The charity has run a local Community Centre in the south of England since 1950’s. Previously  managed by council staff until the charity directly employed a new deputy manager who discovered  widespread financial fraud and wrongdoing amongst the council staff. The Council were forced to  launch an inquiry into historic mismanagement of charity assets which estimated a loss of £100k+ 

Significantly mismanaged over many years, the charity caught the eye of the Commission only as a  result of being on the double defaulters list. Faced with the possibility of an inquiry the trustees  rather than admit to their own wrongdoing, instead, blamed their whistleblowing employee for the  mismanagement and misconduct issues, even though as an employee it was not and could not be  her responsibility. 

The Commission, accepting all trustee statements as true, without any discussion with the person  accused and without making any additional inquiries of their own , served an entirely false court  order on that employee. 

That employee, already suffering ill health as a result of the behaviour and demands of the trustees,  was left with just 2 days to “comply” with this false court order. Charity law does not support  members of the public with financial support for legal representation and as such she has to  represent herself.  

Eventually, after an appeal, an internal decision review resulted in the order being revoked.  However the Commission falsely documented that this result was due to the employee complying  with their order, which she had not. The employee wanted to take this to a tribunal but felt her  health would be at even greater risk if she did so.  

The manager whistleblew on further fraudulent and criminal activities by the trustees. The  Commission confirmed that they were already aware of these activities and as such she was not  recorded as a whistleblower. Further complaints went unanswered. 

The charity has recently closed down as a result of an unconstitutional vote allowed by the  Commission. Mismanagement and misconduct for many years by trustees is the reason for this.  The community have lost an historic asset which is likely going to be demolished and redeveloped  for profit, not for the good of the community it is supposed to have been serving 

Issues 

• The charity had not filed returns for a number of years but the Commission was unaware until they appeared on a doubler defaulters report
• The Commission excused historical and current mismanagement and misconduct.
• The Commission allowed the charity to put aside its constitution in order to get the preferred results of trustee ballots.
• The Commission allowed 2 of the 3 trustees to represent the charity at a time when the Commission was aware there were problems with the trustee relationships.
• The Chair was excluded from, and was unaware of these communications with the Commission
• The Commission accepted what the attending trustees said as absolute fact causing a significant cost to taxpayers in doomed legal actions.
• The Commission then excused the trustees lying to the Commission in pursuit of the false legal action (legal action costing taxpayers money) 
• The Commission treated a member of the public with utter disrespect and ignorance.
• The Commission felt serving a court order on a person off sick from work for mental health issues, giving them just 2 days notice to comply or else they could be sent to prison or face huge fines, was perfectly acceptable.  
• The Commission thought that forcing that person through stages of inquiry was acceptable
• The Commission refused to accept liability, preferring to lie to all stating the order had been complied with, when in fact it had been shown that no aspect of the order was based on fact.  

Conclusion 

It is clear to Charity Sanity that the misconduct and mismanagement of this charity by its  uninterested trustees has meant a rich and historic community resource has been forever lost.  Whether, by appropriate action, the Commission could have prevented this is an open debate  however it is clear that the Commission acted in an unprofessional and incompetent way causing an  employee of the charity significant harm.  

The Commission has made it easy for the trustees of a charity to scapegoat a whistleblower, the  person that had discovered and put a stop to the immense fraud that the same trustees had  presided over. The Commission has allowed this, by again accepting everything a trustee says as  the absolute truth.  

The Commission used that false information to behave in the most appalling way to a member of the  public, without any notice or consideration of her wellbeing. When shown to be incompetent the  commission have doubled down on their error making excuses and yet again using misleading  corporate language to avoid responsibility.

A religious organisation forced to register as a charity under legislation several years ago have been  fighting an aggressive and unconstitutional take over ever since. Previous to forced charity  registration the temple was run and managed democratically by community elders (who established  the temple) for the benefit of the whole community.  

Issues  

• The Commission have allowed and approved a proven unconstitutional takeover by people the Commission now choose to recognise as trustees
• The Commission has not followed their own rules when engaging with this charity.
• In a disputed situation the Commission decisions have shown clear bias towards those they have decided to recognise as trustees, contrary to the charity constitution and the wishes of the community. 
• The Commission has allowed the established organisations constitution to be ignored by the Commissions recognised trustees in order to wrest control of assets from the traditional community elders and take control away from the community and beneficiaries 
• The Commission has chosen to label elders and others as vexatious and “unreliable” simply for challenging the Commission's unethical decisions.
• The Commission, fully aware of the contested nature and on-going dispute of the charity’s management, agreed a vesting order with the Commissions recognised trustees, allowing the trustees to take full control of the assets. This is the Commission acting outside their  remit.  
• The Commission allowed the trustees to use charitable funds to fund a vexatious litigation against elders
• Supported the trustees to use in excess of 25% of its funds on legal actions against its own community without having to apply for commission approval, required under current charity law.  
• The Commission through its actions have admitted to the ousted elders and trustees, who are all individuals without computer competence, that the Commission considers that the person who has the logon to the online charity account is who the Commission considers as  being in control of the charity.  
• The Commission has ignored a Judge’s recommendation that no AGM should be held until the dispute is resolved, in favour of their recognised trustees

28 

Conclusions  

Charity Sanity believes that issues in religious institutions forced by law to become charities are rife. 

The Commission has little knowledge or understanding of faith organisations, the traditions that  support the faith communities and their places of worship. As a result, they are supporting the hostile  takeover and the destruction of generations of community cohesion in favour of a model and system  that ignores and steamrollers over what has been in place for many years.  

The Commission has chosen to ignore the concerns of the community, presuming that community  members with surnames Singh and Kaur are the same person/people. Due to the number of  complaints in those names they have labelled all ‘Singhs’ and ‘Kaurs’ as vexatious!! 

The Commission have accepted false statements as facts from trustees and have also allowed  trustees to engage in mis-use of charity funds without obtaining charity commission permission, a  law that they insist charities must be governed by but fail to enforce. All so that the Commission can  formally recognise the trustees the Commission prefers to deal with.  

How can an inexperienced and unknowledgeable/ignorant case officer be in the position and be  given the authority to decide to put aside generations of tradition because its too difficult to  understand?  

A clear lack of understanding of charity law by the Commission Officer managing the case and  actions taken that are beyond the Commission's remit has allowed numerous mistakes to be made  in this case. 

The Commission's actions have caused a huge and damaging impact to the community. Elders with  lifetimes of community service and exemplary reputations have died with their reputations destroyed  due to the Commissions appalling actions.  

This Community will lose its local place of worship and the heart of the community when the last  elder dies, the community will no longer have a say. it is highly likely that the trustees (who have  little stake in the community) will dispose of the building ie: liquidate an asset and encourage the  congregation to worship elsewhere.  

It's clear from this case and others that the Commission in its ignorance is failing the community based religions that were forced to register as charities 10 years ago. This community worked  perfectly well until the point in time they registered.  

In conversation a member of the community faith group mentioned that in their many years of  campaigning they had met with several solicitors. These solicitors had stated that issues of this sort  in faith communities (forced to change their generational model and convert to charities) are  significant, with many charities having problems and needing legal support. If true, it is appalling that  the faith bodies that traditionally support communities and congregations need to employ legal  support instead of receiving help and support from the Commission.

A large membership organisation with substantial funds. A new chair and vice chair were appointed  by member vote. The vice chair appointed is non-white, disabled and non-binary. The appointment  of the Chair and Vice Chair caused upset amongst the sitting trustees, ex trustees and the deposed  Chair and Vice Chair.  

Over several months various false complaints were made by family members of the ex-Chair and ex  Vice Chair about the new post holders. A serious incident report was produced by the charity  regarding the complaints. Existing trustees called for an independent investigation.  

The Chair contacted the Commission regarding the conflicts of interest in relation to existing trustees  and ex chair and ex vice chair. The Chair also provided evidence to show that the serious incident  report provided to the Commission was knowingly inaccurate which is a criminal offence. 

The Commission refused to consider the issues until the independent investigation was concluded  and instead closed the complaint (once complaints are closed the issues are considered historic and  are not reviewed) The Chair/whistleblower informed the Commission that he did not consider the  Commission's response to be appropriate considering the content of the complaint, he did not get  any response.  

The Chair submitted 8 complaints to the Commission outlining new issues and providing new  evidence. The complaints included amongst other things the omissions and misleading statements  in the serious incident report, conflicts of interest and loyalty demonstrated by trustees to the ousted  chair and vice chair, the charity’s decision to reject advice from the Charity Commission, that a  trustee refused to remove himself from discussions and decisions related to a complaint where his  daughter was the complainant - none of the complaints received a response. 

The QC commissioned to investigate the complaints against the Chair and Vice Chair rejected all  complaints and determined they were motivated by complainant's business interests, prejudice  towards the Vice-Chair's protected characteristics, and friendships to the deposed Chair and Vice  Chair, and political views. 

The Commission received the report and then asked for more info from trustees and separately from  a whistleblower. 

The Commission finally wrote to the trustees with an action plan which involved rewriting some  policies and suggesting mediation between parties.  

The Chair again wrote to the Commission with further additional evidence demonstrating that the  trustees were attempting to undermine the findings of the independent report.  

The Chair made a number of complaints to the Commission, supported by evidence, over a period  of 7 months. Complaints detailing improper, unlawful and criminal behaviour by the trustees  including racism and bullying, acting on conflicts of interest and loyalty and providing the  Commission with false and incomplete information. The vast majority of the complaints went  unanswered and were not acted on by the Commission. The Vice Chair and other trustees also  made complaints to the Commission but they also mostly went unanswered. 

The Chair wrote to inform the Commission that the Chair and vice Chair were still subject to racist  and defamatory statements by individual trustees and as a result of the constant bullying and  pressure felt forced to resign, 3 other trustees also resigned (all were non-white trustees)  

Over a period of seven months, he provided the commission with details regarding improper,  unlawful, and criminal behaviour by the charity's trustees - including racism and bullying, acting on  conflicts of interest and loyalty, and providing the commission with false and incomplete information.  It is understood that other (now former) trustees have provided similar information to the Commission. 

Lack of any significant action by the Commission has empowered offenders and allowed wrongdoing  to continue - forcing out six trustees in the process (one via a compromised election; five via racism,  bullying, and general bad faith). Members have also left the charity as a result this has caused  financial and reputational damage to the charity. 

In September 2021 the Chair complained to the Commission about the lack of any response and  requested an update. He received confirmation that the case remained open and that the  Commission had met with the trustees. They informed him that as he was no longer Chair or a  trustee the Commission would not be able to discuss the issues they had raised with the charity, or  the charities response. 

Issues  

The Commission's engagement is stated as ongoing which in reality means the charity has been  given Commission advice and an action plan. As a result of no real or meaningful action by the  Commission the following has occurred.  

• A compromised election of trustees has taken place in which one trustee was removed as the result of a smear campaign by those close to (or even including) current trustees;
• the resignations of five additional trustees (including all Black trustees) citing racism and bullying;
• reputational and financial damage to the charity, including the resignations of ordinary members (and associated loss of income);
• the suppression and denial of a report that highlighted the sitting trustees' personal, familial and professional relationships to the individuals making vexatious complaints related to the protected characteristics of a black, disabled, non-binary trustee. 
• Breaches of confidence
• Waste of public donated funds
• The Commission's inaction has empowered the implicated trustees to continue their behaviours and reinforce their own positions by recruiting additional trustees sympathetic to their views.
• Proven racism and bullying have not been acted upon.

Conclusion 

Charity Sanity believes that this case demonstrates how the Commission's refusal to act in a timely  manner causes serious damage to charities and beneficiaries.  

The QC independent report was not considered or accepted fully by the Commission. Its contents clearly identifying malicious activity was mostly ignored. We consider this demonstrates the  procedural lack of respect the Commission has for those outside charity management.  

It is hard to understand on what basis the Commission considered malicious complaints and the  provision of false information in a serious incident report could be solved by mediation  

It is hard to understand how the Commission considered that racism and bullying (related to  protected characteristics) by trustees could be solved by a few policies and an action plan.  

The Commission considers that giving charities advice and an action plan is all they need to do to  solve serious and protracted wrongdoing, whilst leaving the charity managers responsible for that  wrongdoing in place.  

Charity Sanity believes this case demonstrates yet again that the Commission is willing and happy  to accept false statements as true even when they are fully aware that they are not.

The case involves the illegal transfer of ownership, by the charity commission, of an historic and well  used village hall, the lands and building of which were purchased by the villagers many years  previously and dedicated “for the good of the women in the village”, i.e., a legal covenant on the use  of the land. 

It had been originally managed (but not owned) by the local W.I as they were the only women's  organisation in existence at that time. In more recent years the village association had also been  managing the hall. 

The dwindling women's institute was reduced to just 2 elderly ladies who wanted to pass over full  control and management of the hall to the village association and then close the local branch of the  women's institute. As there was a documented covenant in place it should have been a simple  transfer process. The local WI branch informed the county and national W.I of their plan to fully  pass the management of the hall to the village association. Agreement to do so (constitution) was  obtained, however, the Commission intervened and refused to allow the transfer insisting instead  that it should be transferred to the county WI as, ignoring the covenant, the Commission determined  the WI owned the building. 

The village association and the local WI provided the evidence to the commission that proved legally  that this was not the case and the building was not owned by the WI. This evidence was put aside  by the Commission. In the meantime, the local WI had officially closed their charity branch down,  the 2 ladies had not heard anything and so presumed all was OK. On discovering the Commission's  action they immediately attempted to stop the transfer, the Commission having been happy to  communicate with them regarding this issue previously now stated they would no longer  communicate with them about it as they were no longer trustees.  

The County WI despite knowing the WI did not legally own the building decided to take ownership  and changed the locks on the hall without anyone locally being aware or informed. The county WI  spent significant amounts of charity money on legal representation in order to evict the villagers from  their own small village hall. The Commission refused to consider the complaints regarding the  malicious legal actions. The village association broke the locks.  

The village association, confident that the village owned it, agreed to vacate the property if the WI  could prove WI ownership via the deeds. A year later the county W.I came back with deeds stating  they owned the land and hall. The village association presumed the WI had discovered unknown but  qualified evidence proving their legal ownership. The village association obeyed what they believed  to be the law, they presumed they had no choice but to vacate. The land was sold and redeveloped; it is understood that the county WI made no profit on the land as it was just a case of getting rid of  the land in order to cover the legal bill that grabbing the land cost them!  

Once the land had been taken over and sold the village association discovered that the ownership  had not been legally proven at all. Ownership of the land was transferred to the county W.I. as a  result of an unqualified Commission case worker providing a letter of authority for the land registry.  The changes were made on the sole word of this legally unqualified caseworker, a caseworker who  had previously decided that ownership should be transferred to the county W.I. regardless of the  legally binding covenant identifying the true ownership of the village hall. 

20 

The hall was demolished, the land was redeveloped, the villagers, especially those elderly ladies  who looked after this well loved and well used village asset for so many years, are devastated. A  village asset has been permanently lost.  

Issues 

• The WI, (incidentally listed as a partner organisation of the Charity Commission) were  permitted by the Commission to steal a building despite the Commission knowing that the  building was protected by a covenant and legally owned by the village.  
• Commission officers without experience or reference to law were able to put aside legal  evidence and make decisions that are legally incorrect. 
• A Commission officer made an uninformed decision early on and would not move from it  regardless of the evidence proving absolutely that their decision was wrong in law.  
• The policies and procedures employed by the Commission permit individual and  inexperienced officers who lack the appropriate knowledge, to decide outcomes based on  their personal proportional decision rather than the law 
• Commission officers without reference to senior officers or legal support were granted the  authority to permit deeds of land to be transferred to new owners 
• That the land registry obeys the demands of the Charity Commission seemingly without  question and without reference to legality or the original owners of the land. Demonstrating  yet again the belief of responsible and legal organisations that the Commission as a legal  regulator is robust and professional. 
• That the Commission could decide, at will, to refuse to discuss the issue with those that were  considered the owners and who had looked after the asset for decades. The Commissions  refusal was because the 65 year old charity had been shut down because they had not heard  from the Commission. If they had been informed of any issues with ownership, they would  not have closed their charity. 
• That Commission's (wrong) decisions can impact on local communities and the general  public hugely but the Commission refuses to consider the needs or opinions of the people  involved . The Commission as always refuses to share any information. In this case the  Commission refused to discuss the issue with the Village association that had legal  stewardship of the covenanted land.  
• The Commission can put aside legal agreements between parties in order to overrule and  enforce a totally different decision, decided by them, and without any input from relevant  parties. 
• That the Commission can sanction a large charity (named as a partner organisation of the  Commission) to spend public funds on vexatious litigation and threats against the general  public.

21 

Conclusion 

The Commission is solely responsible for the loss of the village hall/asset, they are solely  responsible for destroying the legacy of the ancestors of the people in the village. They have  destroyed the legacy that the elderly ladies of Kelly Bray had wanted to pass on to the younger  generation for safekeeping for future generations. The Commission have apologised but accept no  real responsibility for their appalling actions and have offered an insulting sum to the villagers as  compensation. The Villagers have no hall and do not have the means to replace their stolen asset.  

Charity sanity questions why the Commission ever interfered in this situation at all and why they  were able to make extra judicial decisions?  

The covenant was clear and had been proven in law and yet a Commission officer, without any  requirement to inform the involved parties (the owners), was able to overrule this legal position in  preference of his own unskilled untrained opinion. Just because he was a Charity Commission  Officer. 

The Charity Commission had the evidence and proof of legal ownership by the village from the  beginning of their engagement, so why was it ignored?  

Why was an individual unqualified caseworker in the position to make legal decisions of such  magnitude?  

Why is evidence ever allowed to be “disregarded” at the whim of case officers, in ANY case?  Did the WI being an accepted/trusted partner of the Commission have any impact on this decision? 

This charity is a huge membership org with substantial funds, it should be directed in its processes  and function by its members, represented by the voted for trustees and president. In reality and in  practice the paid management/employees of the charity consider that it is they who are the  managers and are in charge of all processes. The paid managers consider the trustees to be a  dummy committee and a front, necessary only to keep charity status. 

The membership has lost all influence and control over what is the primary professional body and  registration system of qualified professionals. Meaning that people with no knowledge of or  qualification in the area of expertise are now guiding the direction and policy of the whole profession.  This is contrary to the aims of the charity. 

Issues  

• Numerous reports and detailed complaints regarding financial wrongdoing and poor  governance over many years. The Commission have continually chosen not to act 
• If the chair of trustees, a position voted in for a set period of office, by the members of a  membership charity never serves their full term Then, taking into account the concerns and  issues the Commission are already aware of, questions should surely be asked 
• When the voted for and consecutive and different chairs are regularly accused of wrongdoing  and bullying when attempting to fulfil their legal obligations this should raise concerns.  
• These are serious incidents and should have been reported to the Commission 
• The CEO and the financial director have been investigated for significant financial fraud and  have been removed from office.  
• This has been reported to the Commission, the Commission have not opened a stat inquiry. 
• On taking up his position with the charity the most recent chair elect discovered significant  compliance issues He communicated immediately and regularly with the Commission who  were advising him on how to affect change (before his being removed from his position by  the charity) 
• As a result of following that regulatory advice and attempting to do as the Commission  requested the president was accused of bullying and wrongdoing and removed by the trustee  board. 
• As the president is now no longer the president the Commission refuses to discuss charity  issues with him as they consider it an internal matter. 

18 

Conclusion 

Charity Sanity believes registered charities must comply with charity regulations and it has been  clear over many years that this charity does not do this, it is also clear the Commission have been  aware of this. 

We consider that adherence to charity regulation and law is not a matter of choice for charities, but  an absolute must. That if charities do not follow and obey charity regulation and law then this non  compliance should be acted upon swiftly and decisively by the Commission. 

Charity Sanity believes that non-compliance with regulations and law by charities is a serious  offence that requires a serious response. This does not involve hand holding and gentle persuasion.  

We consider that if whistleblowers directly following Commission guidance and instruction are  adversely treated or affected because of following that regulatory guidance and instruction the  Commission should intervene.  

As a result of the Commissions continued inaction and refusal to act this membership charity is now  being run by its unvoted for employees and is being run as a business, this is contrary to charity law  and as such it should not be registered as a charity. 

The constitutions of membership charities ensure that the direction, management and control of the  charity is driven by its members. In this organisation, due to the protracted inaction by the  Commission, the membership and the trustee board have lost any ability to influence and have any  input into THEIR organisation

Whistleblowers punished and abused for reporting financial breaches to charity law The charity manages a Hindu temple and community centre . An accountant, a member of the  congregation for many years, was asked to become a trustee and offer his professional expertise to  the charity. When examining the accounts, he discovered various financial irregularities. He also  realised and confirmed that the charity did not comply with its own written constitution or charity law.  He recognised the need to put procedures in place to ensure the charity was compliant. A number of  the trustees refused to consider the required compliance changes and additionally refused to  prevent or stop the continuing financial irregularities. As such he considered it his responsibility as a  trustee under charity regulation to report his concerns to the Charity Commission.  

Issues 

• The Commission upheld all the complaints and concerns raised by the whistleblower and  determined that there were widespread issues of wrongdoing and serious failings by the  trustee board.  
• The Commission acknowledged that there were serious financial irregularities including  mismanagement of charity funds, unconstitutional payments of charity funds to trustees and  the charity accounts not being audited as per constitution.  
• The Commission ignored the serious and protracted nature of the financial issues and  determined that the trustee board (responsible for the financial wrongdoing) could decide  whether those involved should repay monies received. The trustee board decided trustees  involved did not need to repay the money. 
• The Commission determined that the issues could and would be solved by giving the trustee  board an action plan rather than taking any other regulatory action 
• The Commission allowed the charities financials to be published as true in the full knowledge  that they had not been considered or signed off by an Independent Examiner. 
• The Commission ignored all further complaints including information and evidence that the  trustees were not following and refused to follow the Commission action plan.  
• The charity is a membership org, the Commission are fully aware that the chair and  remaining trustees are ignoring and abusing the charity’s constitution by issuing voting  memberships to chosen people. The Commission refuses to act within their regulatory remit  and ensure that the legally binding constitution is followed by the trustee board. 
• The Commission refuse to hold the current management to account for their previous and  current actions and refuse to ensure that the trustee board conform to the law and manage  their charity lawfully. The Commission is responsible for the continued and increasing  damage to the charity itself.  
• The Commission recommended mediation as part of their plan. The complainants agreed to  mediation the guilty trustees did not. The guilty trustees and their family and friends (also  trustees) proceeded to ban the complainants from membership of the charity and from its  premises. Their crime, complaining to the Commission.  
• The Commission's refusal to use their regulatory powers and their subsequent lack of any  meaningful action has supported the board to ban the 6 trustees who supported the  repayment of the misappropriated funds and supported constitutional compliance, for 3  years. They are now banned from their place of worship, their community centre and their  congregation.

• The whistleblower who originally reported the concerns to the Commission, has himself been  banned for 10 years. This is absolutely devastating for those involved. 
• The Commission has no interest or regard for the damage that has been done to the  whistleblower or the individuals that supported the Commission's action plan. The impact on  the physical and mental health by the Commission's inaction is of no consequence to the  Commission.  
• The trustee board is actively using the Commission's lack of regulatory action to defame the  whistleblower and ex trustees. The community is understandably confused about who is  telling the truth. The general assumption is that if serious wrongdoing has taken place the  Commission would visibly act, they have not. The community only see that the trustee board  is still in place and that previous trustees involved with the complaints have been banned  with the apparent permission and support of the Charity Commission.  
• As with all cases we are considering, the Commission have allowed the charity to lie to  Officers and have permitted and ignored this criminal act.  

The Commission has little knowledge or understanding of faith communities and they are failing the  traditional communities who were, 10 years ago, forced by law to register as charities. In this case honest and decent people with deep, lifelong beliefs and faith have been banned from  their place of worship, and ostracised within their community. Some are elderly people who have  been part of that community for decades. The damage done to the people cannot be underestimated  or overlooked. Their only crime was to insist on honesty and try to prevent fraud by reporting to the  appropriate authorities. This so-called authority and regulatory body the Charity Commission  however does not act. The public deserves to know this so they can choose whether to put  themselves at risk. 

Conclusion 

Charity Sanity agrees that the Charity Commission cannot get involved in determining internal  matters or resolving disputes in charities, that is appropriate. However, it is the Commission's role to  ensure that charities obey charity law and UK law. This case is not an internal matter and it cannot  be resolved by mediation. Trustees have been personally involved in wrongdoing and  misappropriation and receipt of charity funds. The Commission in their wisdom, have determined it  entirely appropriate for those same trustees, guilty of financial impropriety, to decide whether they  need to pay back the funds they themselves have misappropriated.  

It is clear that the trustees have acted against the best interests of the charity and continue to do so.  The Commission has the power to act but refuses to do so. The Commission demonstrates their  complete disregard and disrespect for the public and the loss of publicly donated charity funds,  funds misappropriated via theft and fraud. It is hard to understand how the regulatory body charged  with protecting our charity and ensuring that charities comply with the law can permit the people  responsible for stealing our money to continue in their positions, inaction that supports and allows  them to continue stealing and breaking the law.  

This situation is not unique In cases similar to this one the Commission are fully aware that fraud  and theft has occurred but they forgive and often support those responsible for the wrongdoing, to  continue. By this response the Commission actively supports and encourages wrongdoing. This particular charity may have more complaints made against it, ignored if they are from the  original whistleblower, and unlikely to be investigated appropriately if from others. As with this 

complaint the Commission can choose to ignore or to act. If the Commission are still receiving  complaints in 4 years time they may eventually consider a statutory inquiry. Please note, it takes a  lot of determination for people to continue to complain when their complaints are ignored and the  consequences of complaints are so personally damaging.  

Complaint fatigue means that charities continue with their wrongdoing unchecked whilst the  Commission pat themselves on the back for a job well done. The amount of money misappropriated  should not matter, it is the acts of fraud and theft that matter. In what other situation are fraudsters  and thieves supported and encouraged by those who are charged with preventing fraud and theft.

Hit the headlines in November 2021 when two judges made a number of statements that included:  “Prosecutions brought "with no evidential basis' and 'for wholly improper reasons and purposes" 

"the prosecutions were an abuse of the court’s process." "prosecutions had been brought to punish  the defendants 'regardless' of whether they had committed any offence, and to recover grossly  exaggerated' fees." and "avoid judicial scrutiny of their decisions and actions" 

" The concern I have is that ***," "may have been involved in systematic fraud and in perverting the  course of public justice." "individuals may have pleaded guilty to offences as a consequence of  being misled by *** and [their solicitors], or due to a LACK OF SCRUTINY OF THEIR ACTIONS." “the charity’s prosecutions had been brought to punish the defendants regardless' of whether they  had committed any offence, and to recover 'grossly exaggerated' fees.” 

Issues 

• This charity was registered with the primary and stated purposes of investigating and  prosecuting members of the public. How could these stated objectives meet the stringent  public benefit requirements of charity registration? Requirements that state clearly that any  detriment or harm that results from the charity's purpose must not outweigh the benefit and  must not give rise to more than incidental personal benefit.  
• The Commission were informed, in October 2020 via the Commissions complaints process,  of the charity’s illegal and damaging practices and the detriment and harm it was causing to  law abiding members of the public. The Commission state they wrote to the charity to offer  advice. Since that date approximately 150 private prosecutions have been carried out by this  charity, resulting in further significant detriment and harm to the public and monetary benefit  for the charity and individuals associated with the charity 
• Further complaints were raised with the Commission between Jan 2021 and current day,  none of which we are aware were answered by the Commission or acted upon. 
• The Commission have permitted the identities of the charities trustees to be protected. This  is an exemption usually reserved for specialist charities such as refuges and is connected to  the risk of harm not the risk of accountability. This action prevents members of the public  from seeking legal redress or justice.  
• We understand that as a result of a judge writing to the Commission the Commission has  written to the charity again, this time to request some information. Meanwhile the charity is  continuing its fundraising activities and its stated purposes. 

11 

Conclusion 

Charity Sanity questions why a charity's immoral and indecent activities, supported by the  Commission's registration, can cost innocent people thousands of pounds in fines paid to the  charity. It has meant that innocent people now have false criminal records and have suffered  irreparable harm to their reputations and mental health. It has also cost the govt approx 800k in fees  due to prosecutions the charity dropped when the accused refused to be bullied and capitulate to the  charity’s threats. 

There are safeguards in place to prevent abuse of the judicial system which have failed at every  step in every case. We consider that this is in large part because agencies presume charities are  robustly regulated by a strong and watchful regulator i.e., the Charity Commission they automatically  believe the Commission ensures charities operate with honesty and integrity. Encouraging the belief  that all prosecutions brought by the charity were fair and just, two judges at least did not think so. 

The detriment and harm caused to innocent people's lives cannot be overstated. If the Commission  had acted appropriately and within its regulatory framework in October 2020, innocent law-abiding  people would not have been criminalised in this appalling manner. People who were intimidated by  threats of unaffordable legal bills now have criminal records and will have to pay yet again if they  want to challenge those convictions.  

One lady stated she not only lost her business but she was driven to despair and considered suicide  because of the, now overturned, legal action. How does this meet the basic requirements for public  benefit?  

This charity should never have got through the supposedly robust registration process. 

12 

A charity supporting Christians in difficult situations 

A vulnerable beneficiary of the charity made a serious complaint to the Commission detailing an  inappropriate and abusive sexual relationship which included rape of herself and others. The  complaint also included extensive information regarding financial misconduct. The complaint  included evidence to support all the accusations. 

Issues 

• The Commission accepted the complaint and investigated the safeguarding issue,  determining that it had occurred. Commission officers informed the complainant that due to  the harm caused to her, the seriousness of the allegations and the many financial issues, the  Commission would act and close down the charity. The Commission stated that due to the  significant harm and the risk involved they would prevent the person responsible from ever  being in that role again or having any influence or control over that or any other charity. 
• Commission Officers have, over the last 3 years, continued to assert and reassure the  vulnerable and emotionally fragile beneficiary that the closure would happen.  
• The Commission did not follow through with their stated actions, the closure did not happen 
• The Commission instead issued an official warning to the charity, primarily advising that the  trustees must put safeguarding and financial policies in place. It did not address that it was  the trustee/senior manager who was the accused perpetrator of the abuse and wrongdoing.  
• The Commission's additional response has been to quietly remove the accused perpetrator  of the abuse and wrongdoing and to hand over the control and management of the charity to  his wife. 
• The complainant has since provided significant evidence to the Commission proving that the  accused perpetrator remains in control of the charity. The Commission have demonstrated  frustration at this but have not acted to prevent or stop it.  
• In a recent call to the complainant the Commission have U-turned on 3 years of previous  statements, Officers behaviour to the complainant has become openly hostile. The  Commission Officers are very aware of the complainants, understandably vulnerable,  emotional state. It is of real concern whether any risk assessment was conducted by  Commission Officers before undertaking this instantaneous, deliberate and considered  overnight change in attitude. 
• In that call the Commission Officers stated they were now and suddenly happy with the  charity because it is funding one single project in London, a project run by a close associate  of the previous chair (the accused perpetrator of the abuse and financial misconduct)  Officers informed the vulnerable complainant that this funding arrangement by the charity  means it is now “doing impressive work” which has allowed the Commission to reconsider its  response. It has determined via its risk led approach that this charity must survive. The  project is not related to the charity’s primary aims or the purposes for which it raises money.  It does not form a significant part of their public presence. 
• In addition to the primary complainant’s allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse there  were also a significant number of other cases with evidence, reported to the commission by  vulnerable female beneficiaries in Thailand. These were neither acknowledged or acted  upon and the individuals were not contacted by the Commission. 

13 

Conclusion 

Charity Sanity believes that the Commission regularly hands charity management to very close  family members of individuals considered responsible for charity wrongdoing and fraud. Is this ever  appropriate? Why does the commission think it is ok?  

In this case as in others the Commission allocated a “handler” to placate, stall and make promises to  the complainant. As a result, the Commission has compounded the abuse and powerlessness of  the complainant. The fragile emotional state of the complainant is made worse by every  conversation they have or communication they receive from the Commission, the last one being  we’ve changed our mind, get over it and stop complaining.  

The complainant reports that the Commission originally dragged their feet and did not appropriately  engage with the complaint. In the early stages the Commission informed the complainant that their  investigation was almost complete. It was only after a personal intervention by Dame Hodge that  they appropriately considered and investigated the complaint. It was only after engaging and  communicating with the complainant by telephone and not email that they issued the written  warning. 

The Commission do not fully engage with all complaints, they fob complainants off, it is sometimes  only when external scrutiny occurs or there is negative publicity that the Commission choose to  appropriately engage. The Commission maintains that they operate transparently, and are fair and  impartial.

The charity advertises as an international animal welfare charity operating and running projects in a  number of countries. It was originally set up to raise funds for a TNR programme in Kota Kinabalu,  Sabah, Malaysia which it has described as Borneo throughout its 9 year existence and has then  ‘apparently’ expanded its operations. The managers of this charity have no background or training in  animal welfare, no experience of animal welfare and no knowledge or experience in international  work. The managers are happy to allow and encourage appalling ignorance about the country and  the communities in Malaysia in order to elicit support and funds. 

In fact the charity is registered/operates only in the UK, it is not registered to legally work in Malaysia  and legally only provides funds for independently run projects there. Its fundraising is focussed on  raising money for named projects which are actually and legally run by independent NGO’s. Under  UK charity law that money should go to the independent partner led projects it is raised for. In fact  the UK charity claims the projects and the NGO’s running them as theirs, owned by them, run by  them and absorbs the vast majority into general funds. General funds that are spent on wages in the  UK and a growing team, including fundraisers, that currently numbers 3.5. Money raised for  Malaysia but spent in the UK accounts for more than the Malaysian projects receive between them.  Note the main project has always been given minimal funding covering only basic costs despite the  many restricted grants obtained specifically for it. The charity has a growing significant celeb  support including at least one MP due to the (clearly obvious) lies it expounds and the ignorance it  relies on. The charity is now conducting a campaign asking schools to support them. Its influence in  an area it has no expertise training or knowledge is significant and growing.  

Malaysia has very clear laws and specifically charity law that prevents external influence. Overseas  charities ie UK cannot register or operate in Malaysia or run projects in Malaysia. By Malaysian law  charities and their projects must be fully managed by Malaysian registered charities. The UK charity  

has used a fake and fraudulent MOU it claims it has with the local council as evidence in the UK to  prove it is working in Malaysia. UK charities cannot work in Malaysia and cannot obtain MOU’s, the  MOU was in fact signed with a local charity run by a local team claiming to be registered. Its  registration was in fact refused and so the MOU is fake and fraudulent, null and void.  

The UK run project was shut down when it was discovered to be working illegally. In order to save  the project and the work, a local charity was registered by volunteers and they legally took over and  managed the project. The UK agreed to fund the project but employed restrictive and authoritarian  funding protocols. In April 2020 the UK charity demanded the Malaysian charity break Malaysian law  and allow them to take full control of their charity and their project the charity refused. False  allegations were made by the UK charity. They took out unlawful, vexatious litigation, coerced the  local charities employees with threats of losing their jobs to work illegally for the Uk. The UK stopped  funding their charity partner overnight without notice and using the coerced employees locked them  out of their project and official address. 

6 

Investigations in the UK uncovered significant amounts of financial improprieties and the unique  access to people and documentation of the Malaysian charity and on the Malaysian side enabled us  to evidence the scale of the fraud. This resulted in a number of detailed and evidenced complaints to  the Commission covering several aspects of wrongdoing and abuse. 

There have been 2 decisions and closures by the Commission in 18 months. Both decisions proved  before and significantly after closure, with evidence, to be wholly inaccurate and unlawful. Decisions  based solely on unevidenced and unvalidated lies told to the Commission by the charity reps.  Decisions made because the Commission refused to seek real, actual or in fact any evidence at all.  The Commission refused to consider the closed cases as they are now historic. The charity has  continued its unlawful operations and activities throughout as it has the full support of the  Commission to do so.  

Issues 

• For 10 years this charity has claimed to operate in a country UK charities cannot legally  operate in, at no time has this been questioned. The charities reports state they operate in  Malaysia run projects in Malaysia and describe ‘their’ team and ‘their’ employees etc. the  Commission has a specialist international team (though note they do not appear to have  been involved in this case) and an international legal team, why are they not aware which  countries charities can legally operate?  
• Colonial statements made by the Commission stating that overseas partners are there only  to do the work of the UK are considered reasonable. 
• Having failed to get the Commission to reassess their illegal decisions at both stage 1 and  stage 2 complaints level (now historic), it has taken raising it to ministerial level to get the  Commission to reconsider or respond. Considering the level of legal evidence at their  disposal this is inexcusable.  
• The Commission after case closure will not look at any evidence in that investigation again.  Complainants cannot complain about that point again even if there is new or more evidence  available.  
• The Commission do not look at all the evidence presented by complainants in a case. Once  closed, that evidence will not ever be reviewed. If that evidence clearly proves a crime has  been committed but it has been “unregarded” by the Commission they will not accept a  further complaint or further evidence to prove something they already have proof for. 
• The Commission have lied to MPs. and have used misleading language in order to persuade  MP’s that they are conducting appropriate enquiries 
• The Commission have run interference to prevent complainants being heard by relevant  others. The Commission have, without the complainant’s knowledge, emailed other persons  contacted by complainants, advising them that the complaint has been dealt with in order to  prevent appropriate scrutiny. This is continuing today 
• The Commission agrees and supports this UK charity to work illegally in a country if that  charity can coerce, bully or bribe local councils, or anyone in an area, to turn a blind eye to  their illegality. The Commission are actively, today, supporting a UK charity to break another  countries' laws. 

7 

• The Commission refuses to make the most basic validation checks on information provided  by a charity before stating lies as facts in official letters (twice). 
• The Commission accepts false and fake evidence from charities, if it suits their narrative,  even knowing that the evidence is false and fake because it is legally impossible. 
• The Commission accepts unevidenced and blatant lies from charity representatives about  complainants and then spreads these defamatory lies around the Commission whilst  engaged in an investigation.  
• The Commission are willing to misrepresent another regulatory body’s actions  
• The Commission states they have found no fraud. Evidence proves that this is despite the  charity lying to them, the public and grant givers about its legal authority to work in Malaysia;  despite the charity lying about having MoU’s; despite the charity falsely claiming to legally  run projects in Malaysia; despite the charity falsely claiming to run projects in Malaysia in  order to put funds specifically raised for those projects in its General funds; despite not  recording or spending restricted grants and funds appropriately; despite the charity falsely  claiming grants as the managers of projects in Malaysia, using fake MOUs, and then re granting that money (without the restrictions) to projects overseas in its own name; despite  making untrue claims about its activities and achievements to the public and to grant givers;  despite two vehicles that have never been owned by the charity and do not exist being listed  as assets in the accounts every year; despite Dogs Trust on evidence also provided to the  Commission claiming back a grant fraudulently claimed to have been spent by the charity,  and there’s more! 
• By providing guaranteed confidentiality the Commission have given a charity that has without  question been fraudulent for its entire existence the ability to continue its fraud and lies. With  the knowledge that they can say what they want about who they want whether here or in  Malaysia, because the Commission will believe it without question.  
• When Commission decisions have been proved to be wrong in law and based wholly on  misinformation, rather than holding charity reps to account the Commission have instead  attempted to protect their own position. They have done this by misleading politicians and  questioning the integrity of complainants  
• In order to protect their position, they have actively misled politicians regarding the brevity of  this situation, including government ministers.  
• The charity continues to lie and defraud the UK public every day and, in every post, throughout their website. The Commission are happy with this 
• Emboldened by the Commissions refusal to stop their unlawful activities, the charity  continues its illegal operations and is now charging local people for many of the services that  the UK public believe they are funding. 
• The CEO and founder during the Commissions engagement has been allowed to trademark  the charity name, logo and acronym in her own name meaning she effectively owns and  totally controls the charity. 
• In July under the Commissions watchful eye and action plan the trustees have allowed the  CEO, to bypass Malaysian charity law (yet again) and set up a private limited by shares  company in Malaysia, where she is the only shareholder, the part time Malaysian admin  

assistant previously responsible for providing false information to the Commission is the paid  single director.

8 

• The founder/CEO effectively owns the UK charity and owns the company in Malaysia where  UK charity funds will be sent. All established under the Commission's continuing  engagement with the charity. 
• Case officers on all levels of this case have shown a worrying lack of ability to grasp what is  a detailed and long but not that complex situation. There is a real concern that case officers  simply do not have the skill set or competence to deal with the detail and quantity of  evidence. It has been noted several times from the Commission that there has been too  much communication and too much evidence implying that we, rather than the UK charity,  are at fault because of this.  
• The Commission refuses to recognise the autonomy of the Malaysian registered charities  simply because the UK charity has told the Commission they are ‘theirs’ and because they  share the same acronym (but different name) as the UK charity/funder ( as demanded by the  UK) 

Conclusion 

This case is the primary reason Charity Sanity came into existence in August 2021.  We have been horrified by the Charity Commission's regulatory MO and how and what information it  is willing to accept from charities. We have been further horrified at the lengths the Commission is  prepared to go to in order to protect bad charities and the Commission itself from public,  parliamentary and government scrutiny. 

This is a very clear, evidenced and proven case of a UK charity operating illegally in Malaysia during the Commission's engagement with the charity, the charity has been proved to have lied to the  Commission at every stage of the process, about every aspect of their operation both here and  Malaysia. The Commission have allowed the charity to lie and defame the complainants and the  whistleblowers and Commission officers have repeated that defamation as fact.  Lying to or misleading the Commission is a criminal offence, but in this case and in all cases, we  reference it is always allowed and always excused. We continually wonder what level of wrongdoing  charities have to be guilty of to warrant higher levels of inquiry or in fact a statutory inquiry (for the  latter it appears a high-profile employee or a letter or article in the media seems enough) 

The Commission's proportional response has been to decide that this charity must continue with its  founder/CEO and its clearly inadequate trustees firmly in place. This charity could easily operate  legally and responsibly, honestly and morally however its representatives have made an active  choice not to. This charity will not change whilst the people responsible for nine years of illegality  and harm remain in control.  

The UK charity does not have a ‘unique purpose’ or unique charitable aims that mean its continuation is essential. In fact, there are many other UK charities that can perform the role of a  funder, and the independent organisations in Malaysia and other countries are perfectly capable of  searching for additional and honest funding partners. There is no risk to any beneficiaries or to the  charitable aims if this charity and the representatives responsible for wrongdoing are appropriately  held to account. 

9 

Charity Sanity considers this charity has no real charitable purpose, it exists to raise funds to pay for  more fundraisers and employees in the UK in order to fund and promote activities that raise its  charity profile. The overseas projects, that are supposed to be the charities sole focus, are kept  underfunded, under resourced and dependent. The projects are simply a tool to illicit funds and gain  kudos and support. The UK charity prevents the local NGO’s access to reputable grant  organisations and responsible funders as these organisations (who think that they fund IAPWAs  projects) believe they are already supporting these areas of Malaysia with grants and funds. 

We have been shocked at the Commissions attitude to Malaysian citizens subject to abuse by the  UK charity, appalled that they ignore all evidence showing this and prefer to believe the UK charity  when it states, without evidence, that they have behaved legally and appropriately. Appalled at the  

Commissions dismissal of the concerns and the rights of Malaysian citizens and the disrespectful  language used when engaging with them is an embarrassment to us all. We are horrified that it is  easy and acceptable for UK charities to blame people overseas for the UK charities wrongdoing and  that this version will be encouraged and accepted by the Commission, without question. We are  shocked that the Commission gives UK charities permission to ignore and break the laws of other  countries. 

We consider the processes and procedures of the Commission, as demonstrated throughout this  case, to be colonial and institutionally racist. Clearly highlighted in the Commissions insistence that  overseas partners are there to do the work of a UK charity, that it is appropriate to demand that they  break their own countries law and if they refuse to immediately stop their funding. That it is expected  by the Commission that UK trustees fully control a local charity and its project in Malaysia, a country  that a UK charity cannot legally work in, register or operate a charity in or run a project in. The  Commission's lack of respect for Malaysian Governance and Malaysian Law (whilst supporting and  allowing a UK charity to break it at will) and its incorrect referencing of Malaysian Government  departments demonstrates an embarrassing ineptitude .  

We consider that the Charity Commission almost always decides what their proportionate response  should and will be before they consider a complaint and any evidence supporting it and before they  ever look at what a charity actually does. The Commission's response is a foregone conclusion. This  ‘risk led’ approach supports fraud, theft and wrongdoing.