Politics

Reform UK's Leak Complaint Against the NCA: What Happened and What Comes Next

Eleanor WhitcombePublished 4w ago4 min readBased on 6 sources
Reading level
Reform UK's Leak Complaint Against the NCA: What Happened and What Comes Next

Richard Tice, Reform UK's deputy leader, has written to the National Crime Agency asking whether it will investigate itself over possible leaks of his private financial information to the media. He confirmed the letter on X, saying he believes "someone at the NCA leaked bank statements" and calling for police to investigate the agency Richard Tice on X.

At the centre of this dispute are Suspicious Activity Reports, or SARs — confidential filings that banks and other financial firms must submit under the Proceeds of Crime Act when they detect transactions that might indicate money laundering. Payments to organisations connected to Tice triggered alerts through the SARs system. Tice learned about these flags only after the Guardian contacted him BBC. Reform UK suspects the NCA provided the Guardian with this information, though the party has not publicly presented evidence for that claim. It is this suspicion that underpins their formal complaint.

On 7 July, the Telegraph reported that Reform UK had formally accused the NCA of illegally leaking bank statements of its MPs to the press Telegraph. The Express reported the same day that Nigel Farage's bank statements were leaked alongside Tice's, and that Tice views the NCA as the only organisation with access to the material Express.

The NCA has neither confirmed nor denied receiving any SARs relating to Tice. As a matter of policy, the agency does not confirm the existence of such reports or discuss how they are used. A spokesperson noted that SARs are confidential by law, and that revealing them risks a "tipping off" offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act — the same statute Reform UK invokes in its complaint BBC. The scale of this system is worth considering: 866,616 cases were flagged through the programme in 2024/25, and the NCA routinely shares SARs information with police forces and other investigating bodies. This means access to any single report is not limited to NCA staff.

The transactions in question involve George Cottrell, a long-time associate of Nigel Farage. Tice's company, Tisun Investment, received an £80,000 loan from Cottrell in late 2024, first reported by the Telegraph. Separately, Britain Means Business, a think tank owned by Tice, received a £1 million donation from Cottrell's mother, Fiona, in June 2024. Britain Means Business then donated £500,000 to Reform UK that same month, according to Electoral Commission records Electoral Commission. The Sunday Times also reported that Cottrell provided Farage with support — including security and social media staff — in the year before Farage was elected as an MP.

That detail connects to parliamentary declaration rules. MPs elected for the first time must declare gifts or benefits received in the twelve months before their election if those benefits relate to their parliamentary or political activities. There is an exemption where support is "purely personal". Reform UK has argued that Farage was not obliged to declare Cottrell's support, characterising the arrangement as personal rather than political. No formal Commons standards complaint has challenged this position.

Tice sits as the MP for Boston & Skegness. His decision to escalate the SARs matter into a public inquiry demand creates a notable tension: the same law Reform UK cites to allege NCA wrongdoing is the law that makes it a criminal offence to disclose the SARs that Tice says were leaked. Both sides are likely aware of this contradiction.

Reform UK's case rests chiefly on inference rather than direct evidence. The party's own account of a "likely" NCA origin, measured against the NCA's refusal to confirm, means the central factual dispute remains unresolved. Whether police investigate, as Tice has demanded, will depend on whether the NCA or the Home Office are convinced there are grounds to examine beyond the agency's standard confidentiality protections. Given the volume of SARs processed annually and the number of bodies with access to that information, identifying the source of any leak — if one occurred — would not be straightforward.