Reform UK has received two £36 million gifts from cryptocurrency entrepreneurs Ben Delo, based in Hong Kong, and Christopher Harborne, based in Thailand. The donations have prompted the House of Lords to consider whether the new 12‑month residency rule for overseas donors should apply retrospectively, raising questions about crypto political donation rules.
The issue comes as the Representation of the People Bill – which would tighten limits on foreign‑based political contributions – faces a second‑reading debate in the Lords today. Reform deputy leader Richard Tice says the gifts complied with current law and with the provisions of the pending bill, apart from the question of retroactive enforcement. Labour MPs and affiliated trade unions are urging the government to impose stricter caps and to ensure the residency test applies to donations already received.
Under existing UK law a donor is classed as “overseas” if they are not resident in the United Kingdom at the time of the contribution. A parliamentary review released earlier this year recommends that anyone who has been resident for less than 12 months should be subject to the same caps that apply to non‑UK donors, closing a loophole that allows wealthy expatriates to fund parties without restriction. The review does not specify whether the rule would apply to past donations, leaving the matter open for legislative amendment.
Both Delo and Harborne pledged their £36 million contributions while living abroad, and Reform has not disclosed when, if ever, they returned to the UK. Tice says there is no legal requirement to reveal that information and declined to comment further. Labour’s claim that the gifts exploit a loophole rests on the assumption that the donors have not satisfied the proposed 12‑month residency threshold, but no public evidence confirms their exact dates of return.
If the Lords endorse a retrospective application, the £72 million injection could be subject to caps that would force Reform to return part of the money or face penalties under the new framework. Such a move would set a precedent for other parties that have benefited from large overseas contributions, particularly from the tech and cryptocurrency sectors, and could reshape fundraising strategies across the political spectrum.
Conversely, if the bill passes without a retroactive clause, the donations remain lawful, bolstering Reform’s financial position ahead of upcoming elections. Labour and unions argue that allowing the money to stand would undermine public confidence in the fairness of the political‑funding system and give Reform an outsized advantage.
The outcome of today’s debate is uncertain. While the Lords can amend the bill, any change that imposes retrospective rules would likely need approval from the House of Commons, where the government holds a majority. No official statement has confirmed whether the 12‑month rule will be enacted retroactively, and the government has not set a timeline for a decision.
The controversy highlights a broader challenge for the UK’s political‑finance regime: balancing openness to legitimate foreign investment with safeguards that prevent disproportionate influence. As parties navigate the evolving rules, voters will be watching how transparent and equitable the system remains.
The Representation of the People Bill will be debated again in the Commons later this month, where the government is expected to outline its position on retrospective application. Until then, the £72 million donation remains a flashpoint in the wider discussion about the future of overseas political funding in Britain.