Arron Banks, a millionaire who helped fund the Leave.EU Brexit campaign, is accused of hiring private investigators to look into Sunday Times journalist Gabriel Pogrund, according to The Guardian. The story first appeared in the New Statesman before being reported on 8 August 2026.

Banks reportedly paid investigators to examine Pogrund, who leads the Sunday Times Insight investigations team. He is said to have used a company called Precision Risk and Intelligence, which he once owned. The move apparently came after the Sunday Times published a story showing that Nigel Farage received financial help from George Cottrell, a convicted criminal known as "Posh George."

When asked whether he had paid investigators to look into Pogrund, Banks replied: "When you live by the sword, you die by the sword." He also said: "We believe the Sunday Times used hacked information and that was an area of interest. We do have an investigative arm that's got advanced capabilities." Hacked information means data stolen by breaking into someone's private messages or devices.

The Sunday Times flatly denied the hacking claim. A spokesperson said its story was based on "responsible and professional journalism," not stolen data. The newspaper called the decision to hire private investigators to monitor its reporters "reprehensible."

The reporting at the centre of this dispute uncovered a web of financial connections around Farage and Reform UK, a political party that has grown quickly in British politics. The Sunday Times reported that George Cottrell paid for Farage's security, accommodation, and social media support. Cottrell also reportedly helped arrange a "comeback deal" for Farage to return as Reform UK's leader months before he publicly announced he would run.

Cottrell's mother, Fiona Cottrell, a retired stylist, made two transfers of £250,000 directly to Reform UK in May 2024, just weeks before the general election. She also gave £1m to a company called Britain Means Business, owned by Reform UK's deputy leader Richard Tice. That company then gave the party two donations of £250,000.

The Guardian separately reported in April 2026 that Farage accepted a £5m gift from Christopher Harborne, a billionaire Reform UK donor. Farage repeatedly said he did not have to declare these donations because he received them while working as a media personality, not as a political candidate. Declaring a donation means publicly reporting money a candidate receives, so voters know who is funding them.

The broader context here involves two important principles coming into conflict at the same time. One is the protection of journalists from being secretly watched by people involved in politics. The other is whether the rules around reporting political donations are strong enough for a party that has quickly become a major player in British elections. Banks's mention of an "investigative arm" with "advanced capabilities" raises questions about how much surveillance private firms can legally carry out against journalists in the UK.

For Reform UK, the financial reporting that set off these events highlights a pattern: the party's closeness to donors whose backgrounds raise questions, and Farage's reliance on the argument that he was a media figure rather than a candidate to avoid declaring donations. Whether that argument continues to hold up as the party faces more electoral pressure is an open question. What is clear is that Banks chose to investigate the journalist rather than publicly challenge the facts in the reporting.

The Sunday Times has not withdrawn any of its stories. Banks has not explained what "hacked information" he believes was used, or described what methods the investigators actually carried out against Pogrund. The situation brings to mind the phone-hacking scandals that shook British journalism in the 2010s, though in those cases newspapers were spying on private citizens, whereas here a political financier is accused of spying on a journalist.

For people working in media regulation, election law, and political communications, this case tests several boundaries at once. It touches on press freedom, the rules for private investigation companies, and the laws that require political donations to be disclosed. Each of those sets of rules works on its own, but this incident lands right where they all overlap.