Nigel Farage bought 1.4m property shortly after receiving 5m gift

"The relevant chronology is straightforward. The offer and purchase process for the property commenced before the gift. Mr Farage had already passed proof of funds and the relevant checks before receiving the gift. The purchase was therefore already proceeding independently of it."

"Nigel Farage has repeatedly dodged questions on his multimillion-pound gift'. Now we can see why this totally stinks. Farage must urgently come clean with the public as to what this 5m was used for and why he failed to declare it. The facts are simple. Farage took 5m from a crypto billionaire, tried to cover it up, and bought an expensive house after taking the money."

"Hours earlier, the Reform leader's name was published on the website of the parliamentary commissioner for standards, which states he is being investigated over an alleged failure to declare an interest. The inquiry was opened on Wednesday, according to the entry, which confirms he is being investigated under rule 5 of the code of conduct for MPs."

"Farage has said the gift was intended to cover his personal security costs and therefore did not need to be declared. However, other parties argue that the money from the Thailand-based businessman falls within rules requiring MPs to decla"

A 1.4m property was bought in cash shortly after a 5m personal gift was received from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne. A parliamentary standards watchdog confirmed a formal investigation into whether the gift was properly declared. A Reform UK spokesperson said the property offer and purchase process began before the gift, with proof of funds and checks completed beforehand. Labour demanded full disclosure of how the 5m was used and why it was not declared. The parliamentary commissioner for standards entry states the investigation was opened on Wednesday under rule 5 of the MPs’ code of conduct. Farage said the gift was for personal security costs and therefore did not require declaration, while other parties argued it should have been declared under applicable rules.

Read at www.theguardian.com