Nigel Farage and Richard Tice have sued the National Crime Agency over alleged leaks of confidential information about suspicious donations flagged by banks. TICE is the focus of the new claim, with the pair seeking damages of more than £25,000.
The lawsuit says information about the donations was meant to stay within banking and law-enforcement channels. Instead, the dispute now asks a court to examine whether confidential material about party finances reached the press.
Farage and Tice claim
Farage is Reform UK leader, and Tice is Reform UK deputy. Together, they brought the action against the National Crime Agency after information showed banks had flagged the donations and passed the matter to the agency.
That sequence matters because it places the banks first, the National Crime Agency second, and the alleged leak after both steps. The claim is not about whether banks flagged the donations; it is about whether information tied to that process was released beyond the people and bodies that handled it.
Another fast-moving notice shows how quickly operational details can change in public view when a warning turns into a real-world dispute. Here, the change is legal rather than logistical, but the reader still faces the same practical problem: confidential material has become part of a public case.
Suspicious donations and STRs
The donations were flagged by banks as suspicious, which is the material at the centre of the case. In this context, the alleged leak concerns information that banks had already sent into the National Crime Agency’s reporting chain, making the dispute about handling and disclosure rather than the underlying politics.
The source identifies the matter as involving STRs, the reports banks use when they flag activity they consider suspicious. That narrows the issue to whether the information was shared beyond that process, and to whom.
National Crime Agency response
The National Crime Agency’s response is not set out in the available facts. What is on the record is the claim itself: Farage and Tice allege the agency leaked confidential information about donations that had been flagged by banks.
A separate postponed notice and another supporter update show how fast public-facing decisions can change when timing shifts. This case is different, but the same practical issue remains for the claimants: whether private financial information stayed inside the system or moved into public circulation.
The open point is simple. Did the National Crime Agency leak the information, and if so, to whom? Until that is answered, the lawsuit stands as a claim for damages of more than £25,000 and a challenge over how confidential banking material linked to Reform UK finances was handled.
