Summit on Illicit Finance

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Sir Roger, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell)—I agree with every word of his speech—and to congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who introduced this debate, on what he had to say.

There is a feeling of all-party agreement on this issue, which is perhaps not surprising, because we will soon be celebrating the 10th anniversary of the decision made by Parliament that, unless open registers of beneficial ownership are accepted and implemented by the overseas territories, the British Government will enforce them, as is their right. It has taken nearly 10 years; I think that it was 2018 when I and others led a rebellion against our own Government to get this in, and the Government conceded. It was the right thing to do, and it is all taking far too long. The reason we have not made progress is partly a mixture of inertia, crowded agendas and vested interests, but the Government need to confront it at this summit with all possible vigour. The Minister was kind enough to call me to explain why the summit had been delayed. I completely accept his argument, but we must use the delay period to make sure that it is all the more effective.

The hon. Member for Bolton West mentioned the figure of nearly £800 billion, which shows that in Britain, when it comes to dirty money, we have a real dog in the fight. Remember what this money is: money from cyber-crime, the drugs trade and the sex trade, and money stolen from Africa and Africans. We say to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, which are in exactly the same boat, that if they want to have the British flag, our laws and our sovereign, they must also accept our values.

The list of offenders so kindly produced by the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax’s beneficial ownership tracker is very clear: Montserrat, St Helena and in particular Gibraltar are to be congratulated on what they have done; the Cayman Islands have made some progress but are certainly not there yet; Bermuda, Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands are marked as “poor”; and there at the bottom—“critically poor”—is the chief, but not the only offender, the British Virgin Islands.

These issues must be dealt with. On Guernsey and Jersey, and to a lesser extent on the Isle of Man, we need specific, time-bound commitments by the time of the British G20 summit so that we can hold our heads up. The scale of dirty money going through London, the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies is absolutely appalling, and we need to clean up our act.

Finally, I endorse the asks from the APPG: the ending of anonymous ownership of UK property, which has already been raised and is extremely important; the recovery and return of stolen assets, particularly those from Africa, which I have mentioned to the House many times in the past; and the bearing down on professional enablers. We need to ensure that such bureaucratic change as we might then introduce does not harm honest practitioners. There is work to be done on that, but in principle we should do everything we can to stop professional enablers from behaving badly in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing the debate, and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. It has been a thoughtful and important discussion on an issue that goes to the heart of our national security, our prosperity and our values.

I can reassure the House that this Government are determined to tackle dirty money both at home and internationally, and that it remains a key priority. Hosting the illicit finance summit in 2026 is a central part of that commitment, which we will deliver on. We need to do that because illicit finance, as many Members have pointed out, fuels organised crime, corruption and conflict, enables kleptocrats to hide stolen wealth, undermines economic growth and weakens democratic institutions here and abroad.

Crucially, as was rightly pointed out by a number of Members, it directly affects people here in the UK, from fraud and scams to criminality on our streets, as shown so excellently by the examples given by right hon. and hon. Members in relation to their constituents. Indeed, as a global financial centre, we also have a responsibility to lead international efforts in this field to tackle this threat.

I appreciate the cross-party nature of today’s debate. Of course, one party is not here. What a surprise—Reform is absent yet again. I will let hon. Members draw their own conclusions from that.

The summit will be a major opportunity to drive international action. The aim is to bring together countries, international organisations, civil society, private sector experts, researchers and others to tackle dirty money around the world. I was asked a number of times about the objectives of the summit, which are very clear—to expose the scale and harm of illicit finance, to forge new partnerships, to share intelligence, to strengthen enforcement and, crucially, to secure concrete commitments for the future that close the gaps exploited by criminals and others who seek to undermine our society’s economies.

We will strengthen global enforcement against illicit finance through new partnerships on, for example, information sharing and asset recovery, which also came up. The summit will also help us to agree actions to tackle channels for dirty money, including money laundering in the property sector, which was rightly raised, the misuse of cryptoassets and, as was rightly referenced in relation to Sudan and other locations, trade in illicit gold.

There is no great conspiracy around the change in the date. As the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and other colleagues know, there is often complexity when it comes to the diaries of Ministers and others whose attendance we want to secure at these summits. It will take place in December, and we will announce the exact date in due course.

It is crucial that we have a successful summit and have the right people there, and that we can demonstrate our own leadership on a number of key topics. I appreciate the welcome from many hon. Members who understand that it is better to have a summit that is successful and that has the right people than one that is, perhaps, not all it could be. That is why we took the decision; it was not taken lightly. I will keep the House updated on the preparations in due course.

I was asked a number of times what the Government are doing on this domestically, which is obviously crucial. This is not just an agenda for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; it is also for my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, the Treasury, the Department for Business and Trade and many other agencies, as well as our law enforcement agencies. The economic crime Acts protect our open economy and strengthen the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive. We have built on the Acts to enable further progress. In October, the Chancellor announced that the Financial Conduct Authority will take supervision of anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing in professional services firms—another theme of the debate. That will replace a system that previously involved 22 different private sector bodies. It is better that that is brought together and focused to simplify the system and strengthen our defences. The Chancellor announced an increase to the economic crime levy rates—this was also referred to by hon. Members—which will raise an additional £110 million a year to boost law enforcement staffing and technology, and support public-private data sharing and financial intelligence to target criminal activity.

There is, of course, much more to do, and I accept that challenge. We set out further ambitions in the UK’s anti-corruption strategy, which was published in December. That important document included an additional £15 million to expand the domestic corruption unit and improve investigation—the shadow Minister asked about the resourcing across Government and agencies for that. This does not mean that we cannot do more; we will always seek to bring more effort to bear on this. It is important that this is a cross-Government and cross-Agency effort, and that it is not just one Department. We are also working on a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy to strengthen our response.

We also have to focus on international co-operation. It is not within the abilities of one country alone to tackle this; it is huge, and the sums referred to by right hon. and hon. Members were staggering. We are using a range of measures on everything from sanctions to exposures of different networks that are moving money around, particularly in new technological ways; for example, by using crypto. As an example of that, colleagues will be aware that in October 2025 and March 2026 we sanctioned the Prince Group and its enablers. It is responsible for a huge network of scam centres in south-east Asia that exploit trafficked workers to defraud victims on a global scale, including on the streets here in the United Kingdom and undoubtedly in every one of our constituencies. Our sanctions froze £127 million-worth of UK property and triggered a wave of investigations and arrests across the region. We also launched the world’s first dedicated sanctions regime targeting irregular migration. And we did not stop there: at the Berlin process summit, we targeted a number of entities including criminal gangs that are driving people smuggling across the western Balkans.

We are also working through bodies such as the International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre, which has identified and frozen billions of pounds of stolen assets globally. We are looking at every way in which evasion is going on and new networks are being used, which includes the evasion of Russian sanctions by those exploiting cryptoassets and complex financial routes. Members will have seen our announcements in recent weeks on that as well as the closing down of crypto exchanges and other means by which illicit finance is being used to fuel the war in Ukraine. That is on top of the National Crime Agency’s Operation Destabilise, which exposed and disrupted high-harm Russian money laundering networks supporting serious and organised crime around the world. That led to 84 arrests—many are already serving prison sentences—and we seized over £20 million in cash and cryptocurrency. That is tangible progress that is being made, which is important to reflect on. I pay tribute to all the law enforcement officers and experts who were involved in that.

Members have rightly raised points about the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I have spoken about that issue on many occasions in this House, and Members will have heard what the Justice Minister and, indeed, the anti-corruption champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), said in relation to the Crown dependencies. As I am also Minister for overseas territories, I am glad that there was recognition of the progress made in Gibraltar, Saint Helena, Montserrat. We have legitimate interest to access registers in the Cayman Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands; progress has also been made in Anguilla. However, I recognise the serious concerns that colleagues have raised about whether some of the measures go far enough. I am in regular dialogue with the elected Governments in the overseas territories, and I have made clear the progress that we expect to make and our disappointment at some of the backsliding we have seen.

One location that came up in many right hon. and hon. Members’ speeches is the British Virgin Islands. I want to reassure colleagues that I have raised those concerns directly with the Premier and other agencies in the British Virgin Islands in recent weeks. All options remain on the table if we do not see the sort of progress that we need, because, as been rightly pointed out, this is an issue not only about financial transparency and global economic stability, but about the national security of this country and the global British family. When it comes to the threats posed by Russia, Iran and many other malevolent actors—let alone serious and organised crime—we have to adhere to the highest standards. I have conveyed that to the Premier and the authorities in BVI in the strongest terms and I will update the House in due course.

I have said a lot about the action in relation to Russia, which the shadow Minister asked me about, but she also asked about Iran. We have a range of measures in this regard: ramping up disruptions of UK-connected Iranian networks, increasing enforcement actions against Iranian organised crime and sanctions-circumvention networks and indeed dissolving companies registered in the UK for facilitating financing to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The shadow Minister also asked about the related sanctions issue. To be very clear, we are not watering down existing sanctions; we are introducing new sanctions in relation to refined oil and liquefied natural gas, but naturally with a phased-in strategy to ensure that we can wind down existing contracts and others. I can assure hon. Members that that is under regular review, and that we certainly do not want to see Putin or his regime gain any kind of bonanza from this.

We have been clear from the start that we are doing a huge amount to tackle the issue of asset recovery. In fact, in 2024-25, asset recovery from proceeds of crime was up by 31%, with £284.5 million recovered. We continue to be very ambitious in those strategies.

We are also doing a huge amount, as I said, on the enablers—that was touched on by a number of people—and that new approach by the FCA will ensure that we have the powers to take a coherent, effective and impactful approach to supervision.

In the remaining time—I am trying to work out how long I have, Sir Roger; I will keep going until you shout “Order”—the hon. Member for North Norfolk quite rightly asked what we are doing with people who fail to comply. Let me be clear on that: verification of directors and persons with significant control is mandatory. Individuals who fail to comply in this country may face financial penalties, disqualification or, indeed, criminal sanctions.

We are also clear that overseas entities on the UK register of overseas entities and register of persons with significant control must comply with our beneficial ownership requirements. We are taking every step possible. Of course, it is for enforcement agencies to follow up on these things, but we are very clear on this, and Companies House is actively identifying non-compliance and working with partners across Government and law enforcement to ensure that entities meet their obligations.

If I have not replied to any specific points, I am very happy to write to hon. Members afterwards, but, in conclusion, I want to reassure Members that this remains a major priority. This summit will happen, and it will have tangible, important announcements to make about our commitment here at home and about what we are doing overseas. We will make sure that that has a legacy that impacts into the future, particularly as we enter an important year regarding the G20. I thank everybody for their contributions.