Charity Commission closes four charity cheque cases

If you have ever wondered what charity regulation looks like in real life, this case gives us a clear example. On 9 September 2026, the Charity Commission said it had finished investigations into four charities that were part of its wider statutory class inquiry into cheque-cashing practices. That wider inquiry began in May 2025 after the regulator found that 105 charities had issued cheques which were then exchanged for cash worth £22 million between December 2021 and March 2023. The charities were brought into the inquiry in stages, which matters because a class inquiry looks at a pattern across more than one organisation, not just a single case.

The four charities named by the Commission are The Z.S.V. Trust, Bnois Jerusalem Schools, Forty Limited and Friends of Yeshiva Daas Sholem Shotz. According to the regulator, all four issued blank or open cheques during the period under review. There is an important point here that can easily get lost in the first wave of coverage. The Commission said it was satisfied that each charity was carrying out charitable activities in line with its stated purposes. Even so, it still found misconduct and/or mismanagement in every case because the cheque practice was judged high risk and too weakly controlled.

That phrase, misconduct or mismanagement, can sound as if it answers every question at once. It does not. In charity regulation, it means the watchdog found serious failings in how the charity was run. It is a regulatory finding about governance and control; it is not, by itself, proof that a charity's work was false or the same thing as a criminal conviction. **What this means:** a charity can be doing real charitable work and still fall short on the basics of handling money safely. Trustees are expected to protect funds, keep clear records and make sure spending can be checked properly. If those checks are missing, the regulator can step in even where the charitable activity itself is genuine.

The cheque detail matters because blank and open cheques make oversight harder. A blank cheque is signed while both the payee and amount are left empty. An open cheque is signed and the amount is filled in, but the payee is left blank. In both cases, the paper trail becomes easier to blur. For trustees, that is the warning sign. Charity money is not personal money, and it is not enough to assume that everyone involved is acting in good faith. Good governance means having systems that show who was paid, how much was paid and why. Without that, donors, beneficiaries and the public are being asked to trust a process they cannot properly examine.

The inquiry itself is also worth understanding. In England and Wales, a statutory inquiry is a formal legal power that lets the Charity Commission investigate serious regulatory concerns and, where needed, use protective powers to defend a charity's assets, beneficiaries or reputation. A statutory class inquiry applies that process to a group of charities linked by the same kind of concern. **Why that matters:** opening an inquiry is not a finding of wrongdoing on day one. It is the start of a formal evidence-gathering process. That distinction matters if we want to read regulatory news carefully rather than treating every investigation as a final verdict before the facts have been tested.

Since the investigation began, all four charities told the Commission that blank or open cheques are no longer used. The charities that are still operating have been given Regulatory Action Plans to sort out governance weaknesses and improve internal financial controls. Trustees were also given regulatory advice and guidance on how to run their charities more safely. The Commission also said it shared information with other government departments. That line is brief, but it tells us the case may have mattered beyond charity law alone. When regulators pass information across the system, it usually means concerns about financial practice are being looked at from more than one angle.

One charity followed a different path. Before the inquiry opened, Friends of Yeshiva Daas Sholem Shotz appointed a completely new trustee board, and that board decided the charity could not continue operating. After discussions with the trustees, the regulator helped with the winding-up process, and the charity has now been removed from the public register. The former trustees were also given advice about their duties if they apply to serve on another charity in future. The Commission says its work with these four charities is now finished, but the wider class inquiry continues for several others. The full report on these cases has been published on gov.uk. The larger lesson is not just about cheques. It is about trustee responsibility. If you hold charitable money, you are expected to show, step by step, that it is being used properly.