Charity Commission opens Al-Khair Foundation inquiry

In a GOV.UK announcement published on 5 August 2026, the Charity Commission said it had opened a statutory inquiry into Al-Khair Foundation after receiving a complaint in July 2026 alleging links with Hamas and the funding of Hamas. Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation, and the regulator says the concerns were serious enough for it to move from initial checks to a formal investigation. That is the first thing to keep in view. A statutory inquiry is not a finding of guilt. It is the point where the regulator decides the possible risk to charitable funds, charity property or public trust may be serious enough to use its legal powers while it investigates.

The charity, which works in the UK and overseas, says its aims include advancing religion, promoting education, supporting social welfare, building religious harmony and helping people affected by disasters. According to the Charity Commission, it recorded income of more than £74 million in the financial year ending 31 July 2025, which helps explain why safeguarding questions are being treated with urgency. **What this means:** when a charity operates across borders and moves large sums of money, trustees are expected to know who they are working with, where funds are going and how the final use of those funds is being checked. Large international charities are expected to show strong oversight because the risk, and the public interest, are both higher.

If you are wondering what a statutory inquiry actually is, think of it as the Charity Commission's formal investigation power under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011. The Commission, which regulates charities in England and Wales, can open one when there are serious regulatory concerns and can also make protective orders while the case is examined. It is also important to be clear about what the Commission cannot do. It is not a police force and it cannot investigate criminal offences. The GOV.UK notice says that if evidence of criminal activity is found, the matter will be referred to the police, which has the power to investigate.

One reason this case has drawn attention is the mention of Mohammad Yousef Hasna. The Charity Commission says it is aware that Mr Hasna, who was employed by an organisation Al-Khair Foundation worked with to deliver aid in Gaza, was arrested in the UK and charged by US authorities with conspiring to provide material support to Hamas. Here, precision matters. The regulator says part of its job is to verify the nature of Mr Hasna's connection to the charity and to test the wider allegations being made about the charity. That means readers should be careful not to jump from an allegation to a conclusion. The inquiry exists to examine evidence, not to skip past it.

The Commission has also used a protective power because it says there may be a serious risk to charitable funds. On 5 August 2026, it issued a legal order under section 76(3)(f) restricting transactions involving Mr Hasna, his organisation or Gaza unless the Commission gives prior permission. In plain English, the regulator has put a control gate in place while it looks more closely at the risks. **Why regulators do this:** if there is a concern that money or aid could be diverted, a restriction order can slow things down before harm is done. It does not automatically mean every part of a charity's work stops, but it does mean trustees may have to seek consent before certain money moves.

The inquiry itself is focused on trustee behaviour, which is where charity law usually starts. The Charity Commission says it will examine whether the trustees have complied with their legal duties in the charity's administration, governance and management. In practice, that means asking whether the trustees knew enough about the partners they were working with, whether they checked them properly, and whether they monitored the end use of funds overseas. The regulator has set out four live questions. It wants to understand the nature and extent of the charity's links to Mr Hasna, whether proper due diligence was carried out on international partners, whether funds sent abroad were monitored well enough, and whether any weakness it finds amounts to misconduct or mismanagement by the trustees.

This is where the story becomes useful beyond one charity. Trustees are not expected to predict every risk in a war zone or emergency, but they are expected to ask hard questions, keep records, challenge partners and act quickly when concerns are raised. Good due diligence is not a paper exercise; it is the day-to-day work of protecting donations, beneficiaries and public trust. It is also worth saying what responsible reporting should avoid. A case like this should not be used to cast suspicion on humanitarian aid in Gaza as a whole, or on Muslim charities more broadly. Fair regulation depends on evidence, and public confidence is damaged when people replace evidence with collective blame.

The next stage is likely to be slow and document-heavy rather than dramatic. The Commission says the scope of the inquiry can be widened if new regulatory issues appear, and its usual policy is to publish a report at the end explaining what it examined, what action it took and what it found. It also publishes guidance for trustees on terrorism risks, moving money safely in the UK and overseas, and what happens during an inquiry. For readers, the best lesson is a simple one. When you see the phrase statutory inquiry, read it as a formal warning sign rather than a final verdict. It tells you the regulator thinks the risk is serious enough to intervene, and it reminds every trustee working across borders that careful checks on partners and payments are not optional.