Farage’s aide clarifies: £5m claim as Brexit reward wasn't from the press office.

Nigel Farage's comments have cast doubt on his assertion that a £5 million donation was intended solely for security purposes, as per an aide's remarks. In footage obtained by CuriosityNews, Dan Jukes, a long-time associate of Farage, suggested that the money was "priced in" as a reward for his role in Brexit, contradicting official statements.

Farage has claimed that the donation from crypto-billionaire Christopher Harborne, which was first reported by CuriosityNews, was unconditional and intended for security. He stated publicly that it was a reward for his long-term Brexit campaign. However, previously unreleased footage from an undercover investigation by Verbatim reveals Jukes discussing the donation as a political reward, which he implied was not the official narrative.

The conversation surfaced when Jukes humorously suggested alternative ways to donate money without breaching electoral laws. He acknowledged that Farage might not openly admit the money was a reward for Brexit, suggesting the official line was that it was for security to ensure Farage's safety throughout his life.

This admission raises questions about whether the funds were intended to circumvent donation rules, potentially implicating tax issues if considered payment for work. Jukes departed from Reform UK after the initial investigation was aired. An internal party review found no legal breaches regarding foreign donations, though police investigations continue.

Harborne has maintained that the donation was for Farage's lifelong security, with no expectations of political returns. The timeline of the donation is disputed, with reports indicating partial disbursement occurred before Farage's announcement to run for Parliament in 2024.

Farage has provided various explanations for accepting the funds, including security and a Brexit reward, without specifying the amount allocated for security. A spokesperson for Farage reaffirmed the donation's purpose as security, dismissing suggestions of any deviation from the official narrative.

Jukes' lawyers have described the investigation as entrapment and selective editing, emphasizing his denial of wrongdoing and pointing to the internal investigation's findings.