Al-Khair Foundation inquiry over alleged Hamas links
According to the Charity Commission, Al-Khair Foundation is now the subject of a statutory inquiry after allegations of links to Hamas. The regulator opened the inquiry on 5 August 2026, moving beyond an initial assessment because it said there was a significant risk to charity property and to public trust in the sector. Before we go further, it is worth slowing down on the language. An inquiry is not a finding of guilt. It means the regulator believes the concerns are serious enough to use its formal legal powers while it investigates.
The Charity Commission says Al-Khair Foundation was set up to advance religion, promote education, support social welfare, build religious harmony and provide relief after disasters. It works in the UK and overseas, and the regulator says it recorded income of more than £74 million in the year ending 31 July 2025. The Commission said it received a complaint last month alleging that the charity and some of its partners had connections to Hamas, which is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK. The complaint also alleged that the charity had funded the group. The regulator says it began gathering information straight away before deciding to escalate the case.
The Commission also says it is aware of Mohammad Yousef Hasna, who worked for an organisation that partnered with Al-Khair Foundation to deliver aid in Gaza. He was arrested in the UK, and US authorities have charged him with conspiring to provide material support to Hamas. Those are charges, not convictions, and the Commission says part of its job now is to verify what connection, if any, he had to the charity. Because the regulator says there may be a serious risk to charitable funds, it has made a legal order restricting certain transactions without its prior consent. In practical terms, that means Al-Khair Foundation cannot make covered transactions involving Mr Hasna, his organisation or Gaza unless the Commission gives permission first.
If you have never come across a statutory inquiry before, it is a formal investigation power used by the Charity Commission, the regulator for charities in England and Wales, under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011. It is used when concerns are serious enough to need close scrutiny and, where needed, temporary protective steps for a charity’s assets, beneficiaries or reputation. **What this means:** the Commission is a regulator, not a police force. It can examine governance, money, decision-making and trustee conduct. If evidence of criminal activity turns up, the Commission says that would be referred to the police, who have the power to investigate criminal offences.
The inquiry will focus heavily on trustees, because trustees carry the legal duty to protect a charity’s money, property and public purpose. According to the Commission’s own guidance on charities and terrorism, and on moving money safely internationally, that includes checking partners properly, understanding where funds are going, and making sure work overseas does not place assets or reputation at undue risk. That matters even more when a charity works across borders or in conflict settings. Trustees are expected to ask difficult questions, keep records, monitor spending, and challenge anything that does not look right. Good intentions are not enough if systems are weak.
In this case, the regulator says it wants to establish four things: the nature and extent of any links between the charity and Mr Hasna; whether trustees carried out appropriate checks and due diligence on international partners; whether trustees effectively monitored the end use of funds overseas; and whether any weaknesses amount to misconduct or mismanagement by trustees. That list tells you a lot about how charity regulation works in practice. The Commission is not only asking whether a harmful connection existed. It is also asking whether the people in charge had the right safeguards, followed them, and acted quickly enough when risks appeared.
The scope can grow if new regulatory concerns emerge. Once the inquiry ends, the Commission says its usual approach is to publish a report setting out what it examined, what action it took and what conclusions it reached. For readers trying to make sense of this story, the key lesson is simple. A statutory inquiry is a serious step, but it is still part of due process. The facts are still being tested, the allegations are still allegations, and the eventual report should matter because it will show both what happened in this case and what other charities can learn from it.
One more point is worth holding on to. Delivering aid in places such as Gaza can be difficult and urgent work, but urgency does not remove legal duties. Regulators have to protect beneficiaries and charity funds without treating all humanitarian work as suspicious by default. That is why this case matters beyond one organisation. It is about whether trustees used the checks, records and oversight the law expects of them, and whether the system can respond firmly when serious concerns are raised.