Decision

[Withdrawn] Risks to charities from an individual associated with terrorism - Mashoud Miah

Published 16 October 2017

This decision was withdrawn on

This case report has been archived in line with our policy because it is over 2 years old.

Applies to England and Wales

1. Background

The Charity Commission (‘the Commission’) is publishing this regulatory case report relating to its actions in respect of an individual who was convicted of terrorism offences and was a key supporter of a company raising charitable funds, Helping Humanity (‘the organisation’).

The ‘Helping Humanity’ referred to in this case report is not a reference to the registered charity Helping Humanity (charity number 1164722) which was registered with the Commission on 7 December 2015. It is a reference to an incorporated company which is not a registered charity.

The organisation had made repeated references to charitable funds on its website and social media, for example:

Mission – The relief of financial need and suffering among victims of natural or other kinds of disaster in the form of money (or other means deemed suitable) for persons, bodies, organisations and/or countries affected…

Company overview – transparency: Helping Humanity is a charitable organisation which aims to be fully transparent to its donors in its activities by publishing its works and expenditure on its website and on facebook.com which is lacked by other charity organisation…

Helping Humanity are pleased to launch our orphans in Syria Appeal. For a donation of £25 a month, or £300 a year, an orphaned child will be supported in their basic daily needs of food, clean water, clothing, education and health care.

Helping Humanity – Transparent to our donors in delivery 100% aid to the needy.

Mashoud Miah (‘Mr Miah’) was convicted of offences under section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (‘TACT 2000’)[footnote 1] on 23 December 2016.

The court heard during his trial that Mr Miah had utilised humanitarian aid convoys on a number of occasions as a cover for his support of an individual involved in terrorism in Syria. The Commission has been clear that it does not consider aid convoys as an effective means of delivering humanitarian aid and has cautioned those charities organising or participating in them of the inherent risks involved and that they will be subject to additional regulatory scrutiny so as to ensure that their trustees comply with their legal duties and responsibilities.[footnote 2] These risks include the abuse for terrorist purposes – including the ability to use convoys as a means to move cash, goods and people – and fraud and theft.

Terrorism is a serious and continuing threat to both UK society, UK interests abroad and the wider international community. Terrorist involvement or association in the charitable sector, separate from any criminal offences, is completely unacceptable and corrodes public trust and confidence in charities. The risk of abuse of charities for terrorist purposes does not apply equally across the sector, however, some charities are more vulnerable than others by virtue of the activities that they undertake and/or by virtue of where they operate.

This case report explains that Mr Miah was found to have supported an individual involved in terrorism in Syria. The Commission identified that Mr Miah had supported the organisation and engaged with it because it operated in, or purported to operate in, high risk areas where terrorist groups exist and operate.

The Commission is publishing this case report to ensure that trustees take steps to minimise the risks associated with individuals seeking to abuse the charitable sector for terrorist purposes.

2. Why the Charity Commission got involved

The Commission, as part of its oversight and supervision of the charitable sector, monitors the work and activities of charities, registered and unregistered, based on the risks associated with their work[footnote 3]. Through this monitoring the Commission is also able to identify unregistered charitable organisations, organisations making representations that they are charitable when they are not and individuals who raise funds from the public for charitable purposes.

The Commission became aware of an organisation, incorporated at Companies House (registration number 08946498) on 19 March 2014 named ‘Helping Humanity’. The organisation was registered as a company limited by guarantee until its dissolution on 19 May 2015. Its website solicited funds for charitable purposes and stated that it was ‘awaiting charitable status’, implying that an application had been made to the Commission to enter it onto the Register of Charities; this was not true.

Following Mr Miah’s arrest by the Metropolitan Police Service (‘MPS’), a number of documents relating to the organisation were found at Mr Miah’s home address. These documents included meeting minutes, bank documents and correspondence about the organisation from the Commission to the directors of the organisation[footnote 4]; the presence of these documents suggested that Mr Miah was closely involved with the creation and operation of the organisation.

In July 2014, prior to the arrest of Mr Miah, the Commission became aware of the organisation’s website which indicated that it solicited funds for charitable purposes and that it was a charitable organisation. The organisation’s ‘mission’ was described on its website as ‘the relief of financial need and suffering among victims of natural or other kinds of disaster…’ and the ‘about us’ page stated that it was ‘awaiting charitable status’.

The organisation was not a registered charity nor was an application ever made to the Commission to register it.

3. What the Commission found

The Commission received documentation from the MPS, gathered during their investigation into Mr Miah, which suggested that the organisation held £5000 on trust, had paid £200 to an accountant to assist with the opening of a bank account for it, and that plans for charitable projects had been made. This information was put to the directors of the organisation, who were trustees of the charitable funds raised, for their comments, but no response was received.

The Commission used its power under section 52 of the Act to obtain copies of the organisation’s bank statements. These showed no evidence of the £5000 held on trust or the £200 paid to their accountant.

4. The action the Commission took

The Commission contacted the directors on 1 August 2014 to arrange a compliance visit to the organisation, but due to a lack of response had further correspondence and communication with the directors and other individuals involved in running the organisation between 4 August 2014 and 14 August 2014 to make contact and arrange the compliance visit.

The Commission subsequently arranged a compliance visit to the organisation for 27 August 2014. However on that day a director of the organisation cancelled the meeting, stating that the directors had decided not to proceed with the activities of the organisation and to wind it up with Companies House. The directors stated that the organisation had not raised any funds or conducted any charitable activity.

The Commission wrote to the directors setting out the actions that were required to properly wind up the organisation. These actions included winding up the company, taking down its website and closing its bank account. The Commission also wrote to the directors to set out the key legal duties and responsibilities of a charity trustee so that the individuals would have no reason for not complying with these duties in the future. The Commission actively monitored the directors’ compliance with these steps.

5. Impact of the Commission’s involvement

As required by the Commission’s letter, between January and May 2015 the directors wound up the organisation and it ceased to exist as a legal entity when it was removed from the Register of Companies on 19 May 2015. The organisation’s website ceased to exist and the directors closed down its bank account with a zero balance. The Commission used its power under section 52 of the Act to obtain copies of the bank statements to confirm the account closure with a zero balance. This action prevented the organisation from being used as a vehicle for any activity in the future.

6. Working with the police

The Commission used its statutory information sharing powers under the Act to share relevant information about the organisation and Mr Miah with the MPS, and to receive information from the MPS.

Additionally the Commission provided witness statements relating to the organisation in support of the criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution. Where the Commission becomes aware, through its regulatory work, that a criminal offence may have been committed it will support the police in supporting investigations and bringing prosecutions where relevant.

7. Lessons for other charities

Funds raised for charitable purposes in England and Wales, even if they are not raised by a charity, fall within the Commission’s regulatory jurisdiction. People who manage and are responsible for appeals for charitable purposes (including those created by non-charitable organisations) hold the position of trustee and have the legal duties and responsibilities of trustee.

The abuse of charities for criminal, including terrorist purposes, is wholly unacceptable. Separate from any criminal investigation and prosecution, the Commission will take any regulatory action it considers appropriate to end such abuse and ensure that charitable funds and property are protected and properly applied. As a civil regulator the Commission will work collaboratively with the police and other regulators and partners as appropriately in support of the criminal investigation and any subsequent prosecution.

There is a risk that charitable aid convoys to Syria may be abused for non-charitable purposes, including facilitating travel for fighters or providing support for those involved in terrorism. This is of serious regulatory concern to the Commission and impacts on public trust and confidence in those charities and the charitable sector more generally. Trustees of charities and charitable appeals providing humanitarian support need to carefully consider whether organising and/or participating in a convoy is really the most effective way to deliver aid to those in need.

Trustees are under a legal duty to ensure that their charity’s assets are only used to support or carry out the charity’s purposes. They must also be able to demonstrate that this is the case. Therefore, in order to show that they are complying with their legal duties, trustees must keep records and an adequate audit trail to show that the charity’s money has been properly spent on furthering the charity’s purposes for the public benefit. Members of the public should exercise care and caution when asked to donate to an individual soliciting funds and/or property with a representation that it is for charitable purposes whether they are being asked to donate in person, on Twitter, Facebook or other social media. The Commission produces Safer Giving advice for the public on how to donate safely to support the work of registered charities.

A significant aspect of a trustee’s legal duty to protect charitable assets, including the charity’s reputation, means that trustees must take steps to mitigate risks to the charity. Charity trustees must conduct appropriate due diligence checks and put in place necessary safeguards within their means to protect their charity.

  1. Section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence for an individual to become involved in an arrangement as a result of which money or other property is made available or is to be made available to another and he knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism – http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/17

  2. See for example “Syria and aid convoys – regulatory alert”, February 2014 - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/our-regulatory-work/how-we-regulate-charities/alerts-and-warnings/syria-and-aid-convoys

  3. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-we-ensure-charities-meet-their-legal-requirements/where-we-monitor-charities

  4. Trustees of charities which are companies are both charity trustees under charity law and directors under company law.