would have totalled £500,000.
The purported donors that appeared in the footage broadcast last Thursday were in fact undercover reporters from investigative group Verbatim posing as an American financier and his UK-based son.
Foreign companies are not a permissible source of funding for parties, including for payments for studies and research, and accepting donations from them could constitute a criminal offence.
Reform UK “denies any wrongdoing” and will “fully co-operate” with the Metropolitan Police investigation, a spokesman said.
He added: “We won’t be commenting further while a live investigation is underway.”
On Friday, Mr Jukes said in a statement: “This was entrapment over a prolonged period of nearly a year by foreign-funded, climate change activists.
“I totally deny any wrongdoing but have stepped back from politics in order to clear my name.”
The Met had already been investigating whether payments to Reform UK in the weeks before the last election complied with donation laws.
The probe is examining donations given directly to the party by Fiona Cottrell, mother of longstanding Farage ally, George Cottrell.
It is also examining payments from a company controlled by Reform’s deputy leader Richard Tice, which received £1million from Ms Cottrell in June 2024.
Reform UK Donations Investigated by Met Police After Undercover TV Sting
A major political controversy has placed Nigel Farage’s Reform UK under renewed scrutiny after the Metropolitan Police launched a criminal investigation into allegations involving foreign donations and political polling.
The investigation followed an undercover report broadcast by Channel 4 News in September 2026. Footage recorded by investigative journalists appeared to show senior Reform figures discussing possible arrangements involving money from a US-based donor.
The allegations have raised questions about political funding, transparency and the rules governing donations to British political parties.
Reform UK has denied wrongdoing and said it will cooperate fully with the police investigation. Farage has also rejected claims that his party knowingly accepted illegal donations, describing the undercover operation as an attempt to entrap its representatives.
The police inquiry remains separate from the party’s own internal investigation, which concluded that it had found no evidence that electoral law had been broken. <Cite refs={[“turn231161search0″,”turn231161search6”]} />
How the undercover investigation began
The controversy emerged after Channel 4 News broadcast footage produced by Verbatim Investigations, a group of investigative journalists.
The operation involved reporters posing as prospective donors with access to substantial financial resources. One investigator presented himself as the UK-based son of an American businessman interested in supporting Reform UK.
According to the broadcast, the supposed donors discussed providing money to the party and funding opinion polling that could benefit its political campaign.
The footage appeared to show Dan Jukes, a senior adviser to Farage, discussing how a proposed donation of £500,000 might be channelled through the UK-based individual rather than coming directly from the American source.
James Orr, Reform’s head of policy at the time, was also recorded discussing the possibility of an American company paying for political polling.
The journalists said the proposed financial arrangements raised questions about whether the party could benefit from funds originating outside the categories of donors permitted under British electoral law.
The alleged £500,000 donation was not ultimately made.
However, the report also examined three opinion polls costing a combined £32,500. The funding and commissioning of those polls became another central part of the dispute.
Reform disputed the journalists’ interpretation of the events, arguing that the undercover operation created a misleading impression of the party’s conduct. <Cite refs={[“turn231161search2″,”turn231161search5″,”turn231161search6”]} />
Why foreign political donations matter
British electoral law places restrictions on who can donate to political parties.
Permissible donors generally include individuals registered on the relevant UK electoral register and companies incorporated in the UK that carry on business in the country, subject to the applicable legal requirements.
The rules are intended to provide transparency over political financing and prevent money from prohibited sources from influencing elections.
The issue is not simply whether money reaches a party’s bank account.
Political support can take different forms, including paying for services, research or polling that benefits a political organisation. Depending on the circumstances, such support may qualify as a donation in kind and could be subject to the same restrictions as direct financial contributions.
That distinction is important to the allegations involving the three polls.
The investigation by Channel 4 and Verbatim suggested that polling paid for by a US company benefited Reform UK without the public being clearly informed about the funding arrangement.
Reform’s own inquiry disputed key aspects of that account. It said invoices for the polling were paid by a US company established by Verbatim and concluded that the party had neither commissioned nor paid for the polls itself.
The competing accounts mean that questions about the commissioning, funding and potential political benefit of the research remain central to understanding the dispute. <Cite refs={[“turn231161search2″,”turn231161search6”]} />
Metropolitan Police launch criminal investigation
On September 9, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that it had opened a criminal investigation following the broadcast.
The force said it had received several reports relating to donations and polling involving a political party.
After assessing the information, detectives concluded that potential offences required investigation. The allegations concern possible breaches of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Police said the new allegations would be incorporated into an existing investigation involving donations to the same party.
Detectives also sought relevant footage from the broadcast and began liaising with the Electoral Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service.
The involvement of these bodies reflects the seriousness of the questions raised, but it does not establish that an offence has occurred.
A criminal investigation is a process for examining evidence and determining whether the law may have been broken. It is not a finding of guilt.
At the time of the announcement, reports said no arrests had been made and no one had been interviewed under caution in connection with the latest allegations. <Cite refs={[“turn231161search0″,”turn231161search4”]} />
The investigation also sits alongside earlier scrutiny of donations connected to Reform UK, meaning detectives are examining a wider set of questions about the party’s political financing.
Two senior figures step aside
The broadcast had immediate consequences within Reform UK.
Dan Jukes and James Orr stepped down from their roles after the footage became public, placing two senior figures at the centre of the controversy.
Both denied wrongdoing.
Farage sought to distance the party from the allegations, arguing that the footage did not demonstrate that Reform had knowingly broken the law. He also said he had not been paying attention during a conversation in which the possible £500,000 donation was discussed.
The party maintained that the undercover operation had deliberately created a misleading scenario and accused its organisers of attempting to damage Reform politically.
The departures nevertheless intensified questions about the party’s internal controls and the extent to which senior figures oversee fundraising and external financial support.
For any political organisation seeking to expand its membership and influence, clear procedures for checking donors and recording financial support are essential.
The controversy has therefore placed both the alleged conduct of individual advisers and the party’s wider governance arrangements under examination.
Reform’s internal inquiry reaches a different conclusion
In October, Reform UK announced the findings of its own investigation into the undercover report.
The party said its inquiry had reviewed relevant evidence, including witness interviews, documents and electronic communications. It concluded that it had found no evidence that electoral law had been broken.
According to the findings reported by the BBC, the investigation determined that the proposed £500,000 donation was never made or accepted and that the party’s formal donor-checking procedures were not reached.
The inquiry also said there was no evidence that anyone knowingly participated in an arrangement to facilitate a donation from an impermissible source.
However, the internal review identified weaknesses in the way the situation had developed. It reportedly concluded that individuals speaking on behalf of the party had made statements that were wrong, careless or, in one instance, untrue.
It also identified shortcomings in the party’s arrangements that allowed the undercover operation to continue without the relevant questions being raised.
Reform said it would introduce changes to prevent similar situations in the future.
The party’s findings did not end the police investigation. The Metropolitan Police is conducting its own inquiry and is not bound by the conclusions of an investigation commissioned by Reform itself. <Cite refs={[“turn231161search1″,”turn231161search6”]} />
That distinction is crucial. The party’s internal review represents its assessment of the evidence, while detectives must independently determine whether there is sufficient evidence of criminal offences.
Wider scrutiny of Reform’s finances
The undercover sting emerged against a backdrop of other questions about Reform UK’s funding.
The Metropolitan Police had already been investigating donations made to the party before the 2024 general election, including payments associated with Fiona Cottrell, the mother of Farage ally George Cottrell.
The inquiry has also examined payments involving a company controlled by Reform deputy leader Richard Tice.
Separately, Farage has faced scrutiny over a £5 million gift from cryptocurrency investor Christopher Harborne, who is based in Thailand. Farage has described that money as a personal gift rather than a political donation.
That separate matter has prompted questions about the distinction between personal financial support and money that should be declared under political transparency rules.
These issues should not be treated as proof of a single coordinated offence. Each payment and arrangement has its own circumstances, and any legal conclusion depends on the evidence and the rules applicable to it.
Nevertheless, the combined scrutiny has placed greater emphasis on how Reform records financial support, identifies permissible donors and demonstrates compliance with electoral law.
What happens next?
The Metropolitan Police investigation will determine what further enquiries are necessary and whether the available evidence supports any criminal charges.
Detectives are expected to assess relevant footage, financial information and other evidence while consulting the appropriate authorities.
The Electoral Commission also said it was considering relevant information and possible regulatory steps.
Reform UK has said it will cooperate with the investigation while continuing to deny wrongdoing. Channel 4 and Verbatim have defended their reporting and indicated their willingness to cooperate with police.
For Farage, the immediate challenge is to maintain confidence in the party’s financial arrangements while the investigation continues.
For the public, the central question is whether political funding rules are being applied consistently and whether voters can establish who is financing political activity.
The controversy also highlights the importance of distinguishing allegations from proven facts. Undercover footage can raise legitimate questions, but its interpretation must be tested against documents, testimony and the wider evidence.
The police investigation has not established that Reform UK committed a criminal offence. Equally, the party’s internal inquiry does not determine the outcome of the independent investigation.
Until that process is completed, the central allegations remain unresolved.
The eventual findings could have implications for Reform UK’s fundraising procedures, internal oversight and public credibility. For now, the most important questions concern transparency, compliance with electoral law and whether the evidence supports the claims made on both sides.