Bin Ladens’ 1 million pounds puts Prince Charles and Charity regulator in the spotlight

Charities watchdog accused of giving Prince of Wales’ charity preferential treatment and urged to probe $1.7 million in donations from Bin Laden family.

Prince Charles accepted the cash from the Bin Laden family despite his advisers’ misgivings. Picture: Getty

The charities watchdog was accused of giving the Prince of Wales’ charity preferential treatment yesterday (Sunday) and urged to investigate donations from the family of Osama Bin Laden.

The Sunday Times reported that the Prince of Wales Charitable Fund (PWCF), founded by Charles to give grants to environmental and educational causes, had accepted $1.7 million from the terrorist’s half-brothers.

Charles accepted the money despite initial objections from advisers at Clarence House and at the fund.

Charity trustees have a legal and fiduciary obligation to maintain a charity’s independence and safeguard its reputation. They are also required to conduct due diligence on donations.

The Charity Commission would not comment last night (Sunday) on whether it would take formal action. The regulator had decided not to investigate the charity after it was reported that Charles had personally received three separate bundles of cash, totalling $4.4 million, for the charity from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, a former prime minister of Qatar.

Questions have been raised about whether the agency is being unduly lenient towards the prince.

Sir Stephen Bubb, former head of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (Acevo), said: “The commission has talked for years about the need to build trust in charities after a number of scandals. And yet here we have them not reacting quickly to something which clearly raises reputational issues for a major charity.

“I can’t believe that for many other charities, they would not have taken immediate action. Delaying a reaction in this matter harms not only the reputation of the commission but that of PWCF itself by attracting further speculation.”

Bubb said that the commission should immediately launch an investigation into why the decision to accept this money was made.

Major story in today's @thetimes about the @theprincesfund taking a donation from the Bin Laden family. Strange there has been no comment from @ChtyCommission.

— Sir Stephen Bubb (@BubbCeo) July 31, 2022

Norman Baker, the former Liberal Democrat minister, who has written about royal transparency and accountability, also raised concerns. “I think the Charity Commission appears to be far too close to Prince Charles and is not doing its job properly,” he said.

“Prince Charles continues to show a serious lack of judgment about whom he will accept money from. He never seems to ask the question as to whether he should turn money down. Is this really appropriate behaviour for the heir to the throne?”

The appointment process for Orlando Fraser, the chairman of the Charity Commission under whom the decision not to investigate the donations was taken, was criticised by MPs on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in March. They refused to endorse him for the role, arguing that it had been a “slapdash and unimaginative” choice. Although they did not dispute Fraser’s ability to do the job, they raised concerns about the lack of diversity on the candidate shortlist.

The Labour MP Kevin Brennan, who sits on the committee, said: “given the controversy about the recent chair appointment, the Charity Commission must prove its independence of the establishment. No charity, no matter how well connected to royalty, should be beyond proper and thorough scrutiny”

There is no suggestion that the Bin Laden family members who contributed the money to the charity had sponsored or been involved in acts of terrorism. The family had long distanced themselves from Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda founder and mastermind of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, before his death in 2011.

Both PWCF and Clarence House said appropriate due diligence had been done, and that the decision to take the money was approved by trustees alone.

The Times