ARRON BANKS v CAROLE CADWALLADR [2022] EWHC 1417 (QB)

“I put Neil Barnett’s suspicions about using his diamond business directly to him. I suggested to him that owning the entire supply chain was a “well known money laundering” device. He did not deny the charge. He said: “You have no evidence of that”.”

“CC: Well, the argument is that diamond mines are the perfect vehicle for money laundering because you own the entire flipping supply chain! So you own it from mine to shop, and so you just throw some extra diamonds in. AB: But that is just pure speculation. CC: Yeah, it is pure speculation. AB: ((Laughs)) You have no clue if that’s true or not.”

“CC: Did you know anything about this -? AB: And page five, six and seven! CC: When that happened, did you know anything about this episode? AB: No, but it gave me a little bit of an inkling of how the press operate. … CC: So you didn’t know about that before that appeared in the newspapers? AB: We had no Russian money into Brexit. … CC: The question I actually asked you, I said when that story came out about Katya did you know about that bit of her history beforehand? AB: Um (.) I knew that she had been in er lived in Portsmouth and I knew – yeah, I-I knew broadly the kind of, you know, thing. CC: How do you mean? AB: W-well, broadly the fact that she had written to the local MP and various other things. CC: But her ex-husband said that it was more than writing to him, that he found her with him. AB: Yeah, you know, that’s the evil of an ex-husband or wife, isn’t it? They’re hardly on your side. As far as I can see it’s just a pack of Daily Mail lies. CC: So was that a shock - ? AB: Which I have taken up with The Daily Mail. CC: But when that came out – AB: We’re trying to get a frame front page with Dacre’s signature on it. ((Laughs))”

“At no point did I suggest in the Observer or elsewhere that the Claimant had accepted any money from the Russian government or its proxies. There was no evidence to suggest that, and I was always careful to point that out. At no point at this time or later did I ever suggest that the Claimant had taken the gold or diamond deal or had profited in any way from these proposed transactions. I have never said that Russian money went into the Brexit campaign. I have always stressed that there is no evidence to suggest it did. I have spoken on the record multiple times about it and I have never made that suggestion or that the Claimant is “a Russian actor”.” (Emphasis added.)

“(1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. (2) For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.”

“A number of people I knew, in my personal and my business life, told me that they had heard about the claims that Carole made in the talk. There was no getting away from the fact that it was an immensely evocative and powerful, though inaccurate speech. Some comments were made as banter (people suggesting that it was just another of Carole’s conspiracy theories); but I could not be sure they really felt that. I told people that raised it that the statement was wrong and it would be corrected, and at first I expected this would happen, but when it didn’t, I started to feel uneasy in that I felt people were treating me differently by not being so keen to engage with me because no correction had been made.”

“even earlier this year [i.e. 2021, the statement having been signed on 23 November 2021], one part of my business was seeking to raise funds, but a question was asked about the litigation which had come up as part of due diligence. I had to provide an explanation as to what was happening. In the event, the loan was not granted and the business has now been sold. From a corporate standpoint, we were less successful in obtaining approval of funding than we had been previously and I consider that the Ted Talk and the fact that Carole had claimed she could prove what she said was true caused and contributed to this.”

“185. Arron Banks is, reportedly, the largest individual donor in UK political history. As far as we understand, he met with the Russian Ambassador, for the first time, in the run up to the EU Reference. Evidence discloses that he discussed business ventures within Russia and beyond, and other financial ventures, in a series of meetings with Russian Embassy staff. Arron Banks and Andy Wigmore have misled the Committee on the number of meetings that took place with the Russian Embassy and walked out of the Committee’s evidence session to avoid scrutiny of the content of the discussions with the Russian Embassy. 186. From the emails that we have seen, it is evident that Arron Banks had many meetings with Russian officials, including the Russian Ambassador, Alexander Yakovenko, between 2015 and 2017. The meetings involved discussions about business deals involving Alrosa, the Russian diamond monopoly, the purchase of gold mines, funded by Sberbank, the Russian-state bank, and the transferring of confidential documents to Russian officials. Mr Banks seemed to want to hide the extent of his contacts with Russia, while his spokesman Andy Wigmore’s statements have been unreliable – by his own admission – and cannot be taken at face value. Mr Wigmore is a self-confessed liar and, as a result, little significance can be attached to anything that he says. It is unclear whether Mr Banks profited from business deals arising from meetings arranged by Russian officials. We understand that the National Crime Agency (NCA) is investigating these matters. We believe that they should be given full access to any relevant information that will aid their inquiry.” (Underlining added; italics in the original.) ii) A press release issued by the Chair of the DCMS Committee, Mr Damian Collins MP, following a session during which Mr Banks and Mr Andrew Wigmore voluntarily gave evidence, in which Mr Collins said, “Mr Banks and Mr Wigmore themselves put on the record that they frequently lie, exaggerate, misspeak and misunderstand”

“Her talk wasn’t about ‘politics’ – it was about criminals eroding our democratic principles. While her bias is obvious (whose isn’t?), this was not a ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ Brexit TED Talk. Her focus is on ELECTORAL CRIMES committed on a mass trans-national scale.” “How is providing verified evidence from countless sources including Insider Whistleblowers about factually proven events a partisan position? … Well, I guess if you accept that the patently clear evidence of Russian Interference in Election Campaigns in many countries is now considered an acceptable and legitimate activity then Western Democracy DOES become just another partisan perspective.” “Why would a net beneficiary of the EU vote to leave the EU? Due to lies and electoral fraud explained in this Ted Talk.” “I am not a CC apologist or a Guardian reader, but I am disturbed that faceless businessmen can break laws designed to protect the integrity of our democracy by illegally funding a political campaign with money from unknown sources to push blatant lies to targeted votes profiled using stolen data.”

“I would consider a belief to be reasonable for the purposes of section 4 only if it is one arrived at after conducting such inquiries and checks as it is reasonable to expect of the particular defendant in all the circumstances of the case.”

“The need to look at the position in the round was also identified by Lord Bingham in Jameel’s case [2007] 1 AC 359, para 34, when he disclaimed too close a focus on particular ingredients which have (or have not) been included in a composite story. He said: ‘This may, in some instances, be a valid point. But consideration should be given to the thrust of the article which the publisher has published. If the thrust of the article is true, and the public interest condition is satisfied, the inclusion of an inaccurate fact may not have the same appearance of irresponsibility as it might if the whole thrust of the article is untrue.’” ‘This may, in some instances, be a valid point. But consideration should be given to the thrust of the article which the publisher has published. If the thrust of the article is true, and the public interest condition is satisfied, the inclusion of an inaccurate fact may not have the same appearance of irresponsibility as it might if the whole thrust of the article is untrue.’”

“To be meaningful this standard of conduct must be applied in a practical and flexible manner. The court must have regard to practical realities. Their Lordships consider it would be to introduce unnecessary and undesirable legalism and rigidity if this objective standard, of responsible journalism, had to be applied in all cases exclusively by reference to the ‘single meaning’ of the words. Rather, a journalist should not be penalised for making a wrong decision on a question of meaning on which different people might reasonably take different views. Their Lordships note that in the present case the selfsame question has resulted in a division of view between members of the Court of Appeal. If the words are ambiguous to such an extent that they may readily convey a different meaning to an ordinary reasonable reader, a court may properly take this other meaning into account when considering whether Reynolds privilege is available as a defence. In doing so the court will attribute to this feature of the case whatever weight it considers appropriate in all the circumstances. This should not be pressed too far. Where questions of defamation may arise ambiguity is best avoided as much as possible. It should not be a screen behind which a journalist is ‘willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike’. In the normal course a responsible journalist can be expected to perceive the meaning an ordinary, reasonable reader is likely to give to his article. Moreover, even if the words are highly susceptible of another meaning, a responsible journalist will not disregard a defamatory meaning which is obviously one possible meaning of the article in question. Questions of degree arise here. The more obvious the defamatory meaning, and the more serious the defamation, the less weight will a court attach to other possible meanings when considering the conduct to be expected of a responsible journalist in the circumstances.”

“The principle endorsed by the Privy Council in Bonnick v Morris appears to be, therefore, that a responsible journalist would have had in mind the less damaging of the possible meanings that reasonable persons might attach to the article, and would have been entitled to focus in that direction when checking and reporting the relevant subject matter.”

“just as the common law defence was developed under the influence of Convention principles…, so was the statutory defence. Its three requirements that the statement should have been on a matter of public interest, that the defendant should have believed that the publication of it was in the public interest and that the belief should have been reasonable, all of which have to be established by the defendant, are intended, and may generally be assumed, to ensure that operation of the section generates no violation of either of the claimant’s right under article 8, or of the defendant’s right under article 10. To the extent that a court is persuaded to consult Convention jurisprudence in the course of a determination under section 4, it is likely to find that the word ‘reasonably’ in subsection (1)(b) is sufficiently elastic to enable the section to be given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights.”

“Reputation is an integral and important part of the dignity of the individual. It also forms the basis of many decisions in a democratic society which are fundamental to its well-being: whom to employ or work for, whom to promote, whom to do business with or to vote for. Once besmirched by an unfounded allegation in a national newspaper, a reputation can be damaged for ever, especially if there is no opportunity to vindicate one’s reputation. When this happens, society as well as the individual is the loser. … Protection of reputation is conducive to the public good. It is in the public interest that reputation of public figures should not be debased falsely.”

“The press discharges vital functions as a bloodhound as well as a watchdog. The court should be slow to conclude that a publication was not in the public interest and, therefore, the public had no right to know, especially when the information is in the field of political discussion.”

“156 … In Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd, the trial judge, Tugendhat J, had upheld a Reynolds defence for the original publication of an article, but rejected the continued online publication of the article - without amendment or qualification - from 5 September 2007, the date on which the defendant publisher was notified that the claimant had been cleared by the internal police inquiry: [2010] EMLR 8. The Court of Appeal allowed the claimant’s appeal against the judge’s upholding of the Reynolds defence for the original publication and dismissed the defendant’s appeal in respect of the continued online publication after 5 September 2007: [2011] 1 WLR 153. Subsequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and restored Tugendhat J’s upholding of the Reynolds defence for the original publication. It did not resolve the defendant’s appeal in respect of the continuing publication beyond 5 September 2007, and, ultimately, the defendant withdrew its appeal on this point. 157 At first instance, Tugendhat J concluded [249]: “I reach the same conclusion in this case as the Court of Appeal reached in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd [2002] QB 783 [79]. The failure to remove the article from the website, or to attach to the articles published on The Times website a suitable qualification, cannot possibly be described as responsible journalism. It is not in the public interest that there should continue to be recorded on the internet the questions as to the claimant’s honesty which were raised in 2006, and it is not fair to him. It is not in the public interest for the reasons given by Lord Nicholls in Reynolds at p.201 cited in [207] above.” 158 His decision, and this conclusion, was approved by Lord Neuberger MR in the Court of Appeal [77], who added [78]: “On the face of it, at least, that conclusion appears to be not merely one which the judge was entitled to reach: it was plainly right … If the original publication of the allegations made against DS Flood in the article on the website had been, as the judge thought, responsible journalism, once the report’s conclusions were available, any responsible journalist would appreciate that those allegations required speedy withdrawal or modification. Despite this, nothing was done.” 159 In my judgment, those principles continue to apply to a defence under s.4 of the Defamation Act 2013, with the necessary modifications to reflect the new statutory defence. If a defendant seeks to rely upon a s.4 defence for continuing publication of an article, then it will have to establish the constituent elements of the defence (identified in [129] above). That will require demonstration that the defendant believed that the continued publication was in the public interest and that the belief was reasonable. As with Reynolds, that will necessarily require consideration of any significant change in circumstances since the original publication.” “I reach the same conclusion in this case as the Court of Appeal reached in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd [2002] QB 783 [79]. The failure to remove the article from the website, or to attach to the articles published on The Times website a suitable qualification, cannot possibly be described as responsible journalism. It is not in the public interest that there should continue to be recorded on the internet the questions as to the claimant’s honesty which were raised in 2006, and it is not fair to him. It is not in the public interest for the reasons given by Lord Nicholls in Reynolds at p.201 cited in [207] above.” “On the face of it, at least, that conclusion appears to be not merely one which the judge was entitled to reach: it was plainly right … If the original publication of the allegations made against DS Flood in the article on the website had been, as the judge thought, responsible journalism, once the report’s conclusions were available, any responsible journalist would appreciate that those allegations required speedy withdrawal or modification. Despite this, nothing was done.”

“7.1.1. weaknesses in the UK election laws regulating election/referendum campaign expenditure, including in relation to undisclosed or foreign donations which fund such campaigning, and regulating online campaigning; 7.1.2 breaches of electoral and data protection laws committed in the course of the EU referendum campaign, including by Leave.EU; 7.1.3 investigations by the EC, the Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’) and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sports (‘DCMS’) Committee into the same; 7.1.4 investigations by the police and the National Crime Agency (‘NCA’) of potential breaches of the criminal law by leave campaigners at the EU referendum, including by Leave.EU/the Claimant; 7.1.5 the lawfulness or otherwise of the activities of the Claimant as a funder of political campaigning, including that of Leave.EU; 7.1.6 the sources of the funds used by the claimant to fund political campaigning, including that of Leave.EU.”

“…it is Russia’s actions which threaten the international order on which we all depend. I want to be clear about the scale and nature of these actions. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea was the first time since the Second World War that one sovereign nation has forcibly taken territory from another in Europe. Since then, Russia has fomented conflict in the Donbas, repeatedly violated the national airspace of several European countries, and mounted a sustained campaign of cyber espionage and disruption. This has included meddling in elections, and hacking the Danish Ministry of Defence and the Bundestag, among many others. It is seeking to weaponise information. Deploying its state-run media organisations to plant fake stories and photo-shopped images in an attempt to sow discord in the West and undermine our institutions. So I have a very simple message for Russia.

“The connectivity that is at the heart of globalisation can be exploited by States with hostile intent to further their aims deniably. They do this through means as varied as cyber-attacks, propaganda or subversion of democratic process. … The risks at stake are profound and represent a fundamental threat to our sovereignty. They should be a concern to all those who share democratic values.” (Emphasis added.)

“In January 2018, the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Theresa May MP, announced the establishment of a dedicated national security communications unit to be charged with combating fake news and disinformation by state actors and by others. This followed her speech a few months earlier, when she accused Russia of meddling in elections and planting fake news, in an attempt to ‘weaponise information’ and sow discord in the West. When we took evidence from the then Secretary of State for DCMS in March, Rt Hon Matt Hancock MP, he accepted that Russia had been involved in directing disinformation at countries including the UK. He said that tackling the ‘multiple threats’ of disinformation and fake news ‘is incredibly important to safeguarding our democracy,’ and, indeed, was ‘the No.1 issue faced by our media.’”

“The speed of technological development has coincided with a crisis of confidence in institutions and the media in the West. This has enabled foreign countries intent on destabilising democratic institutions to take advantage of this crisis. There has been clear and proven Russian influence in foreign elections, and we highlighted evidence in our Interim Report of such attempts in the EU Referendum.”

“There were already a lot of questions swirling around Cambridge Analytica, and Andy Wigmore has opened up a whole lot more. Such as: are you supposed to declare services-in-kind as some sort of donation? The Electoral Commission says yes, if it was more than £7,500. And was it declared? The Electoral Commission says no. Does that mean a foreign billionaire [Robert Mercer] had possibly influenced the referendum without that influence being apparent? It’s certainly a question worth asking.”

“I discovered Mr Barnett was an old acquaintance who I had met through friends many years earlier in Lebanon. He had served in the army and had subsequently set up a private intelligence firm, Istok, as well as writing journalistic reports. I knew Mr Barnett had a credible background and, when I spoke to him on the phone and discovered he had good contacts with MI5 and MI6 officers who he said were very concerned about Russia’s influence in the UK, I took his allegations seriously. Mr Barnett was particularly interested in the question of Russian money and influence in UK politics and specifically thought there were questions about Mr Farage, the Claimant and the funding of the EU referendum. He and two colleagues had researched the Claimant’s financial filings and said they couldn’t see any visible source for the money that he had donated to Leave.EU. They said that the public records showed he did not have as much money as he had claimed to have. They said it did not add up. Mr Barnett pointed to a pattern across Europe by which businessmen had been groomed and targeted by Russian intelligence. He said there was a pattern where businessmen were rewarded with lucrative business deals and this money later found its way into politics. He said that his intelligence services contacts thought the Claimant was a ‘useful idiot’ – a Russian term for someone who is unwittingly used to achieve a foreign policy objective.”

“Speaking to the Observer about the inquiry into the sources of funds for his Leave.EU campaign, Banks complained about the focus on him. ‘There should be an inquiry into all the campaigns, not just us.’ And later: ‘What about Vote Leave?’ What about Vote Leave? And what about the new man in the Russian embassy? Some of the suspicion that has encircled Banks has been a result of his Russian wife, Katya, his vocal support of Putin, and the fact that in his memoir, The Bad Boys of Brexit, he is quite open about his Russian contacts, describing how he met a man called ‘Oleg’ in Doncaster at the Ukip conference. ‘He was introduced to us as the first secretary at the embassy – in other words, the KGB’s man in London.’ ‘Oleg’ then introduced him to a figure now of significant interest to the FBI – Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian ambassador to London.” (Emphasis added.)

“You have staff. You received this email 12 hours ago. I’m sure your legal representative will explain to you the right-to-reply process. These are very serious allegations. You will be able to respond to the general points without access to the granular detail. We want to publish a fair and balanced report and that’s why we went to [sic] with ample time to respond. Again, I urge you to respond by 12pm tomorrow.”

“Oi @carolecadwallada the @thetimes have already got your story, you obtained from emails stolen from @IsabelOakeshott computer and at this rate I’ll be attending @DamianCollins on Tuesday as planned !”

“Further to your tweets, I note: – That you were online tweeting on Friday and therefore had access to your emails. – You have had 29 hours to provide a response. – You suggest in another that you have been talking to the Times and have provided a response to them. If the allegations below are incorrect in any way, please advise now. Otherwise, we will judge that they are correct, fair, balanced and we gave you every opportunity to respond to correct the record.”

“It was not until I embarked on this investigation into the state of the British armed forces in 2017 – and public interest in Russian links with Brexit began mounting – that I decided to revisit the material. I was very surprised by what I found, which conflicted with the public accounts of the relationship with the Russian embassy that Banks and Wigmore had given. My analysis is that Banks and Wigmore were shamelessly used by the Russians. Perhaps the Englishmen did not mind. As always, the Kremlin’s agenda was to weaken western democracies by fuelling political and social division. And in these two incredibly well-connected men it had highly valuable – and surprisingly willing – tools. … During the referendum campaign he and Wigmore were happy to disseminate some pro-Russian views both via Leave.EU and less openly. The Kremlin must have been delighted. The defence secretary, Gavin Williams, has repeatedly warned of the risks to this country posed by the Russian state. He is right to do so. Our information validates his deep concern about the subtle ways in which the Kremlin achieves its geopolitical objectives. The relationship between Banks, Wigmore and the Russian embassy was part of a much wider Russian hybrid warfare campaign against the UK, America and our allies.” (Emphasis added.)

“Last week, the Observer published details of multiple meetings between Banks and Wigmore and the Russian embassy, the details of which they confirmed when they passed the original emails to the Sunday Times in order to try to scoop us. … The foreign secretary of Britain had made critical remarks about a hostile foreign power. And so these documents appear to suggest, prompted the Leave.EU team to swing into action in support of the hostile foreign power. And, astonishingly, to write a personal note of support to the country’s ambassador. Was the ‘personal note of support’ sent? We don’t know, but it’s a fascinating, revealing, and disturbing insight into the nature of the relationship between officials representing the Russian government and the main funder of the Leave campaign. A relationship that was, until now, partly covert and hidden. And which Banks conceded in parliament on Tuesday that he’d lied about for two years. … Two years on, we are in the dark about so much. What was the exact nature of Farage’s Leave.EU campaign’s relationship to the Russian government? Why did it exist? And to what end? Just last week, Farage robustly denied any improper relationship with the Russians on his radio show. So far, all that we can say for sure is that, for the last two years, Banks and Wigmore have lied about it. And, it’s this, perhaps, that raises the most critical question of all: why? A week and a half ago, a fellow journalist, Peter Jukes, showed me this material for the first time, and my jaw dropped. … I found myself looking at a computer screen that shone a light on a part of the investigation that I had never expected to uncover. … There were references to the content of the astonishing email that Wigmore was said to have sent to his contact at the Russian embassy in August 2016. Farage had been on the campaign trail for Trump when his aide and fundraiser, George Cottrell, was arrested by the FBI on money-laundering charges. Material seen by the Observer suggests Wigmore sent confidential legal documents, including the FBI indictment, to the Russian embassy. And then there was the possibility of the gold deal. A deal, brokered by Yakovenko, and funded by the state-owned Russian bank, Sberbank, negotiated in the months leading up to the referendum, and announced on 5 July, 12 days after the country voted to leave the EU. There is no public record of whether Banks invested or not. Twelve days later, he tweeted: ‘I’m buying gold at the moment and big mining stocks.’ … There was nothing hidden or covert about the hundreds of social media postings and tweets that showed Leave.EU’s and Farage’s support of Russian policies and the Russian political agenda. What I hadn’t contemplated, until now, was that this may have been co-ordinated with the Russian government. That Banks and Wigmore may have been communicating with the embassy when they were launching these attacks. … Arron Banks and Andy Wigmore have declined to answer any questions the Observer put to him. Did the deal take place? The gold deal that Yakovenko made the introduction for? Journalists and investigators will hopefully now try to find out, to unravel the complex, offshore structures through which Banks runs his businesses. Because what we appear to see through Banks and Wigmore is a linked series of relationships between the Trump campaign – via Steve Bannon – to the public face of Leave.EU’s campaign, Nigel Farage. Through Farage to Banks and Wigmore. And through Banks and Wigmore to the Russian government. Whether it’s a channel for anything else is for other specialist investigators to figure out. Because ever since Watergate, we’ve known that you need to follow the money. But, in this new age of information, there are new lines to pursue. One can follow the lies for the example. The meetings Banks and Wigmore admit they lied about, a third passport – a diplomatic one from Belize – that Banks told me about last year, but which he denied to MPs on Tuesday. …You can also follow the tweets. Follow the Facebook posts. Follow the memes. It’s all out there: the Leave campaign’s intimate relationship with the Russian government appears public, visible, undisguised. Just as Banks – and his ghostwriter Isabel Oakeshott – were careful to include the approach from the Russian embassy and a nine-hour ‘boozy lunch’ in The Bad Boys of Brexit, is this a relationship between the Russians and the Leave campaign that is hiding in plain sight? What we know now is that this relationship is deeper and more complex than we could have imagined. And that Banks and Wigmore lied about it: to the public, to parliament. And we don’t know why. … We don’t know if there was collusion. But here’s what we do know, what these communications suggest to us: that there was co-ordination.” (Emphasis added.)

“One involved a state-controlled Russian diamond mining giant, Alrosa. The other involved a Russian businessman – described in an email to Mr Banks as ‘a mini oligarch’ – and a gold mine in Conakry, Guinea.”

“Arron Banks’ Leave.EU campaign team met with Russian embassy officials as many as 11 times in the run-up to the EU referendum and in the two months beyond, documents seen by the Observer suggest – seven more times than Banks has admitted. The same documents suggest the Russian embassy extended a further four invitations to Brexit’s biggest funder, but it is not known if they were accepted. It is the third time the number of such meetings has been revised upwards. For two years, Banks insisted his only contact with the Russian government consisted of one ‘boozy lunch’ with the Russian ambassador. After the Observer revealed a month ago that he had had multiple meetings at which he had been offered lucrative business deals, Banks told a parliamentary inquiry into fake news he had ‘two or three’ meetings. Last week, when pressed by the New York Times, he admitted a fourth meeting. But the Observer has seen evidence that suggests there were at least seven more. When questioned about this, Banks offered no response.”

“priced the cost of buying the gold companies at $4 billion and set out that the deal would be funded by ‘friend of GeoProMining’ and the sanctioned Russian bank Sberbank and suggested meetings with the Claimant or his associates and Sberbank in Moscow. The Claimant had previously told ITN that he had not had meetings about investments in Russia because he knows it is a complicated place to do business. The new documents contradicted that assertion. The report also included an interview with a former head of GCHQ, Sir David Omand, who said that the proposed deal had the appearance of a Russian influence operation.”

“Following its investigation, the Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect that: • Mr Banks was not the true source of the £8m loans made to Better for the Country. • Loans to Better for the Country, on behalf of Leave.EU, involved a non-qualifying or impermissible company – Rock Holdings Limited, which is incorporated in the Isle of Man. • Arron Banks, Elizabeth Bilney and others involved in Better for the Country, Leave.EU and associated companies concealed the true details of these financial transactions. • A number of criminal offences may have been committed. Due to multiple suspected offences, some of which fall outside the Commission’s remit, the Commission has referred this matter and handed its evidence to the National Crime Agency. Bob Posner, Electoral Commission Director of Political Finance and Regulation & Legal Counsel said: We have reasonable grounds to suspect money given to Better for the Country came from impermissible sources and that Mr Banks and Ms Bilney, the responsible person for Leave.EU, knowingly concealed the true circumstances under which this money was provided. This is significant because at least £2.9m of this money was used to fund referendum spending and donations during the regulated period of the EU referendum. Our investigation has unveiled evidence that suggests criminal offences have been committed which fall beyond the remit of the Commission. This is why we have handed our evidence to the NCA to allow them to investigate and take any appropriate law enforcement action. This is now a criminal investigation. …” • Mr Banks was not the true source of the £8m loans made to Better for the Country. • Loans to Better for the Country, on behalf of Leave.EU, involved a non-qualifying or impermissible company – Rock Holdings Limited, which is incorporated in the Isle of Man. • Arron Banks, Elizabeth Bilney and others involved in Better for the Country, Leave.EU and associated companies concealed the true details of these financial transactions. • A number of criminal offences may have been committed. We have reasonable grounds to suspect money given to Better for the Country came from impermissible sources and that Mr Banks and Ms Bilney, the responsible person for Leave.EU, knowingly concealed the true circumstances under which this money was provided. This is significant because at least £2.9m of this money was used to fund referendum spending and donations during the regulated period of the EU referendum. Our investigation has unveiled evidence that suggests criminal offences have been committed which fall beyond the remit of the Commission. This is why we have handed our evidence to the NCA to allow them to investigate and take any appropriate law enforcement action. This is now a criminal investigation. …”

“Mr Banks himself is mysterious. He has been a director of over 35 UK companies, and is currently running 13. His fortune mainly appears to derive from three insurance companies that he founded, and then sold, in 2005: Brightside, GoSkippy and Southern Rock. He has made extensive use of offshore companies in the Isle of Man and Gibraltar.”

“the Kremlin’s concerted effort to establish networks of political influence has reached into Europe’s core. Be they Putinverstehern, useful idiots, agents of influence, or Trojan Horses, the aim is the same: to cultivate a network of organizations and individuals that support Russian economic and geopolitical interests, denounce the EU and European integration, propagate a narrative of Western decline, and vote against EU policies on Russia (most notably sanctions) – thus legitimating the Kremlin’s interventionism in Ukraine and Syria, weakening transatlantic institutions, and undermining liberal democratic values.”

“KEY PRO-RUSSIAN ACTORS IN THE UK The most openly pro-Russia political party in the UK is UKIP. …UKIP campaigned for Brexit together with the Leave.eu and Grassroots Out campaigns of Arron Banks (the Bristol-based insurance entrepreneur who made the largest financial contribution to the Out campaign). In the immediate post-Brexit period, Banks spoke of launching a new, more professional party that would corral disaffected voters under an anti-EU, nationalist agenda.”

“CC: …You own dozens of companies – AB: Of course I do! CC: - which are offshore and some very complicated tax jurisdictions AB: Why should I pay more tax? … AB: I’m an internationalist, ok? If I own diamond mines in South Africa, why would I register a company in the UK to own diamond mines in South Africa? I pay my tax in North Bristol and I pay huge amounts of them, ok? Legally. … … CC: The structure of your companies is incredibly complicated. AB: Well, I don’t think it is. CC: Isn’t it? AB: I have a UK insurance business, ok? It’s got an Isle of Man holding company that’s registered in the UK for tax. It’s very common, so it pays tax in the UK. I’ve got diamond mines in South Africa ….That’s owned by an offshore company, and why wouldn’t it be, because it’s an offshore holding. And I’ve got various other interests. I don’t understand why you say it’s complicated. CC: How many companies have you got? AB: I actually (.) sitting here right today I couldn’t tell you. … AB: I do own quite a lot. Often companies are used for very specific purposes.”

“My impression was that as a private businessman, he had used Britain’s offshore structure – all of which is entirely legal – to make his business affairs more complex to avoid regulatory and other scrutiny. My impression was that he liked to keep his business affairs to himself and he did not consider this anybody else’s business. I pointed out to him that it was his decision to put this money into politics that was the problem and made it my and other people’s business to ask these questions. He did not seem to accept this point.”

“…public filings covering Mr Banks’ business interests show the use of a range of accounting techniques that mask the value of his investments. He is a shareholder in at least 20 UK registered companies according to Orbis, a company database. Almost all of their parent companies are offshore in the Isle of Man, Gibraltar and the British Virgin Islands, affording them privacy. His interests worldwide include insurance, banking, diamond mining and political consultancy. … In 2015, the most recent accounts available, Southern Rock posted a loss of nearly £28m on its core business. But it turned an overall profit by selling renewal rights for £73m to ICS Risk Solutions, an Isle of Man company that is majority owned by Mr Banks. … Eldon operates the motor insurance brand GoSkippy, and prominently advertises on the website of Leave.EU, Mr Banks’ pro-Brexit campaign group. The company’s profitability is difficult to assess because of its high administrative expenses, which closely track turnover. In 2015, it achieved a profit of just £284,000 on a turnover of £33.6m while paying £33.4m in administrative expenses. It received a £3,000 UK tax credit. … The FT has contacted Mr Banks’ holding companies in the Isle of Man, to obtain its annual accounts, but had not had a response at the time of publication.”

“Banks’ present financial status is then somewhat unclear, and sometimes dependent on buying assets from one company, in order to shore up another company he himself holds a stake in. But it does seem clear that his claimed worth of £100 million is hard to justify. In the letter sent to openDemocracy, Banks claimed his worth could be even higher than £100 million, saying that he would ‘broadly agree’ with an analysis made by the Sunday Times Rich Times list [sic] that his net worth could instead be some £250 million. When asked to explain how he accounts for all this extra wealth, Banks declined to comment.”

“Has the Leader of the House seen the very worrying series of openDemocracy reports this week on the role of dark money in the EU referendum, including revelations of donations to the Democratic Unionist party and new questions today over the real wealth of Arron Banks, the main financial backer of Leave.EU? Given the widespread public concern about foreign, particularly Russian, interference in western democracies, will she assure the House that the Government and the Electoral Commission will examine these reports very carefully, and reassure our country that all the resources spent during the referendum were from permissible sources?”

“The right hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. Of course, any specific information should always be raised with the Electoral Commission to ensure that any wrongdoing is caught. I absolutely share his concern that we need to make sure that all donations are indeed permissible and legal.”

“What would I know about where he came into money? It was a suggestion. I said, ‘Well, he did sell a law firm.’ … It would have been as an idea. You talk about Arron Banks’s wealth. I don’t know his true wealth, but if you were asking me, ‘Does he have any money?’, one of my responses would have been, ‘Well, he just sold a law firm for X’.”

“No, I am now not going to answer any more questions on the insurance business. I have covered it with – is it Rebecca? You can read what you like from that, but I have given the explanation to a pretty full list of questions. … I have answered the questions on my financial affairs. I am not going to answer any more questions.”

“In 2013 and 2014, Banks bought major stakes in four diamond mines in South Africa and a license for exploration in Lesotho. The South African mines were small and largely exhausted. Two of the mines required millions of dollars of investment simply to resume operations. One is still dormant. Banks told me that the mines had been bought cheaply. I asked several industry experts about Banks’s claim, in ‘The Bad Boys of Brexit,’ that the mines were so profitable that they helped prompt his sizable donation to UKIP in 2014. The experts told me that there’s scant chance of his having accrued any legitimate profits from the mines by the time he made his million-pound pledge.”

“But there is no kimberlite where Banks is digging. Instead, he is exploring Lesotho’s rivers for alluvial diamonds – gems washed downstream from the big mine sites over millions of years of erosion. … A document seen by SourceMaterial and openDemocracy shows that between 1960 and 1979, at a site near to where Banks is exploring, just three tiny stones were found after more than 1,000 cubic metres of earth were moved. Their total weight was 0.7 carats, giving them a value of only a few hundred dollars. It is geologically impossible for Banks to find gems in commercial quantities, says Keith Whitelock, a geologist and expert on Lesotho diamonds who developed the Letseng mine. Lesotho’s unique geology means alluvial diamonds are only usually found within two or three kilometres of the diamond-bearing rock, according to Whitelock. But Banks is prospecting near Lesotho’s South African border, around 200 kilometres downstream. ‘Anyone who thinks they can find diamonds there is delusional,’ Whitelock said. Banks has hired his own geologist, who disputes this view. ‘Whitelock is the authority on diamonds in Lesotho so everything he says is pretty much gospel but what can I tell you, we’ve recovered diamonds there,’ said Hunter Kennedy, the expert employed by Banks. ‘In my mind it’s very logical.’ … ‘He may find the odd one just by chance,’ said Whitelock. ‘But he’s going to have to mine thousands of tonnes to find one diamond and unless you can count your diamonds per tonne or per hundred tonnes you’ve got nothing.’ ‘I think they should keep digging,’ Kennedy said.”

“The court documents paint a picture of alleged financial issues at the three mines near Kimberley in South Africa in 2014 and 2015. Newlands mine, thought to be the most productive, appears to have failed to hit its production target, while the other two mines, Blaauwbosch and New Elands required significant investment in order to reach full capacity. An email dated 13 April 2015 and sent to Mr Banks from his business partner reveals the mines were losing money and struggling to pay wages. … Mr Banks told Channel 4 News… ‘The notion that Brexit was funded by the Russian’s is risible and just part of the continuing attacks on anyone involved with Brexit … The other evidence Channel 4 have provided is from a court filing by a former business partner responding to our claim of damages. We deny in full all of his allegations & would comment that since he is being sued for considerable damages he is hardly a reliable witness. I have had no business dealings with any Russian investors through any of my businesses…’”

“During Ms Zatuliveter’s hearing, it was revealed that MI5 officers had warned Mr Hancock that he was a target for ‘honeytraps’ involving young women Russian and Eastern European spies who posed as sexually interested in him to gather information. It was reported that MI5 intelligence officers believed that Mr Hancock was a target because of the large naval base in Portsmouth and his role on two parliamentary committees, the Defence Select Committee and one on Russia. … The suggestion that the Claimant’s wife could have been used by Russian intelligence seemed immediately important. The tangential links between Russia and the Claimant through his wife were striking given the increasing concerns over the integrity of the US election. I thought at this stage that if the Claimant’s wife had potential Russian connections, and the Claimant was a financier of Leave.EU, he could potentially have been on the radar for Russia to potentially groom as part of their campaign of foreign influence.”

“Katya Banks: Arron’s Russian wife, daughter of a local government official and a teacher in Ekaterinburg. Speaks six languages and studied French at the Sorbonne. A larger-than-life extrovert who was caught up in a spy scandal in 2010. The number plate on the family Range Rover is X MI5 SPY.”

“PART 2: OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2015 12 OCTOBER … Meanwhile, our own operation is attracting international attention. Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian ambassador, has invited me, Wiggy and Katya to lunch on 6 November. He wants to know what we’re up to. Intriguing! … 6 NOVEMBER Sampling Stalin’s vodka … He [‘Wiggy’/Mr Wigmore] rocked up at the office brandishing a bottle of rum from Belize: a gift for Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian ambassador, with whom we were due to have lunch. Katya decided not to come, which was a shame as they could have had some good Russian banter. … We set off for the ambassador’s private residence on Kensington Palace Gardens feeling a little nervous. We’d been invited by a shady character called Oleg we met in Doncaster at UKIP’s conference. He was introduced to us as the First Secretary at the Embassy – in other words, the KGB’s man in London. We approached him with due caution. It was a one-hour appointment, but from the word go we hit it off. Wiggy started regaling Alexander with tales of his father’s work the Soviets at the Berlin Air Safety Centre in the 1980s, and we were off. One hour swiftly turned into two, and then four, and finally more like six. It was everything you’d hope for in a meeting with the Russians. Our host wanted the inside track on the Brexit campaign and grilled us on the potential implications of an Out vote for Europe. We chose our words carefully but we didn’t mind telling him we think everyone’s in for a shock. The conversation was rattling along nicely and diplomatic relations only improved when our new friend produced a special surprise. It was a bottle of vodka which he claimed was ‘one of only three in a batch made for Stalin personally’. ‘Try it!’ he urged. ‘Only because I’m enjoying your company so much!’ … By mid-afternoon, everyone was quite merry and diplomatic protocols were rapidly falling by the wayside. It transpired that Alexander had recently had a discussion with the Foreign Secretary which had left him deeply unimpressed. ‘We talked about Syria,’ he growled. ‘I asked if he has a Plan B. You know what his answer was?’ We didn’t. ‘He just said, “No.”

“The Atlantic called me a Russian actor / agent – I hardly think they should be relied on when it comes to their research !”

“We had no Russian money into Brexit. I’ve had two very, very nice lunches with the Russian ambassador, where Andy and I got completely pissed. Had a great afternoon with him. … Not a single penny of Russian money has been put into Brexit. I watched CNN saying some guy saying, ‘Well, Arron Banks is a Russian actor. And Russian money funded Brexit.’ I wish it had! Save me some money! (laughs)” “Putin is actually for his country rather than for everybody else, and actually inherited a horrendous situation in Russia after Yeltsin. The country is collapsing in on itself. I’ve been a frequent visitor to Russia. … It’s not possible to run that entire country as a pure democracy. It’s not possible. The whole history of Russia is one of there has to be someone in control of it or it breaks up. So that means I’m not pro-Putin, but what I would say is the European Union has gone out of its way to poke the backside of the Russian bear. You look at Ukraine, you look at Crimea, these are basically Russian-speaking bits, mainly Crimea, and the EU deliberately tried to confront Russia on its borders. I don’t think that’s very clever.” “Of course, Russian oligarchs are pedalling their influence in London, but like I would say, we’re the cleaner of the clean. I would say I’ve had lunch twice with the Russian ambassador. He’s a top bloke.” “when we met the ambassador we spent six hours talking about east Germany and Russian spy transfers.” (Emphasis added.)

“It’s from the insurance industry! I’ve listed and floated an insurance business.” “Well, actually, to be perfectly honest, we do know where the money has come from. It came from insurance. I’m a great insurance entrepreneur. I built a listed company, I sold that, and it’s all on public record.”

“AB: …I threatened to sue CNN because they called me a Russian actor. And I’ve got no feelings other than having a Russian wife, one way or the other. I felt that was just wrong. They said that Brexit was funded by the Russians. That’s a bit rich. CC: But I think to ask the question isn’t rich. AB: They said that Brexit was funded by the Russians – CC: So you don’t mind if I say the question is – AB: If you lied and said Russians funded Brexit I would be pretty annoyed. CC: But if I say, ‘Arron, the questions is, are you a Russian actor? AB: I wouldn’t care in the least. They said I was a Russian actor and that Russian money had funded Brexit and it was wrong, and there has to be a point where you draw a line in the sand.”

“Later, he gives me a lift to the station, and Andy Wigmore – they call each other Wiggy and Banksy – is on speakerphone. Wigmore has family links to Belize, and he was that country’s trade envoy to the UK until January, when the foreign office stripped him of his diplomatic status because of his political activity. And Banks lost his status too: he was Belize’s special envoy to Wales. It’s all a terrific joke. ‘But what?’ I say. ‘You’re telling me you have a diplomatic passport?’ ‘Yes,’ he says. ‘We both do.’”

“Again, the Russians did not give our campaign any money, gifts or assistant [sic]!”

“…The Leave.EU campaign was funded by myself, Peter Hargreaves and the general public. The Guardian allegations of Brexit being funded by the Russians and propagated by Ben Bradshaw are complete bollocks from beginning to end. My sole involvement with ‘the Russians’ was a boozy 6 hour lunch with the Ambassador where we drank the place dry (they have some cracking vodka and brandy!) and then wrote the account of the lunch in my book, ‘The Bad Boys of Brexit’. Hardly top secret stuff! Ben Bradshaw, working with Open Democracy created a work of fiction. He asked a question in Parliament and today got the Electoral Commission to leak the news of the inquiry and then hit the airwaves. Yawn… Turning to the investigation, we believe that a judge led inquiry reporting to Parliament that investigates the main campaign groups, Vote Leave, Britain Stronger in Europe and Leave.EU would be the best way to clear this nonsense up once and for all. …” (Emphasis added.)

“Last night, Banks admitted he handed over phone numbers for members of Trump’s transition team to Russian officials. … Banks admitted visiting Moscow in February 2016, as the referendum campaign raged … Confronted about the discrepancies in his public statements, Banks said; ‘I had two boozy lunches with the Russian ambassador and another cup of tea with him. Bite me. It’s a convenient witch-hunt, both over Brexit and Trump.’ … Wigmore said: ‘We never offered any information to him [i.e. the Russian Ambassador] or any Russian any details of our [Brexit] campaign. We did discuss Trump and [the ambassador] dismissed him immediately, “Not a chance he would win”

‘My wife is Russian and we went on a family trip to Moscow, no meetings were had with anyone, we visited the Hermitage museum and went on a river cruise.’

‘The ambassador was obviously keen to know how our meeting [with Trump] went.’

“Shown the emails last week, Banks confirmed that he had met Yakovenko again only three days after his return to London in November 2016. He claimed he had never attempted to conceal the second lunch and it was perfectly normal for the ambassador to seek details of the Trump meeting. The only thing he found surprising, Banks added, was that Yakovenko asked him for the telephone numbers of Trump’s transition team. ‘The key interesting fact of all this is the Russian ambassador asking us for Trump’s … telephone numbers,’ he said. ‘When we have those photos taken [with Trump] and it hits the press, literally within very short order we are seeing the Russian ambassador, who says he can’t believe Trump won, will you give me his number?’ … Banks acknowledged that he had other previously undisclosed contacts with the Russian embassy, including business introductions and ‘a few cultural events’. But he insists that the relationship amounted to no more than ‘general friendliness’ and dismissed apparent discrepancies in his accounts of past meetings with the ambassador. His initial admission of a single ‘boozy’ lunch with Yakovenko was ‘a throwaway line’ he said yesterday. ‘I had two boozy lunches with the Russian ambassador and another cup of tea with him. Bite me.’ … Wigmore recalled last week that Ukip’s aim in its first contact with the Russian ambassador was ‘to brief him on how we saw the potential Brexit campaign’ (which at that point had not been formally launched by the then prime minister David Cameron). … Wigmore, who was also present, insisted that ‘we never offered any information to [the ambassador] or any Russian any details of our campaign. He never once offered help of any kind and certainly was not of the opinion that [Brexit] would ever happen. He was certain that Cameron would get a deal.’ Wigmore added, however, that Banks had mentioned his business interest in diamonds in South Africa and goldmines in Russia: ‘The ambassador mentioned he did know someone we should talk to and kindly suggested he should arrange a meeting. He also may help with my Belize request.’ Banks was duly introduced to Siman Povarenkin, a Russian mining tycoon, who was attempting to consolidate half a dozen privately owned Russian goldmines ‘into one entity involve a quoted UK company’, said Wigmore. A chain of introductions led to Peter Hambro, an Eton-educated member of the banking family who at the time had extensive goldmining interests in Russia, earning him the nickname Goldfinger. ‘So I met with Goldfinger … and he said, it’s problematic, it’s difficult, you need to get the Russian bank onside and at that point it just fizzled out - nothing actually happened,’ said Banks. … ‘The difficulties of pulling all this together quickly became apparent and it would only work if we were prepared to visit Moscow,’ said Wigmore. He ‘reached out’ to Yakovenko for guidance on preparing a visit but it became ‘a low priority and we did not pursue the project. We did not go to Moscow.’ Yet one email seen by The Sunday Times indicates that Banks had to cancel an interview in Britain because he had been delayed in Moscow. Did he visit Russia or didn’t he? Last night he confirmed that he accompanied his Russian wife to Moscow on a ‘family’ trip. ‘No meetings were had with anyone, we visited the Hermitage Museum and went on a river cruise,’ he said. (The Hermitage Museum is in St Petersburg.) Banks shrugged off any suggestion that his Russian contacts had led to anything of any significance. ‘Once we had met the Russian ambassador he started to invite us to stuff, which I never went to,’ he said. ‘Andy [Wigmore] went to one with a string quartet and all sorts of people started to invite us to stuff. We didn’t profit from any business deals because I never pursued anything.’ …” (Emphasis added.)

“I’ll tell you what happened. We were at the UKIP conference in Doncaster, and we were approached by a Russian observer. And he said, would you like lunch with the Russian ambassador? So we said, of course.”

“AB: Well it’s a strange sort of conspiracy when you wrote about it in your own book, isn’t it? I mean if you were trying to keep a … some sort of James Bond conspiracy with a Russian secret - NF: Well you wrote about one lunch, yes? AB: Because the book’s timeline finishes with us in Mississippi, you might remember, you did a big speech - NF: I did - AB: At the Republican rally there and eventually, if you remember, the book finishes at that point. So actually, the second meeting with the Russian ambassador was after that, and it was after our meeting with Donald Trump. NF: So how many meetings with the Russian ambassador, in total, were there? AB: There were two lunches, and one cup of tea, where I was introduced to the businessman with the project to consolidate the Russian goldmines.” (Emphasis added.)

“AB: Well it’s nonsense. NF: Is it? AB: I don’t know what to say, I mean we had two lunches and a cup of tea. … NF: The Sunday Times said that you’d admitted to giving telephone numbers, of the transition team, to the Russian administration. AB: Correct. Yes.”

“NF: … Was there at any point, Russian, or Russian individuals or Russian businesses, that gave money to Leave.EU? AW: No, not one penny or rouble. NF: Not one? And Arron the same? AB: Absolutely. … AB: But where is the evidence, that we took Russian money, there’s no evidence.”

“Ian C. Lucas: What do you think first attracted the Russian Embassy to Arron Banks, the biggest political donor in political history? Do you think it was anything to do with the fact that you were involved in the referendum campaign? … Andy Wigmore: Why do we think the Kremlin were interested in us? Ian C. Lucas: I asked why the Russian Embassy was interested in you. Andy Wigmore: I will tell you why they were, because I asked to meet them. We met them at a UKIP conference. I was a diplomat and we thought it would be quite a nice thing to go and chat to them. Why? Because his wife is Russian. … I had met him and his people in the diplomatic community many times. That is what you do, so it was not unusual when you meet somebody and say, ‘We would like to come and have a chat with the ambassador. It would be nice to see him.’ There was no other reason. In fact, we instigated, not the other way round. … Andy Wigmore: Can I tell you why we wanted to see him? I was a diplomat for a small country called Belize. We had a couple of issues in relation to – Ian C. Lucas: Probably bananas and sugars. Andy Wigmore: No. … I was trying to find investors to look at perhaps buying a banana farm… There was a myriad of things we wanted to talk about. It was not anything to do with politics. … Arron Banks: I do think Ian is correct in the sense that, if we had not been involved in Brexit, we would obviously not have been invited for lunch.”

“Giles Watling: You do appreciate that, from the outside point of view, it does look extraordinary that you went to meet these two very powerful, influential people and that was all that happened? Andy Wigmore: Of course. Arron Banks: What do you mean, ‘all’? We gave them the telephone number. That is what they asked for.”

“Chair: Did you discuss George Cottrell’s arrest with the Russian Embassy? Andy Wigmore: It never came up. While at the time it probably seemed a big thing, there was so much else going on at the time it just was not an issue. It never came up. Chair: You did not share any information with them about it? Andy Wigmore: We didn’t know anything, was the other thing. All we had seen was exactly what was in the press about George Cottrell. That was it.”

“Arron Banks: … It is about the level of contact with the Russians and The Sunday Times story that is quite an extravaganza. They say I went to Moscow in February following the meeting. When they contacted me I was struggling with dates and times. They were throwing everything at me. I have subsequently gone back through my two passports and looked up what Russian visas I have in the passports. If someone wants to photocopy the passports, they are quite welcome to do so. …There are two Russian visas – so effectively, the first one was March 2015 and the second was October 2014. I was not in Moscow in February 2016, so The Sunday Times article that said I travelled to Moscow in February 2016, I have fairly definitive proof here that I did not and there we are. … Giles Watling: Are they the only two passports you have? Arron Banks: I knew you were going to say that. These are the only two passports I have. … Andy Wigmore: Just so you know because I can remember teasing many journalists when they asked, “Where is Arron?”

“But in his testimony [to the DCMS Committee], Mr Banks did not mention the two other potentially lucrative opportunities detailed in the broader record of his electronic communications. One involved a state-controlled Russian diamond mining giant, Alrosa. The other involved a Russian businessman – described in an email to Mr Banks as ‘a mini oligarch’ – and a gold mine in Conakry, Guinea. In an interview on Friday, Mr Banks acknowledged that these other business deals were proposed to him, but he said that he never acted on them. He denied any wrongdoing, noting that his opposition to the European Union long predated his meeting with the Russian ambassador. He argued that any business discussions that emerged from those meetings were insignificant because he had never ‘done any Russian deals,’ so ‘after the wholesale theft of my emails, there is still no smoking gun there.’ … In the Friday interview, Mr Banks eventually admitted to a fourth meeting with the Russian ambassador, though he described the earlier account he gave to Parliament of two lunches and a cup of tea as ‘relatively accurate’. He said his emails might have created the impression of more extensive contacts because of the many exchanges that his media adviser, Andrew Wigmore, had conducted with Russian diplomats to set up meetings, or about attending embassy events. ‘I have not denied that we had a friendly relationship’ with the ambassador, Mr Banks said. He added: ‘It is completely natural that a diplomat would put you in touch with another businessman. That is how trade works.’ … In the interview, Mr Banks said he and Mr Wigmore had asked Mr Udod if they could meet the ambassador, ‘because we thought it would be interesting.’ … In the interview, Mr Banks said that at the lunch, he had volunteered that he owned diamond mines in South Africa. The ambassador then invited him for another meeting later that month to introduce him to a Russian businessman who was offering a chance to invest in a proposed consolidation of six Russian gold mines. … Mr Banks said he never participated in that gold deal. But it appears that Mr Povarenkin offered him a different Russian opportunity – with the diamond company Alrosa. The Russian government, the largest shareholder in the company, was preparing to sell off a 10 percent stake. On Jan.16, 2016, an investment adviser working for Mr Banks wrote Mr Povarenkin that Mr Banks’s team had ‘not forgotten about your Alrosa project,’ according to people who have reviewed records of the emails. A few days later, Mr van den Brul, the same investment banker that Mr Banks had consulted to discuss the gold deal, emailed him separately about the diamond opportunity. In interviews earlier this week, Mr Banks initially said he knew nothing about the Alrosa project. Then he later said he remembered hearing about it from the investment banker but did not pursue it. … The third Russian investment opportunity surfaced in April 2016, as the Brexit campaign was heating up. Another investment banker with connections in Russia wrote to Mr Banks about the possible sale of a gold mine in Conakry, Guinea. The owner was a Russian ‘mini-oligarch’ who ‘shares your passion for the yellow metal,’ the banker wrote, according to people who have reviewed a record of the email. In the Friday interview, Mr Banks initially said that he had no memory of such a discussion but later called back to acknowledge a meeting on May 10, 2016, that appears to have included a discussion of the Guinean mine. Mr Banks said he did not invest in that mine either. … In August, Mr Banks had lunch with the Russian ambassador and discussed the Trump campaign. At their lunch after Mr Trump’s victory in November, the two men discussed what role Jeff Sessions, then a senator, might play in the cabinet, according to people who have reviewed the records of his emails. Mr Banks, though, said he doubted that the Russians had cultivated him for reasons other than routine trade promotion. ‘The idea that things were dangled as some sort of carrots for me to be involved with the Russians is very far-fetched,’ he said. ‘I wonder what the Russians wanted from me?’” (Emphasis added.)

“Banks told The Washington Post he did indeed meet with the Russian ambassador in London at least four times. They got drunk together. They texted. First names. The ambassador tried to hook Banks up with a deal to consolidate Russian gold mines. Later the Russians dangled a diamond deal. ‘So what?’ Banks shrugged. He took a look, he said. He’s a businessman, after all. He has a stake in diamond mines in South Africa and a uranium mine in Niger. But, he insists, he didn’t do any deals with the Russians – no gold, no diamonds. … The book’s ghost writer, British political journalist Isabel Oakeshott (whose emails were the ones that went missing), concluded that Banks and Wigmore ‘were shamelessly used by the Russians’ in a classic Russian fishing expedition”

“In an interview with ITV News, Mr Banks was asked: ‘Did you ever invest in Russia? Did you go further and have more meetings about this?’ He replied: ‘No. Flat. Zero. Nothing. In fact, I wouldn’t do. Because I know it is a complicated placed to do business.’ … Arron Banks told Channel 4 News: ‘Channel 4 allege that business deals done with Russia funded our Brexit campaign, either directly or indirectly. I have repeatedly stated that was not the case and that potential investment opportunities were assessed and rejected at the time. ‘The so-called Russian “sweetheart” gold consolidation play was referred to Lord Guthrie, former head of the British Army, who referred us to a Russian gold expert – otherwise known as “Goldfinger”

“Absolute pleasure to meet you last Friday in Doncaster. Mr Arron Banks and I would like to extend an invitation to lunch to the Ambassador and yourself at No 5 Hertford Street at a time that is convenient. If this is not appropriate then we would still welcome a chat with the Ambassador at the embassy or a venue of your choice. I have cc’d Mr Banks on this email.”

“Dear Siman, Very nice to meet yesterday with the Russian ambassador. I have passed the presentation onto Andrew Umbers of Oakwell Capital, a company that I own a substantial stake in. I’ve chatted to Jim Mellon who is my partner in the bank and we are both interested at looking how we could help. Jim has extensive interests in commodities. Andrew will be in contact to start discussions I’m very bullish on gold so keen to have a look ! Best Arron Jim knows the Russian ambassador as well !”

“The idea • The idea is to buyout some Russian gold miners from Top 10 and create a company similar to the largest Russian gold producer Polyus Gold • Russia is the third global gold producer and it has second largest gold ore resources so it is a significant player of the global gold market. Russian gold miners benefit form weak local currency that leads to lower than ever cash costs. • Given that fact that Russian gold miners are linked to gold prices nominated in American dollars, Russian companies can easily borrow and pay US$ nominated loans.”

“Sberbank Capital (subsidiary of Sberbank which is N1 bank is [sic] Russia) is a shareholder of GeoProMining and it leads to certain opportunities not available to others.”

“Dear Siman, A belated Happy New Year ! $ strong, Oil weak, Chinese deflation on the horizon, a flight to quality. All points to gold as the default currency. Please see my helicopter view ‘consolidation of Russian Gold’ doc. Haven’t forgotten about your Alrosa project either. Let me know what you wish to do. Best regards, Andrew”

“The consolidation of 6 potential companies in to 1 corporate entity requires significant private and public markets expertise. After a thorough investigation into the feasibility of the project, Oakwell Capital, through its corporate finance arm, would be extremely interested in overseeing the entire project on behalf of its prospective client GeoProMining.”

“…7/Sberbank would have to agree to the recommended and broad strategy of consolidation of all 6 companies given their own assumed debt roll over and extensions and a new financial position in the consolidation vehicle (New co/GeoProMining). We believe that the leverage of Sberbank has with all of the 6 potential target acquisitions could very materially alter the valuation, type of approach and structure of the new company post consolidation of all acquisitions. We would therefore recommend a confidential meeting with Sberbank at the earliest possible convenience to understand their strategy and motive. 8/One assumes that a cash pile of circa $4bn would be made available (to the consolidating vehicle (GeoProMining)) to complete the market transactions. The source of this cash is as yet unclear but it is assumed that this would be made available through friends of GeoProMining and provided in concert with Sberbank’s bank debt support.” (Emphasis added.)

“Hi Siman, To move the plan forward and in order of priority, both Arron and I were wondering whether you could arrange for us (Arron and I) to meet the appropriate Sberbank decision maker and perhaps in Moscow if it is appropriate? Our thought process centres on 1) knowing the scope of co-operation from Sberbank given this bank holds many of the cards in the pack (they are the major lenders to all six Russian gold companies set for consolidation in the plan), and then 2) identifying the financial muscle (person/institution). In other words we need to know whether they are willing to help/facilitate the plan. (Our word doc (attached again) outlines what needs to be done). Best regards, Andrew”

“Andy contact knows the bank well, so let’s have the discussion with them first”

“I’m in RSA [i.e. South Africa] back next week, any chance Andrew Umbers and myself can see you about the Russian Gold Play. I intend to pop in and see the ambassador as well.”

“You may have seen that Alrosa, the Russian diamond monopoly, may have been touted as one of the companies which could be privatised. In my view there won’t be full privatisation but it could open up some opportunities for Arron through ‘partial’ privatisation.”

“Just had word from Arron that he has been delayed in Russia and won’t be back on Friday for the planned interview – can we rearrange – sorry for the short notice.” (Emphasis added.)

“Let me first introduce myself. My name is Sergey Fedichkin, I’m currently holding the position of Deputy Head of the Bilateral and Political Section in the Russian Embassy in London and work together with Mr Alexander Udod whom you certainly have met on several occasions (at the moment he is enjoying his holiday and sends you his warmest regards). I'm writing you on behalf of my Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko who would like to invite Mr Arron Banks to lunch in his residence at Kensington Palace Gardens 13 sometime in August. In case Mr Banks accepts this invitation I believe it would be better if he sets out the possible dates so that we will look in Ambassador's working schedule to find out the best possible options. …” (Emphasis added.)

“Greetings from Rio and firstly let me say how pleased I am that some Russian athletes will be competing at the Olympics. I am currently with the Belize Olympic team as an athlete (shooting) and with our Sports Minister. I am sure that Mr Banks will be happy to attend lunch with the Ambassador, he returns to the UK with me on 14th August so I will get some dates ASAP and forward these to you. If it is OK with the Ambassador I will be with Mr Banks. I will go and visit the Russian delegation at their hospitality house on Copacabana beach to extend my greetings from Belize. Warm wishes and I hope to speak soon. Wish Belize luck and I wish the Russian athletes good luck to [sic].” (Emphasis added.)

“I’ve spoken to my Ambassador earlier this morning. He will be happy to welcome both of you for lunch at his residence on Friday, 19 August at 13.00. I will be accompanying him.”

“LUNCHEON in honour of Mr Arron Banks and Mr Andy Wigmore 19 August 2016 … Residence of the Russian Ambassador” in honour of Mr Arron Banks and Mr Andy Wigmore Residence of the Russian Ambassador”

“Dear Arron & Andy, I am considering publishing a story that will suggest that you had numerous meetings with Russian government officials during the Brexit campaign and that this raises serious public interest questions about your relationship with the Russian government and whether you profited from Russian business deals. I understand that in the months leading up to the referendum you both had multiple, undisclosed meetings with Russian embassy officials, including Alexander Udod and Ambassador Yakovenko. I understand that an initial introduction to the Russian ambassador, as detailed in the Bad Boys of Brexit, was on November 6, 2015. I understand two further invitations were extended to you for the w/c November 16 and that at the second of these, Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian ambassador, introduced you to businessman Siman Povarenkin, who proposed a deal in which you would invest in a scheme to buy six gold mines with funds for it coming from Sberbank. I understand that further invitations from the embassy continued through 2016 and 2017. In addition, you had multiple meetings about the business deal proposed by Povarenkin, including meeting key contacts in Moscow in February 2016. I understand that details of the deal with Siman Povarenkin, Sberbank and GeoPromining were being finalised through June 2016. This information appears to conflict with you[r] previous denials of having Russian contacts or that the Brexit campaign profited from Russian sources. You have both denied any such contacts took place. Arron responded to the Electoral Commission investigation into his finances with a statement that said that his contacts with ‘the Russians’ consisted of ‘one boozy lunch’ at the Russian embassy. I also understand that you reciprocated the Russian embassy’s hospitality with invitations to meet key business contacts in a London pub, that you invited the Russian Ambassador to attend the Leave.EU headquarters in Millbank for a party on the night of the referendum and that while Mr Yakovenko was unable to make it, another diplomat, Alexander Udod, accepted. I understand that there was a further meeting a few days before you [sic] and Nigel Farage travelled to Mississippi to meet the then presidential candidate, Donald Trump. And that there [were] multiple other invitations and meetings. I would like to clarify: 1) Did Arron profit from business deals that arose from introductions effected by Russian embassy officials? 2) Was there any attempt or offer by the Russians during those meeting to influence or assist with the Leave.EU campaign, either directly or indirectly? 3) Were you aware that Ambassador Yakovenko was interested in developing relations between the Russian government and the Trump campaign as revealed when the FBI’s indictment of George Papadopolous was unsealed on October 30, 2017? 4) Did you supply any information about the Trump campaign, or people involved with it, to Russian embassy officials? Did you convey any information from Russian government officials to the Trump campaign? 5) Did you at any point send confidential documents to the Russian embassy? 6) Did you, at any time, assist the Russian government by promoting pro-Russian messages? 7) Did Russia have any involvement with the Brexit campaign, or help finance it in any way, directly or indirectly? I would appreciate it if I could have a response by 5.30pm today. Carole”

“So to be clear: you can’t remember if you had more than one meeting with the Russian ambassador? Or if he introduced you to a businessman offering you a multi-billion dollar deal? You need to check your diary and office computer to establish that? And Andy? You have no comment to make?”

“To clarify: Our policy is to try and be as fair as possible in giving people time to respond but it is just not credible that: – neither of you picked this up until last night. I have never known you both to not check messages. You have always responded promptly. – that you cannot recall whether you had a) one or b) multiple meetings with the Russian ambassador. – that you cannot recall spending months negotiating a multi-billion dollar business deal. – that you cannot recall that this deal was with a Russian oligarch and a sanctioned bank as you campaigned for Brexit. – that you cannot recall if you made significant sums of money from this deal? You cannot recall any of the above? That is your response? That you cannot recall and need to check your records?” (Emphasis added.)

“You have said repeatedly you met the ambassador only once at one ‘boozy lunch’. You issued an official statement saying this when the Electoral Commission started its investigation that this constituted the sum of your dealings with ‘the Russians’. We have seen evidence that neither of these statements are true and urgently needs to be in the public domain. There is an overwhelming public interest in publishing this material. It is up to you whether you choose to address the substance of the allegations below and provide comment by 12pm. Andy, I am confirming from your silence that you are declining to comment. We note that you both cancelled your appearance before the select committee after you received our email yesterday.” (Emphasis added.)

“Have you exchanged text messages with the Russian ambassador? Over what period of time? Offering what sort of information?”

“…My only comment on the other stuff ; [3] I was not a beneficiary of the Alrosa privatisation [2] The ambassador did not visit Old down [4] Where is Lauterbrunnen? [5] Jim Mellon donation to leave.eu was disclosed to the EC & before the short money rules legally [6] Leave.eu has never advertised any of Jim Mellons businesses [7] I did not visit Moscow in 2016 as reported in the Sunday times And finally, are you totally nuts !”

“I just want to confirm that it was the Russian ambassador who alerted you and Mellon to the Alrosa deal that you knew of in January 2016”

“We have records of 11 meetings with you and Russian ambassador/officials of [sic] vice versa, with another 5 invitations extended that we’re unclear if accepted/declined. This is considerably more than previously disclosed. Do you have any observations/comment?”

“Nick Van Den Bruhl [sic] said that Andy contacted him and asked him to advise on the gold & Alrosa deals, not vice versa, in Jan 2016. This was before Alrosa privatisation was publicised in the Russian press, do you recall where you learned of it?”

“I have no idea who Lena is and frankly given the lies you tell I wouldn’t give you the time of day Codswallop!”

“Tom Watson is demanding the government confirm whether NCA is investigating possible Russian interference in the referendum and if they’re not calling for a public inquiry. Do you have any comment?”

“I’ve had no response from your [sic] nor any request for any extension to the deadline so my assumption is that you do not wish to respond. If that’s not the case, and you would like to, could you please let me know?”

“Can you please tell us: Did you try to raise money in the US for the Leave campaign? Did Robert Mercer or other donors give you donations or donations in kind? We know from previous correspondence that you met with the Russian ambassador on November 18. Was that one of the three fundraising meetings? Did you use UKIP data in the Leave.EU campaign?

“On November 27, 2018 the Claimant’s lawyers, Kingsley Napley, wrote to the Observer complaining about references to the Claimant in an article I had written about Nigel Farage. It disputed the accuracy of two references to the Claimant and requested a correction. It did not complain about any of the public statements I had made previously in which I claimed the Claimant lied about his visits to the Russian Embassy.”

“I have a question about material that you posted online earlier this year. You published a right-to-reply email that Channel 4 News sent you on July 25 that included a question about an email that you sent Chris Kimber in April 2014. In it, you said: “Chris, can you bring over a certificate for the diamond I took back – have you got any blanks!!! Was looking at getting it cut but need the paper…A”

“Just checking. You’ve no intention of answering this?”

“I thought about everything you said, and the need to frame it looking forward, and the point about needing hope, and I’ve come up with this. It’s more locally specific than before in that I include more details of what happened in Britain. But with the idea that the specific is universal…and that we were the canary in the coal mine. I’m sure I can refine it but see what you think about general idea/shape. I think it plays to my strengths in that I really believe this very powerfully. […] And I’ve addressed a lot of it directly to Facebook, which was one of your suggestions… Anyway, see what you think. […]”

“Democracy is at risk from malicious and relentless targeting of citizens with disinformation and personalised ‘dark adverts’ from unidentifiable sources, delivered through the major social media platforms we use every day. Much of this is directed from agencies working in foreign countries, including Russia. …”

“I trusted her judgement as an editor absolutely. She knew all about the intricacies and the pitfalls of reporting on the Claimant. She was not responsible for the talk nor was it published on the Guardian’s platform, but she did not suggest I submit new right to replies or seek legal advice.”

“As you continue to work on your talking points, please be sure you have fact checked your statements before you include them in your talk. The TED team will then fact check your talk to help ensure your ideas are presented with the strongest possible evidence. To improve the secondary fact check process, please include footnotes and direct links to papers or articles you cite …”

“…Arron Banks. He’s a businessman. Who’s also being investigated bybeen referred to the police. He’s now being investigated by the NCA, our version of the FBI. He wasn’t just the biggest political donor of the referendum, the millions he gave to the campaign made him the biggest political donor in Britain, of all time. And our Electoral Commission hasconcluded they don’t know where his money came from. Or if it was even British. And let’sthat’s to not even go into Arron Banks’ covert relationship with the Russian government. Which is a whole other story that we published. We don’t know what Arron Banks di [sic] But with this dark money from an unknown source. But this was what he was posting on Facebook:, Banks also bought hundreds of thousands of Facebook ads.”

“Arron Banks. He’s a businessman. Who in a separate case is’s also being investigated by the police. He becamewasn’t just the biggest political donor of the referendum, the millions he gave to the campaign made him the biggest political donor in British history but Britain, of all time. And our Electoral Commission hasconcluded they don’t know where his money came from. Or if it was even British. And let’s not even go into Arron Banks’ covert relationship with the Russian government. Which is a whole other story that we published. We don’t know what he did Arron Banks di with this dark money from an unknown source. But this was what he was posting on Facebook:”

“There was another a second unofficial Leave campaign, Leave.EU, that was led by this man, Donald Trump’s close friend, Nigel Farage. [photo of Farage and Trump] And this campaign also broke the law. It also overspent. It is also being investigated by the police. [hyperlink to an article published in The Guardian on 11 May 2018, “Leave.EU fined £70,000 over breaches of electoral law”] It broke British electoral laws. And it broke British data laws. And it was funded by this man. the man standing on the other side of Trump: [photo of Arron Banks with Donald Trump] Arron Banks. He’s a businessman. Who in a separate case is also being investigated by the police. He becameHe’s the biggest political donor in British history butand our Electoral Commission hasconcluded they don’t know where his money came from. Or if it was even British. [hyperlink to an article published in The Guardian on 1 November 2018, “Arron Banks faces criminal inquiry over Brexit campaign”] And let’s not even getgo into Arron Banks’ covert relationship with the Russian government. Which he lied about. AndWwhich is a whole other story that we published. [hyperlink to the article by Ms Cadwalladr and Mr Jukes published in The Observer and on The Guardian website on 9 June 2018, “Arron Banks ‘met Russian officials multiple times before Brexit vote’”] And we don’t know what he did with this dark money from an unknown source. Bbut this was what he was posting on Facebook”

“When I arrived in Vancouver for the conference, legal checks, compliance, and fact checking were carried out on the talk. I know, for example, on permissions for the photographs I used. I also delivered the speech at a rehearsal in front of TED’s senior leadership. Again, no-one suggested there might be further editorial or legal checks required.”