Forum Topic

Janice, over the last few decades I have been in a position to observe how the authorities across the world have become more effective making it more difficult to spend the proceeds of crime. Money laundering regulations may be intrusive and annoyance to some but combined with increased international co-operation, transparency and better technology, they have increased the cost of converting dirty money into large amounts.This is the most effective way to tackle crime. If criminal activities make less money - there will be fewer criminals. The evidence suggests that it is working and broadly speaking large criminal gangs have a cost of around 30-35% to actually be able to spend the money they make. Up until a few years ago this was rising.Crypto has changed that. It is now much easier to hide large transactions and camouflage proceeds from drug dealing, illegal arms dealing, people trafficking, paedophile rings etc.Most inflows into crypto are legitimate - private individuals and institutions but a far higher proportion is dirty money when compared to the much more tightly regulated banking system.Reform UK is overwhelmingly funded by crypto money based on what we know about and more sources appear to be emerging by the day. It could be that the donors are true believers in Farage's political objectives but (as with most large political donations) it could be that they are seeking to buy influence. Two thirds of the money that we know has been received by Reform come from Chakrit Sakunkrit and a large part of the rest is from people living overseas.The ongoing enquiries by parliamentary bodies are not a witch hunt by the 'left wing establishment' but an investigation into the rules being followed by a legitimately constituted body with non-political aims. These rules matter. If they aren't properly enforced, even if the intentions of those pouring money into Reform are benign, there are plenty of other players in the crypto markets who would use this open door to buy influence. We already have the example from the US as to how this can rapidly degrade a democracy.You may like Nigel Farage and believe he speaks common sense but this should not exempt him from the rules which he has clearly broken. Whether this amounts to minor administrative missteps or something more serious remains to be seen but if it the latter, and no action is taken, you are basically creating the opportunity for international criminals to undermine our democracy.

Francis Rowe ● 13h

"Nigel Farage is the most influential politician in the country and is the reason Reform are way ahead in the polls.Hold that thought."While I think as of now the first part of that statement may be true the second part is clearly inaccurate. The latest polls have Reform about 4-5% ahead of Labour and a bit more than the Conservatives. Reform has the highest vote share because the progressive vote is split three ways and the right wing vote is only halved. The next government will be a coalition and the two blocks appear to be neck and neck with the most likely result looking like the balance of power being held by MPs from the non-English nations. With the DUP in disarray because of Donaldson, this will be almost entirely progressive leaning.Even if he avoids expulsion from the house, Farage's route to power is far from clear at the moment and he will have been looking at how Reform has been drifting lower in the polls with some alarm."He has done no wrong although in hindsight he could have handled the gift better."Perhaps Denis you can explain how you can make that statement with such confidence. Do you have personal insight into the ongoing enquiry?"I believe he will pay for the Clacton election himself."The offer has been made but probably in the knowledge that there is zero chance that it could be accepted for legal reasons."He may come unstuck on his re-election when his case on the £5m gift is reopened by government controlled lawyers."You might want to think carefully about describing  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Daniel Greenberg CB as a government controlled lawyer. He would be very cross  with you if his attention is drawn to your post. He is an independent officer appointed by the House of Commons rather than the government and he would be adamant that his first duty is to the law and Commons procedure. If you have knowledge to the contrary, then feel free to carry on defaming him.

Mark Evans ● 1d