Labour Urges Gambling Commission to Probe Reform-Linked Firms

Key Points

• The Labour Party has called on the Gambling Commission to look into Tether.bet and Fispay.
• The companies come under scrutiny after reports that they may have been running or marketing gambling without the necessary licence in the UK.
• Gambling firm Tether. based in Montenegro, was found to be connected to campaigner George Cottrell, a longtime supporter of Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.
• A press release to close was published by Tether. bet on its website on 12 August.
• Fispay is a UK company, owned by Mowbray Jackson, the data protection officer for Reform UK.
• Fispay “exclusively” arranged private flights for people and never offered gambling facilities, Jackson said.
• Cottrell explained he had never asked for clients for any betting site, as he was a customer of Tether. bet.
• Christopher Harborne, who contributed £5m to Farage as part of a gift, is the owner of IFX, a company that is said to have processed payments connected to gambling. The £5m gift to Farage is under parliamentary scrutiny, and one of the companies he owned was IFX, which was reportedly used to process payments linked to gambling.
• Harborne’s spokeswoman said he was not involved in IFX’s running or operations.
• The standards investigation of Farage was reopened after he won the Clacton by-election.
• The Reform UK leader won 63% of the vote, increasing his majority from 8,405 to 12,784.
• Another finding against Farage may see him suspended from Parliament and face another by-election.

Clacton (Britain Today News) August 18, 2026: Labour chair Bridget Phillipson has asked the Gambling Commission to investigate claims that Tether. bet and Fispay operated, provided or supported gambling services in the UK without the necessary licence. The request follows reporting by The Sunday Times about alleged links between the companies, Reform UK donors and allies of Nigel Farage.

Phillipson’s intervention has brought together two developing controversies: allegations surrounding the operation of gambling-related businesses and renewed questions over financial support received by Farage before he entered Parliament. The Gambling Commission is now being asked to establish whether any UK-facing gambling activity took place unlawfully.

What has Bridget Phillipson asked the Gambling Commission to investigate?

Phillipson wrote to the Gambling Commission asking it to examine whether Tether bet, its operators, Fispay or another UK company provided or advertised remote gambling facilities to consumers in Britain without the required licence.

In her letter, Phillipson wrote:

“In light of these allegations, I would urge the commission to investigate:

“Whether Tether.bet, and its operators, provided or advertised remote gambling facilities to consumers in UK without the required licence.

“Whether Fispay Ltd, or any other UK company, provided or supported gambling facilities or services to consumers in the UK without the required licence.”

The request does not itself establish that either company broke the law. Any breach would have to be determined by the Gambling Commission after examining the companies’ activities, ownership structures, payment arrangements and the markets in which they operated.

The issue is significant because providing gambling facilities to consumers in the UK without the appropriate authorisation is unlawful under the Gambling Act 2005.

Why are Tether. bet and Fispay facing scrutiny?

The companies came under renewed attention after The Sunday Times reported that both had allegedly been operating without a UK gambling licence. The report examined connections between Reform UK funders, people close to Farage and Tether. bet.

Tether. Bet was described as a Montenegro-based gambling company. It has been linked to George Cottrell, a convicted fraudster and long-standing associate of Farage. The website published a closure notice on 12 August.

Fispay, meanwhile, is a UK company owned by Mowbray Jackson, who serves as Reform UK’s data protection officer. The company’s role has become part of the wider questions about whether firms connected to people in Reform’s political network may have provided services that required regulatory approval.

However, the available reports do not establish that Jackson, Cottrell or any other person named in the allegations operated an unlicensed gambling service. The claims remain subject to investigation and the individuals involved have rejected wrongdoing.

What has Mowbray Jackson said about Fispay?

Mowbray Jackson told The Sunday Times that Fispay “exclusively” brokered private jet travel. He said the company had never provided gambling facilities.

That response directly contests the suggestion that Fispay was involved in offering or supporting betting services in Britain. The Gambling Commission’s potential investigation would need to assess whether the company’s activities went beyond the private aviation services described by Jackson.

The distinction is important because a business does not necessarily require a gambling licence merely because it has commercial or personal links to people involved in the betting industry. The regulatory question would be whether Fispay itself provided, facilitated or supported gambling facilities for UK consumers.

Phillipson’s letter reportedly asked the regulator to consider not only Tether .bet and Fispay, but also any other UK company that may have provided or supported gambling services without the required licence.

How has George Cottrell responded to the allegations?

George Cottrell’s lawyers told The Sunday Times that his relationship with Tether. bet was limited to being a customer and that he knew and was friends with the owner.

Cottrell’s representatives later gave a stronger denial, saying he was one of the world’s best-known professional gamblers. They said:

“It is therefore hardly surprising that [others] may seek to associate themselves with him in an attempt to lend credibility to their businesses or generate publicity.”

His lawyers added:

“Mr Cottrell has never invested in, owned or operated any betting company or casino. He has never solicited clients for any betting company or casino. Any suggestion that he was involved in unlawful gambling activity is wholly false.”

The statements draw a clear line between Cottrell’s alleged personal use of Tether. bet and any claim that he owned, managed or promoted the business. The distinction may be relevant to any regulatory examination into the company’s operations and the role played by people associated with it.

Cottrell is also politically significant because of his long-standing relationship with Farage. Reports have raised questions about whether he provided financial support connected to Farage’s political work before the 2024 general election.

What is the connection with Christopher Harborne?

The allegations have also drawn attention to Christopher Harborne, a crypto billionaire and Reform UK donor. Harborne gave Farage £5m, a personal gift that is now being examined by Parliament’s standards watchdog.

The Sunday Times reported that Harborne owned IFX, a company that processed payments for another business involved in taking deposits and returning winnings. The report did not establish that Harborne personally ran the gambling operation.

Harborne and IFX’s representatives told The Sunday Times that he had never had any role in the running or operation of IFX. They said the company.

“operates in accordance with applicable regulations and legislation across the markets it supports”.

That response rejects any suggestion that Harborne was responsible for the day-to-day operation of IFX or any gambling company. The relationship between payment processing and gambling activity may nevertheless be examined if regulators seek to establish how deposits and winnings were handled.

The presence of Harborne’s name in the story has increased political interest because his £5m gift to Farage is already the subject of a separate parliamentary investigation.

What did Bridget Phillipson say about Nigel Farage?

Phillipson argued that the allegations formed part of a wider pattern of unanswered questions about Reform UK’s donors and finances.

She said:

“These are the latest allegations in a mountain of unanswered questions concerning Reform’s donors and finances.”

Phillipson then directed criticism at Farage, adding:

“Nigel Farage cannot dodge them for ever. He needs to stop making excuses and come clean with the public.”

Her comments reflect Labour’s political criticism of Reform UK and its leader. They should be understood as statements from a political opponent rather than findings by a regulator or court.

The immediate request to the Gambling Commission, however, concerns specific companies and alleged licensing issues. It is separate from the parliamentary process examining whether Farage should have declared gifts or other financial support.

What happened after Farage won the Clacton by-election?

The controversy intensified after Farage won the Clacton by-election and returned to the House of Commons. BBC political reporter Joshua Nevett reported that Farage received 22,239 votes, representing 63% of the vote. His majority increased from 8,405 at the 2024 general election to 12,784.

The by-election was unusual because it attracted 34 candidates and was boycotted by the main Westminster parties. The turnout was 44%, approximately 14 percentage points lower than at the 2024 general election, according to the BBC.

Farage did not attend the count. Before the result was declared, he told supporters:

“I’m damned if I’m going to stand on a stage, having won a resounding victory, a ringing endorsement of all that I’ve tried to fight for, and you’ve tried to fight for, and be demeaned and humiliated by nobodies, and I will not sadly be attending the count.

After the result, Farage said:

“The verdict is now in, and it is a convincing, overwhelming win, with more votes than we got in the general election of 2024.”

He added:

“Today, the voters in Clacton have stuck up two fingers to the entire political establishment.”

The result gave Farage a renewed parliamentary platform, but it did not end the standards investigation into his financial affairs.

Why was the parliamentary standards investigation reopened?

The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards told the BBC that the investigation into Farage was “no longer suspended” after the Clacton result was declared.

The investigation had been paused when Farage resigned as the MP for Clacton. His resignation triggered the by-election, but also meant that the parliamentary inquiry could not continue while he was outside Parliament.

The investigation concerns whether Farage failed to declare a £5m gift from Christopher Harborne before he became an MP. It may also examine additional financial support allegedly connected to George Cottrell.

The Guardian reported that the gifts and support were provided shortly before the 2024 general election. New MPs are required to register gifts worth more than £300 received during the previous 12 months, unless the gift could not reasonably be thought by others to relate to their political activities.

The central issue is therefore not simply whether Farage received financial assistance. It is whether the assistance was sufficiently connected to his political or parliamentary activities that it should have been declared under the rules.

What could happen if Farage is found to have breached the rules?

If the investigation concludes that Farage breached parliamentary rules, he could face suspension from the House of Commons. The BBC reported that a finding could lead to a process capable of triggering another by-election in Clacton.

A separate standards committee of MPs would consider any recommended sanction. If the committee recommends a suspension lasting more than 10 sitting days, the circumstances could create the possibility of a recall petition and a further contest.

No conclusion has yet been reached. Farage has previously played down the inquiry but appeared to acknowledge that the watchdog could find against him over a failure to be transparent.

The outcome will depend on the commissioner’s findings, Farage’s response and any subsequent decision by the standards committee. It is therefore too early to say whether the process will result in a sanction or another election.

How have other politicians reacted?

Prime Minister Andy Burnham said voters in Clacton had provided their answer through the by-election, but argued that the investigation should continue.

Burnham said:

“It needs to be resolved to make sure we’ve got the highest standards in politics, and that’s incumbent on all of us, including Mr Farage.”

Labour’s Phillipson described the result as “no victory” for Farage, arguing that the questions surrounding him had increased rather than disappeared.

The BBC also reported that the Liberal Democrats said Farage had “come away looking daft” and called for the investigation into the £5m gift to continue. The Conservatives described the contest as a “fake by-election” that had not resolved the questions about the gift.

These are political assessments, not conclusions from the Gambling Commission or Parliament’s standards authorities.

What role did Count Binface play in the result?

Count Binface, the novelty candidate represented by comedian Jonathan Harvey, finished second with 9,455 votes and a 26.9% share. The result was described as one of the strongest performances by a novelty candidate in a by-election.

Count Binface said he was the

“winning candidate… of the candidates who bothered to turn up”.

He added:

“Over one in four people in this constituency would rather have Count Binface as their MP than the leader of Reform UK — and I’m just getting started.”

The result was shaped by the decision of Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Restore Britain not to contest the election. Those parties described the poll in different terms, including a “gimmick” and a “circus”, as reported by the BBC.

The unusual contest gave Farage a clear victory, but the low turnout and the absence of major party candidates mean that comparisons with a normal general election require caution.

What happens next for the Gambling Commission?

The Gambling Commission will need to decide whether to investigate the allegations raised by Phillipson. The regulator’s work could involve examining whether Tether. bet or any connected operator advertised gambling to UK consumers, whether Fispay provided support or services, and whether payment arrangements were connected to unlicensed activity.

The closure notice published by Tether bet on 12 August is also likely to attract attention, although closure alone does not establish that the company breached UK law. Any assessment would depend on evidence about the company’s customers, services, advertising, payment channels and jurisdiction.

The named individuals and companies have denied the allegations or rejected interpretations that suggest unlawful conduct. Cottrell said he had never operated or promoted a betting company, while Jackson said Fispay dealt exclusively with private jet travel. Harborne’s representatives said IFX complied with applicable regulations.

The Gambling Commission has not, in the material reviewed for this report, announced a finding that any of the named companies operated unlawfully. The allegations should therefore continue to be presented as claims awaiting official assessment.

Why does the dispute matter for Reform UK?

The dispute matters because it connects regulatory questions about gambling with broader concerns about the financing and transparency of Reform UK’s political operation.

Farage’s political standing was strengthened by his Clacton victory, but the renewed standards investigation means that questions over financial declarations remain active. The separate calls for a Gambling Commission review add another layer of scrutiny involving people linked to the party leader.

For Reform UK, the central political challenge is to separate the party’s activities from the commercial affairs of its donors, employees, advisers and associates. For Labour, the allegations provide an opportunity to demand greater transparency and challenge Reform’s claims to represent a break from established politics.

For regulators and parliamentary authorities, the issues are narrower. The Gambling Commission must determine whether gambling services were offered in Britain without a licence, while the parliamentary standards process must assess whether Farage properly declared relevant financial benefits.

Both processes must be judged on evidence rather than political claims. Until official findings are issued, the allegations involving Tether. bet, Fispay, Cottrell, Harborne and Farage remain contested.
Explore More about Politics:
Londonderry Bonfire Called ‘Reckless and Sectarian’ by Minister
Reform Proposes Benefits Ban for Foreign Nationals in the UK

What are the main unanswered questions?

Several questions remain unresolved:

• Did Tether. provide or advertise remote gambling facilities to consumers in the UK?
• Did Tether. bet or its operators hold the licence required for those activities?
• Did Fispay provide or support gambling facilities, or was its work limited to private jet brokering?
• What role, if any, did Cottrell have beyond being a customer and associate of the owner?
• What payment-processing services were provided by IFX, and for which markets?
• Did Harborne have any operational role in IFX?
• Should Farage have declared the £5m gift or financial support linked to Cottrell?
• Could any parliamentary sanction eventually lead to another Clacton by-election?

The answers will depend on investigations by the relevant authorities. Political statements and media reports have brought the questions into the public domain, but they do not replace formal findings.

What is the wider political significance?

Farage’s return to Parliament allows Reform UK’s leader to present the Clacton result as public support for his political programme. His statement that voters had rejected the “entire political establishment” framed the election as a direct challenge to the established parties.

However, the victory has not removed scrutiny over his financial affairs. The standards inquiry has resumed, and Labour is separately urging the Gambling Commission to examine companies connected to people in Reform’s wider network.

The competing narratives are now clear. Farage and Reform supporters can point to a decisive vote share and a larger majority, while opponents argue that the election’s low turnout, unusual candidate field and boycott by major parties limit its political meaning.

The regulatory and parliamentary processes will continue independently of those arguments. Their outcomes could determine whether the current controversy fades as a political dispute or develops into a more serious challenge for Farage and Reform UK.