The Charity Commission has opened a statutory inquiry into Al-Khair Foundation after receiving a complaint alleging links between the charity, its partners and Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation. In a notice published on 5 August 2026, the regulator said it had first gathered information to assess the concerns and had now escalated the case to a formal inquiry under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011. According to the Charity Commission, the charity was established to advance religion, promote education, support social welfare, build religious harmony and provide relief to victims of disasters, with operations in the UK and overseas. The shift from initial regulatory engagement to a statutory inquiry places the matter into the Commission’s most formal investigative process.
The complaint, received by the Commission last month, alleged that the charity and its partners had connections to Hamas and that charitable funds had been directed to the organisation. The regulator said those claims raised sufficiently serious concerns to justify immediate examination because of the possible risk both to charity property and to public trust and confidence in the sector. The Commission also said it is aware that Mohammad Yousef Hasna, described in the notice as an individual employed by an organisation that Al-Khair Foundation works with to deliver aid in Gaza, has been arrested in the UK and charged by US authorities with conspiring to provide material support to Hamas. The inquiry will test the nature and extent of any connection between Mr Hasna and the charity, alongside the wider allegations made in the complaint.
Alongside the inquiry, the regulator has used an interim protective power to control certain payments. The Charity Commission said Al-Khair Foundation recorded income of more than £74 million in the financial year ending 31 July 2025 and that concerns about possible serious risk to charitable funds required direct intervention. Under a section 76(3)(f) order issued on 5 August 2026, the charity may not carry out specified transactions involving Mr Hasna, his organisation or Gaza without the Commission’s prior consent. In practical terms, that does not settle the allegations, but it does mean trustees are now operating under a legal restriction while the inquiry is under way.
The inquiry will focus on whether the trustees are complying, or have complied, with their legal duties in the administration, governance and management of the charity. According to the published scope, the Commission will examine the charity’s links to Mr Hasna, whether trustees carried out appropriate checks and due diligence on international partners, and whether they effectively monitored the end use of funds sent overseas. The regulator will also look at whether the charity had suitable policies and procedures to protect funds from misuse, and whether any failings or weaknesses amount to misconduct or mismanagement by the trustees. The notice makes clear that the scope may be extended if additional regulatory issues emerge during the investigation.
For the sector, the case is a clear example of what a statutory inquiry means in practice. The Charity Commission, the non-ministerial regulator for charities in England and Wales, has opened the case under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011, a power that allows it to formally investigate regulatory concerns and use protective measures for the benefit of the charity, its beneficiaries, assets or reputation. The Commission has also set out the boundary of its role. Its notice states that it cannot investigate criminal matters itself. If evidence of criminal activity is identified, that material may be referred to the police, which has the power to investigate. The result is a two-track position: regulatory scrutiny by the Commission, with any criminal enforcement handled separately.
The immediate compliance point for trustees in any charity operating internationally is not simply where money is sent, but how counterparties are checked, how delivery partners are supervised and how the final use of funds is evidenced. The Charity Commission’s own guidance, cited in the notice, says trustees have a legal duty to safeguard charity money and assets and to avoid activities that place funds, property or reputation at undue risk. That is particularly relevant in conflict-affected environments, where aid delivery may depend on third-party organisations and complex payment routes. The Commission’s published guidance on charities and terrorism, moving money safely internationally, and the conduct of statutory inquiries sets out the standards against which boards can expect their controls and record-keeping to be judged.
No findings have yet been published on the underlying allegations. What the Commission has done at this stage is open its formal inquiry, impose a targeted restriction on specified transactions unless prior approval is obtained, and identify the governance, due diligence and monitoring questions it wants answered. According to the regulator’s stated policy, the matter should conclude with a published report setting out the issues examined, any action taken and the outcome of the inquiry. Given the scale of the charity’s reported income and the sensitivity of overseas aid work in Gaza, the case is likely to be closely read across the charity sector as a test of how the Commission is using its statutory powers in high-risk operations.