Charity Commission inquiry into Israeli settlements

The Charity Commission has opened a statutory class inquiry into concerns about UK charities working in illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine. If that phrase sounds dense, the simple version is this: the regulator is formally checking whether charitable money or other resources have been used there, what that spending was for, and whether it matched each charity’s stated aims. That matters because charities do not get to spend money wherever trustees feel sympathetic. In England and Wales, they must show that their work fits their charitable purposes and delivers public benefit. As Stephen Roake, the Commission’s Assistant Director for High Risk Compliance, made clear, the first job is to establish the facts. Only after that would the regulator decide whether any action is needed.

**What a statutory inquiry means:** under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011, the Charity Commission can open a formal investigation into one charity, several charities, or a whole class of charities when there are regulatory concerns. Because this is a class inquiry, the regulator is looking at a pattern across multiple organisations rather than treating each concern as a completely separate issue. The Charity Commission is the independent regulator for charities in England and Wales. A statutory inquiry gives it stronger tools than an ordinary case review. It can gather evidence, test trustees’ decision-making, and, if needed later, use legal powers to protect assets, beneficiaries or a charity’s reputation.

The inquiry will try to establish how far charitable funds or other resources have been used in illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine, what those resources were used for, and whether that use was actually in furtherance of the charities’ purposes. The wording matters here. The legal question is not only where money went, but whether the spending matched what each charity exists to do. **What this means in practice:** trustees may have to show much more than good intentions. If money was spent directly in a settlement, or indirectly through a partner or project linked to one, the Commission will want to know how that decision was made, what checks were carried out, and how trustees concluded the spending met charity law.

The first stage of the inquiry covers eight charities. According to the Charity Commission, those organisations were prioritised after concerns were assessed against risk factors such as where charity partners were located and how recently the alleged activity took place. The charities are not being named at this stage. That can feel frustrating if you want clear answers straight away, but it is also an important safeguard. Opening a class inquiry is not the same as finding wrongdoing, and the Commission has been explicit about that. At this point, the regulator is saying the concerns are serious enough to investigate formally, not that the case has already been proved.

The Commission’s role here is narrower than some headlines might suggest. It is a charity regulator, so its focus is on trustees’ governance and management, and on whether charitable assets or beneficiaries may be at risk. It is not the body that investigates crimes or decides whether there have been breaches of the Geneva Convention. That is why the Commission has said it has shared information about the scope of the inquiry with the police and HMRC. For readers, this is a useful distinction to hold on to. The charity law questions, the criminal law questions and the tax questions are not the same thing, even if they may touch the same events.

This is also unlikely to remain limited to eight cases. The Commission says it plans to expand the class inquiry over time to other charities that appear to spend charitable funds in support of activities or projects within illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine, whether directly or indirectly. When the inquiry, or parts of it, are finished, the regulator says it intends to publish a report setting out the issues examined, its findings and any regulatory action. That is also when it will consider naming the charities involved. The fact-finding is expected to feed into future guidance as well, which could shape how charities assess overseas work, partner organisations and legal risk.

For charities, the lesson is plain. Work carried out overseas is still subject to UK charity law. Trustees need records, clear reasoning and evidence that money was used for the charity’s purposes and for the public benefit. Good intentions on their own will not answer a regulator’s questions. For the rest of us, this is a good moment to slow down and read carefully. A statutory inquiry sounds dramatic, but it is best understood as a formal route for establishing facts before conclusions are drawn. In this case, the real headline is not that guilt has been proved. It is that the Charity Commission believes the concerns are serious enough to use one of its strongest investigative powers.