Latest: Jenrick blames donation from dormant company on 'administrative error'
Former immigration minister says that the money actually came from another loss making company owned by Australian hedge fund boss. So that's alright then...
On Friday, this newsletter revealed that Robert Jenrick had accepted £5,000 from a company ultimately owned by Australian hedge fund boss Hilton Nathanson.
The company, Firefly Digital Limited, had filed dormant accounts for the past seven years and had reported just £1 in assets - even though electoral rules clearly state that firms that make political donations must be “carrying on business in the UK.”
Neither Nathanson nor Jenrick responded to my questions last week but - thanks to Byline Times’ diligent reporter
- the former immigration minister has been forced to explain himself.A spokesperson for Jenrick blamed an “administrative error” for mistakenly registering the donation as from Firefly Digital Limited and said that the register of MPs’ financial interests would be amended.
“The donation was made from Firefly Capital Limited, a UK trading company,” the spokesperson told Byline Times.
Firefly Capital Limited is also owned by Nathanson.
But when this newsletter took a look at Firefly Capital Limited’s company accounts this afternoon it found that - while the firm is trading - it recorded net liabilities of more than £5million in the last financial year.
So again we have Jenrick taking money from a company that does not seem to be making a profit in the UK.
As this newsletter reported, Jenrick also took £35,000 from a UK-registered firm owned by Israeli billionarie Idan Ofer that had made minimal profits here.
Transparency International’s Steve Goodrich said last week that “the law is intended to provide transparency and controls over the provenance of funds in UK politics, yet it is increasingly clear it does neither sufficiently. That it can be so hard to identify where corporate donors' money comes from shows there's something seriously wrong with the rules.”
Like the Electoral Commission, Goodrich thinks “businesses should only be able to donate if they can cover these costs from profits generated in the UK”.
This seems like a very sensible approach - surely rich people shouldn’t be allowed to funnel money through shell companies into British politics?
Rishi Sunak’s government, of course, has other ideas. Far from strengthening electoral law, it has fundamentally weakened it. Making it easier than ever to pump dark money into UK politics.
With a crucial general election just months away, this newsletter will continue to lift the lid on the money and vested interests influencing our politics.
Jackanory