Cryptocurrency donations in UK politics

On 16 December 2025 the Government announced an urgent review into financial foreign interference in UK politics. The review, hereafter the Rycroft Review, reported on 25 March 2026.

It recommended that the Government “should legislate in the Representation of the People Bill to introduce a moratorium on political donations made in cryptoassets”. The review further stated that the moratorium should only be ended “once Parliament and the Electoral Commission are assured that relevant regulation is effective”.

Subsequent to the publication of the Rycroft Review, the Government announced an immediate moratorium on cryptoassets as a form of political financing. They said this would be forwarded as an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill, and retrospective. This means that, subject to parliamentary approval, as of 25 March 2026, cryptoassets are no longer permissible as donations in UK politics.

What are cryptocurrencies?

Cryptocurrencies are a type of digital asset that exists only online. Unlike traditional currencies, they are not issued by a central government or bank. Instead, they are created and managed using computer networks that operate outside of the regulated banking system. A well-known example of a cryptocurrency is Bitcoin.

Cryptocurrencies work on a decentralised, digital ledger called the blockchain which records every transaction. Its purpose is to allow people to quickly send cryptocurrencies directly to each other, without requiring a traditional financial intermediary to verify the transaction. The value can change quickly because they are a) not backed by physical goods or government guarantees and b) they are traded like assets.

However, some types of cryptocurrencies are more stable than others. Stablecoins, such as Tether, are designed to maintain a steady value because they are backed by real-world assets, such as US Treasury bills, and are often issued by a central company rather than a decentralised network. This makes them less volatile but introduces different risks around transparency, governance and concentration of control.

Cryptocurrencies are stored in pseudonymous digital wallets. This means that the wallet uses a string of numbers instead of first and last names to identify the owner. While this gives the owner of the wallet privacy, it makes it difficult to trace cryptocurrency transactions to real-world identities. Furthermore, there are some cryptocurrencies called ‘privacy coins’ that are specifically engineered to be anonymous and untraceable.

A House of Commons Library briefing highlights that the benefits of cryptocurrencies include allowing for:

• faster and cheaper cross-border payments;
• financial inclusivity in contexts where traditional banking is mistrusted;
• technological innovation in the banking/financial sector more generally.

The same briefing outlines the risks as:

• the volatility of crypto assets;
• the opportunities it opens for financial crime (due to the anonymity it provides);
• operational vulnerabilities inherent in decentralised systems.

Are they common in UK politics?

No. Spotlight on Corruption analysis shows that only three parties have indicated that they will accept cryptocurrency donations: Reform UK, Homeland Party and the Other Party. Only two of these parties have publicly acknowledged the receipt of a crypto donation.

Homeland has a public wallet, which shows that they have received one donation which roughly equates to £27. The leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, has also alluded to “a couple” of donations in the form of crypto assets that the party has received.

In its February 2026 letter to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, the Electoral Commission said that “to date, no political party has reported any donations that they have identified as crypto assets”.

What concerns have been raised?

A number of concerns have been raised with regards to cryptocurrency donations in UK politics. An op-ed in the Financial Times argued that:

1. Cryptocurrencies supercharge the ability to obfuscate the original source of funds, for example, by using crypto ‘mixers’ that randomly shuffle deposits from many users.
2. The Electoral Commission and political parties currently lack the technical capacity to trace where digital funds originate because this can involve many pseudonymous transactions moving across borders.
3. Malign actors could use AI to split large crypto donations into thousands of small contributions to avoid donation disclosure rules.
4. That the period in-between elections – which are comparatively less regulated – offer third parties an opportunity to exert a “quiet, cumulative influence on political debate”.

Transparency International UK have pointed to concerns that “the anonymity provided by crypto could provide a backdoor for foreign interference in our democracy”.

Spotlight on Corruption have similarly pointed to issues of traceability and the challenges this poses for assessing the permissibility of donations arguing that, “malign actors or impermissible crypto donors aiming to slip through the net have several options open to them when it comes to disrupting and obfuscating the chain of traceability”.

The Centre for Finance and Security at RUSI have identified that hostile state actors view cryptocurrencies as “as an important tool of statecraft” because it enables them to covertly fund politics across Europe. They are, therefore, that crypto represents a leap forward in money laundering technology that “increases the attack surface for electoral interference”.

All three of the above called for a ban or moratorium until tighter regulation of cryptocurrency donations can be developed.

Were further concerns have raised?

Yes. Electoral Commission guidance states that “because of the way the function, they present particular challenges and risks in meeting electoral law requirements in identifying donors and ensuring they are permissible”.

In a letter to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy dated 5 February 2026 Vijay Rangarajan, the Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission, outlined a range of options for the further regulation of cryptocurrency donations in UK politics but said that the Commission was still developing their policy on it:

“There are a number of international examples and proposals from stakeholders for the regulation of cryptoasset donations, including requiring parties to use specific payment providers, converting cryptoassets to fiat money at the point of receipt, or requiring crypto payment providers to share details of donors with recipients of donations. We are continuing our own policy development and writing guidance around cryptoasset donations.”

The Representation of the People Bill had its second reading on 2 March 2026. During the debate Steve Reed, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, suggested that any reforms to cryptocurrency rules would feed into the bill after the Rycroft review is completed:

“There are huge concerns about cryptocurrency, not least because we cannot track where the funding has come from. We have charged Sir Philip Rycroft with conducting a review into these matters. His recommendations will be incorporated into the Bill as it progresses through the House, so that we can tackle the matter properly.”

What benefits had been discussed?

On 8 September 2025 the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy took oral evidence on political finance rules and cryptocurrency donations. Ian Taylor, Board Advisor at CryptoUK, suggested that whilst malign actors can use crypto to conduct illicit financing activities, the benefit of many cryptocurrencies donations is that they can be more transparent than more traditional donations:

“The technology is public, transparent, immutable and allows for anybody to see what has taken place previously, using tools such as analytics… it is even easier to make it public than receiving a donation from Barclays bank or Natwest, because you could not call up and reconcile; Barclays would not give you that information.”

Ian Taylor went on to argue that an outright ban was “probably a disproportionate approach” which he would not advise on grounds that it would be undemocratic to not allow a person to make payments in the way they wanted to. However, he acknowledged that “privacy coins” should not be accepted.

A discussion paper published by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance stated that if cryptocurrencies are “designed with an open ledger and allow the identity of people involved to be tracked, [they] could facilitate the work of oversight agencies”. They ultimately argued that any discussions surrounding crypto regulation should “aim to ensure that these technologies open, rather than limit, the avenues for political fundraising and enhance transparency”.

A moratorium on cryptoassets

On 25 March 2026 the Rycroft Review was published. Rycroft said that “many of the people I have spoken to in the course of this review have expressed deep reservations about political donations made in cryptoassets at this time”. He went on to outline five factors behind this:

• the incomplete framework of regulation for cryptoassets, particularly at the international level;
• the difficulty of tracing the ultimate ownership of cryptoassets;
• the proliferation of different kinds of cryptoassets, some of which are hard to trace;
• the advent of AI assisted technologies which allow for cryptoassets to be broken into small amounts below the threshold at which donations have to be declared; and
• regulators such as the Electoral Commission, as well as political parties, do not have the capability or expertise to manage the risks crypto donations present.

He went on to argue that a moratorium, or pause, was a preferable option to a ban, saying:

“This should not be seen as a prelude to an outright and permanent ban, rather an interlude in which the regulatory environment can catch up with the reality of cryptoassets and the Electoral Commission, the political parties and other actors can invest in the capability and expertise necessary to allow safe use”.

Rycroft made a final suggestion surrounding the concern that cryptoasset technology can be used to break up one donation into lots of smaller ones, which would then allow them to fall under the £500 threshold for parties to conduct permissibility checks. This was that “the moratorium on donations made using cryptoassets should therefore apply to all cryptoassets, not just those valued above the £500 threshold”.

In a statement to the House of Commons following the release of the Rycroft Review, Steve Reed, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, announced that the Government would bring forward the Rycroft Review’s recommendation on placing a moratorium on cryptoassets. He said:

“I accept Mr Rycroft’s assessment that the anonymity inherent in cryptocurrency transactions could make it easier to mask the origin of donations and to evade robust checks on the true source of funds. The clear route that that creates for illicit channelling of money into our politics is unacceptable and undermines public confidence in our electoral system.”

He said that the Government would bring forward an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to “place a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency”. He said that this would, subject to parliamentary approval, and apply retrospectively from the date of the announcement (25 March 2026). He also said this would apply to cryptocurrency in any amount, “including donations of a value that would ordinarily fall below the threshold for control on donations”.

How do other countries regulate cryptocurrency donations?

Spotlight on Corruption point to both Brazil and Ireland where cryptocurrency donations are subject to an outright ban. In Ireland, guidelines published by the Standards in Public Office Commission define this as “any form of digital currency that is not regulated, and in relation to which encryption techniques are used to regulate the generation of units of currency and verify the transfer of monies”.

In other countries, such as the USA and Canada, cryptocurrency donations are treated as a donation “in-kind” as opposed to a cash donation as they are in the UK. Whilst crypto donations are not banned at the federal-level in the USA, there are some states – such as Oregon and Michigan – which do not permit them.