Police in London are looking into large payments made to Reform UK, the political party led by Nigel Farage. The investigation focuses on money that passed through a company run by the party's deputy leader, Richard Tice. It was triggered by a referral from the Electoral Commission, an official watchdog that monitors how political parties handle their finances (The Guardian).

Here is what happened. A company called Britain Means Business, which Tice controls as its only director, gave two donations of £250,000 each to Reform UK shortly before the 2024 general election. That money came from a £1 million transfer made on 10 June 2024 by a woman named Fiona Cottrell. About £500,000 of her money was then passed on to the party (The Guardian; The Guardian).

The problem is that nobody knows where Fiona Cottrell's £1 million originally came from. Her bank flagged the transfer as suspicious and reported it to the National Crime Agency (NCA), a national body that investigates serious and organised crime. Think of it like a customs officer checking a suitcase: the money arrived, but there is no paperwork showing where it started its journey. The NCA has not been able to trace the source and is now asking a foreign partner for help. Other Reform UK-related transactions worth millions of pounds have also been reported to the agency (The Guardian; The Guardian).

Fiona Cottrell's son, George Cottrell, is a convicted fraudster with close links to Nigel Farage. Both Fiona and George have been interviewed by police under caution, meaning they were formally questioned and told their answers could be used as evidence. Lawyers for George Cottrell declined to answer detailed questions from the Guardian (The Guardian; The Guardian).

The investigation goes beyond the payments through Tice's company. Fiona Cottrell also gave two direct donations of £250,000 each to Reform UK in May 2024. In total, the police inquiry covers at least £1 million linked to Cottrell, split between direct gifts to the party and money sent through Tice's company (The Guardian).

The investigation began in February 2025 after the Electoral Commission flagged donations made ahead of the 2024 election. Police have consulted the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the body that decides whether someone should be charged with a crime. Two people have been interviewed under caution. No arrests have been made (The Guardian).

Richard Tice has spoken publicly about the investigation. He said he first heard about it from the BBC, not from police, and accused the Met of running a "politically motivated smear campaign against Reform and its leaders" (The Guardian).

The Guardian first revealed the payments now under investigation and has published a series of investigative articles on Reform UK's finances beginning at least as early as 8 July 2026 (The Guardian; The Guardian).

The investigation involves two different sets of rules. One is a law from 2000 that makes it illegal to hide or falsify where political donations come from. The other is the anti-money-laundering system, which requires banks to report transactions that look suspicious. The fact that neither the NCA nor the bankers can find where Cottrell's £1 million originated, and that the agency has turned to a foreign partner for help, suggests the answer may lie outside the UK.

The broader picture is worth considering. Tice's defence rests on two claims: that he did not know about the investigation until the BBC contacted him, and that the inquiry is politically motivated. Neither claim has been proven, and the Met has not responded publicly to the bias accusation. The investigation was started by the Electoral Commission, an independent body, not by a political rival, which makes it harder to frame as a partisan attack.

For Reform UK, the stakes are high. The party has built its image on challenging mainstream institutions and promising to clean up politics. A criminal investigation into its own finances, especially one involving the deputy leader's company, cuts against that message. The connection to a convicted fraudster's family and the routing of money through a senior party figure's company are exactly the kind of patterns that prosecutors look at when checking whether transparency rules were deliberately bypassed. The next decision point is whether the CPS will approve charges, and no timeline for that decision has been shared.