Russia report: Boris Johnson rejects call for crackdown on London's use as 'laundromat' for illicit cash
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Boris Johnson has rejected a second key strand of the Russia report, its call for a crackdown to stop London being a “laundromat” for illicit Russian cash.
The UK already has “some of the strongest controls in the world”, the prime minister’s spokesman insisted.
Downing Street also poured cold water on the report’s call for stronger action against peers who “work directly for major Russian companies linked to the Russian state”.
No 10 is “confident” that the House of Lords is able to oversee proper rules on registration of donations to its members, the spokesman said.
The comments come after Mr Johnson sparked anger by ruling out – within one hour of the intelligence and security committee’s report – an investigation into “potential” Russian interference in the Brexit referendum.
The study warned the UK’s investor visa scheme has been abused by Russians, providing “ideal mechanisms by which illicit finance could be recycled through what has been referred to as the London ‘laundromat’”.
“The money was also invested in extending patronage and building influence across a wide sphere of the British establishment – PR firms, charities, political interests, academia and cultural institutions were all willing beneficiaries of Russian money, contributing to a ‘reputation laundering’ process,” it stated
The current rules to stamp it out were “not preventative but rather constitute damage limitation”.
But the prime minister’s spokesman hit back, pointing to a “landmark review” in 2018, carried out by the Financial Action Task Force, a Paris-based intergovernmental organization.
It had looked into “the UK regime for tackling money laundering” and “concluded that we have some of the strongest controls in the world”.
There were already new powers which had already seized “billions” from criminals’ bank accounts and an extra £48m spent on tackling money laundering.
“We are not complacent and we will ensure the full weight of law enforcement bears down on dirty money,” the response to the Russia report stated.
Quizzed about No 10 immediately rejecting the report’s warnings about Russian meddling, the spokesman insisted Mr Johnson was “absolutely” confident the 2016 referendum result was “fair”.
“We have seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU referendum,” he said.
“Our intelligence and security agencies produce regular assessments of the threat posed by hostile state activities, including any potential interference in past or current UK democratic processes.”
He also insisted there were “robust systems in place” for last December’s general election – which was held while the report was being suppressed.
Local authorities and political parties were given cyber and protective security advice, he argued.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments