Rachel Reeves eyes £5bn Bitcoin sale to help plug black hole
The Home Office is working with police forces to sell off a hoard of seized cryptocurrency estimated to be worth at least £5bn in a move that could ease pressure on the beleaguered Chancellor.
It plans to develop an official crypto storage system that would handle sales of Bitcoin and other digital currencies.
The potential sell-off comes amid growing concerns about a black hole in the public finances, following Sir Keir Starmer's about-turns on welfare and the winter fuel allowance.
Economists believe the Chancellor must find as much as £20bn in the autumn as she struggles to balance the books in the face of higher borrowing costs and weak growth.
Stubborn inflation figures have threatened to keep interest rates high, raising the cost of borrowing. Ministers have indicated that taxes will have to rise to fill a budget black hole.
Cryptocurrency sales are handled by law enforcement agencies, but the Treasury is understood to be monitoring the situation. A recent rise in the price of digital currencies promises to multiply the already significant sums involved.
The total amount of seized cryptocurrency currently held by police is unknown. But a single raid in 2018 recovered 61,000 Bitcoin from the proceeds of a Chinese Ponzi scheme being stashed in Britain.
Bitcoin's value hit $123,000 (£92,000) last week, making the stash worth more than £5.4bn, up 20-fold from its value when seized.
Prices have surged as Donald Trump has ushered in a series of changes in the US to broaden access to and adoption of cryptocurrencies. Lawmakers in the US passed the country's first major national cryptocurrency legislation, known as the Genius Act, on Friday.
Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, has called for Britain to establish a national Bitcoin reserve, an idea that has been rejected by Labour.
Home Office plans for a 'crypto storage and realisation framework' would allow law enforcement to securely store frozen digital currencies and sell them. It is unclear how much would accrue to the Treasury from any sales.
However, in many criminal seizures the Treasury takes a substantial portion of the proceeds if sums cannot be returned to victims.
In the case of the 2018 raid, Chinese victims of the investment fraud have asked for the Bitcoin to be returned.
The public purse is in dire need of extra revenue as growth falters. Last week Richard Hughes, the chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility, suggested higher taxes would not be enough to address a looming debt crisis.
Experts said crypto seizures represented a potentially lucrative avenue for raising funds.
'There is oil under our feet in terms of digital assets, from an illicit perspective, that could have hundreds of millions of pounds coming back into the UK each year,' said Aidan Larkin, the chief executive of seizure company Asset Reality.
Cryptocurrencies are increasingly used to evade financial controls and carry out investment scams, making them a key target for police seeking to stop criminal activity.
Law enforcement agencies have sold Bitcoin seized from criminals in the past, but plans for a centralised system suggests ministers recognise the growing significance of cryptocurrency as a potential revenue source.
Last week, the US Marshals Service said it had more than $3.4bn in seized Bitcoin. The Trump administration has vowed to create a strategic reserve using the cryptocurrencies.
Tender documents from BlueLight Commercial, the Home Office's procurement body for law enforcement, said the contract would be worth up to £40m. The provider would be paid a commission based on cryptocurrency sales.
The project's future is unclear after an updated notice said it had not received acceptable bids, although it is expected to continue in some form.
Proceeds of crime that are not returned to victims are split between central government accounts and a pot for law enforcement programmes. The decision to sell Bitcoin is ultimately made by crime-fighting agencies.
Bitcoin's price has doubled in the last year on the prospects of the Trump administration treating the digital currency favourably in contrast to a series of investigations launched by the Biden White House.
Speaking in Las Vegas in May, Mr Farage said that he would establish a UK Bitcoin reserve if he was made prime minister as part of a plan for a cryptocurrency 'revolution'.
Labour has rejected the idea, saying it is too volatile to store sovereign funds in.
Analysis | Britain is sitting on billions in Bitcoin. Can it rescue Reeves?
Selling crypto may offer a quick fix for the cash-strapped Chancellor – but it risks repeating a historic mistake
Gordon Brown's decision to sell the majority of Britain's gold reserves in 1999 has been dubbed by some as one of the worst investment decisions ever made by the government.
The 401 tonnes of gold the former chancellor sold at the market's nadir brought in $3.5bn, far from the $40bn it would be worth today.
A quarter of a century later, one of Brown's successors is sitting on a potentially similarly sized goldmine of the digital variety, as well as another potentially perilous selling decision.
Britain's Bitcoin stockpile, confiscated from various criminal enterprises, is today estimated in the billions, a development that has led to calls for Rachel Reeves to cash in to ease pressure on the public finances.
The value of these holdings has soared after the price of Bitcoin recently hit a record high above $123,000 – double its level a year ago.
While there is no estimate of the amount of cryptocurrency seized from criminals, a single raid in 2018 recovered a wallet containing 61,000 Bitcoin from Jian Wen, a takeaway worker who was jailed last year for money laundering.
At the time of the raid, Bitcoin was worth around $6,000, with the total haul more than £300m.
Today, it is worth more than £5.4bn according to Arkham Intelligence, a company that analyses cryptocurrency transactions.
Last week, the US Marshals Service, an arm of the Department of Justice, said it had around $3.4bn in Bitcoin, although experts have said the US government's total haul is likely to be much higher.
Publicly, the Treasury says it does not hold any Bitcoin. The proceeds of crime such as investment scams are managed by police and are first meant to be returned to victims.
But this is often not possible and in reality 20 to 30pc is kept, says Aidan Larkin, the chief executive of Asset Reality, a company that specialises in seizing the proceeds of crime.
Cryptocurrency prices fluctuate wildly and seizures are handled by local forces, making it impossible to know how much has been seized.
But Larkin is adamant that the Treasury is in line for a potential windfall.
'If I'm in the Treasury, I'm thinking of this as our Norway oil moment. I do think digital assets will lead to a large windfall for government agencies and the public purse over the next five to 10 years,' Larkin says.
Making crime pay
Since 2019, £1.4bn has been seized and frozen from the proceeds of crime.
'We could double that by having a greater focus on digital assets,' Larkin says.
Under current legislation, the proceeds of crime that are not returned to victims are split between frontline police agencies and the central government.
Bitcoin's growing value has led to suggestions that Reeves should sell what Bitcoin she can, with Norman Lamont, the former chancellor, saying she should spend it 'right away'.
However, in reality, selling crypto is more difficult than seizing it and untangling crypto-related crimes can take years.
In the case of Jian Wen, victims of fraud have asked for their money back. The Home Office did not provide any update on the case.
'With the delays in court hearings that we're getting now, you have to seize it and then maintain it for a long time,' says Professor Michael Levi of Cardiff University, an expert on asset seizures.
However, there are signs that the Government is taking steps to offload Bitcoin. A branch of the Home Office has sought bids for a 'crypto storage and realisation framework' that would centralise and organise the sale of various cryptocurrency seizures.
The provider would earn up to £40m in commission when cryptocurrencies are sold, indicating that at least hundreds of millions of pounds worth are earmarked to be sold.
If the Government were to confiscate the proceeds of Jian Wen's Bitcoin seizure, it could boost the Treasury's coffers by around £2.6bn, roughly half the cost of Sir Keir Starmer's recent benefits climbdown or a third of the cost of the Afghan data breach revealed last week.
While the decision is meant to be taken by law enforcement, the sums at stake – and Bitcoin's famous volatility – suggest the Chancellor would take an interest.
The Treasury is understood to be keeping tabs on the potential for a cryptocurrency windfall.
A quick-fire sell-off could lead to accusations of selling too early, especially given Bitcoin's blistering rise over recent years.
Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, has said he would establish a Bitcoin reserve if made prime minister, following in the footsteps of ally Donald Trump, who has already ordered officials to create a reserve from seized cryptocurrency.
Labour has recently turned down the idea, with Emma Reynolds, the Economic Secretary, saying that Bitcoin's volatility makes it 'less suitable as a reserve asset for the UK'.
Yet, the strain on the public purse suggests Reeves could do with the money now.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Keir Starmer will fight Corbyn's new party by copying Emmanuel Macron
It is easy to mock the new party launched in a struggle between its joint figureheads, but that is no reason to pass up the chance. It takes a special skill for one figurehead (Zarah Sultana) to announce the founding of a new party only for the other figurehead (Jeremy Corbyn) to deny, a day later, that it had happened (' discussions are ongoing '). Then, when Corbyn, three weeks later, announced that it was indeed ' time for a new kind of political party ', which appeared to be called Your Party because that was the name of the website, Sultana snapped on social media: ' It's not called Your Party!' It turned out that Your Party was a placeholder name and the real name will be decided democratically at the inaugural conference, details TBC. Mockery is always useful, because it reminds us how incapable the Corbynite tendency usually is at organising anything more complicated than a split. But it cannot be the whole story, because we know two other things. One is that there is a big pool of potential support for soft Corbynism, if it can suppress the doctrinaire Marxism, the disdain for Britain and the accusation of antisemitism (denied by Corbyn, of course) that is never far from the surface. The other is that Corbyn's allies showed that they could, briefly, run a competent general election campaign when they came close to unseating Theresa May in 2017. So the Not-Your-Party could be a force to be reckoned with. According to some opinion polls, it would take most support away from the Green Party, but it would also siphon votes away from Labour. It is all very well Peter Kyle, the science secretary, describing his former leader as ' not a serious politician ', but Labour has to take the threat from the new party seriously. It is doing so. Keir Starmer has been criticised – not least by Sultana – for copying Farage and thereby pushing Labour voters who are repelled by Reform in her direction. But I think this is to get Starmer's strategy the wrong way round. He knows that part of Labour's electoral coalition is repelled by Farage, but he wants to use that force of magnetic repulsion to try to keep hold of those voters, not to drive them away. This is what might be called the 'Emmanuel Macron' strategy. Macron twice fought off a threat from Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the French equivalent of Corbyn-Sultana, by becoming the leading candidate against Marine Le Pen, the anti-immigration candidate of the party formerly known as the Front National. In 2017, and again in 2022, Macron came top in a divided field (winning just 24 per cent and 28 per cent of the vote) in the first round, forcing voters to choose between him, a centrist with roots in the Socialist Party, and Le Pen, regarded with horror by polite French opinion. Each time, he won the run-off vote comfortably. By running against Le Pen, Macron was able to unite a coalition stretching from Mélenchon through Macron's former socialists to the remnants of the establishment conservatives. Starmer wants to fight the next general election as, in effect, a presidential run-off contest between him and Farage. He knows that the threat of Farage as prime minister is his most powerful weapon. Presenting the election as a contest between Starmer and Farage is the best way of squeezing not just the Corbyn-Sultana vote, but the Green Party vote and even that of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The one point on which apologists for the Corbyn-Sultana party become evasive is when they are asked if they would be helping to let Farage in. That is the irresistible logic of the first-past-the-post voting system, but they have to try to deny it to keep their dream alive. Most longstanding Corbynites understand this very well. That is why Corbyn was so reluctant to launch the new party, which some of his acolytes were keen to do the moment he won his Islington North constituency as an independent last year. He knows that the only reason he nearly succeeded in 2017 was that his supporters had taken over the Labour Party. An outfit outside the party, on the other hand, will quickly discover that support for Gaza and anti-capitalism, however wide, is not deep. If Farage's popularity holds up, the next election will be decided in seats that are contested between Labour and Reform; in those seats, a vote for the new party will be a vote for Farage. It will be time, as Macron said in France, for all good people to rally to the cause of defeating anti-immigrant authoritarianism. That is a message that could work for Starmer here with voters otherwise tempted to vote Tory, Lib Dem, Green – and with voters attracted to whatever the Corbyn-Sultana party ends up being called.
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Free childcare crisis as surge in demand leaves Labour with funding black hole
Ministers have been warned the childcare sector is at risk of 'collapse' after a boom in demand for free care left a major government scheme in financial peril. A plan to expand free childcare for British families is set to cost the government an extra £1bn per year at a time when ministers are grappling to fill the gaping black hole in public finances. Labour has not spelled out how the funding gap will be filled, but experts predict the shortfall will create 'substantial pressure' on the government and could put the entire childcare sector under threat. In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Bridget Phillipson insisted the unexpectedly high take-up – a quarter higher than predicted – was a 'good problem to have' and would not leave children without places. But the education secretary could not guarantee that parents would get a space at their local nursery in September, when the scheme expands to offer eligible children aged nine months and older 30 hours a week of free childcare. Industry leaders said parents would be left 'disappointed' while nurseries warned a a lack of staff meant they were already struggling to deliver the government's pledge. CEO of the Early Years Alliance Neil Leitch told The Independent: 'One thing is absolutely clear: if 80 per cent of all hours delivered are government hours, and those hours are inadequately funded, the infrastructure will collapse over a period of time. 'I can't say it will be one year or five years, but you can bet your bottom dollar if you don't give somebody enough money to deliver a service, at some point they stop.' Figures published in March show the number of people newly entitled to free childcare was 26 per cent higher than originally estimated – 379,000 compared to 302,000. This meant that the Department for Education spent £2bn on the policy last year, up from a planned £1.6bn. But this is only set to grow as further hours of free childcare are rolled out. According to the highly-respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, the cost of extending free childcare to under-3s could end up costing £1bn more a year than previously expected, from 2026/7 onwards – up from around £4bn to approximately £5bn. A boost to funding announced in Rachel Reeves' Spending Review, of £640 million, would 'go some way to filling this gap… (but) could still leave substantial pressure from higher-than-expected take-up', the IFS said. Associate director Christine Farquharson said the DfE will still likely face 'difficult choices' within its budget and may have to 'trim back' spending in other areas to meet its childcare commitments. 'They have a fixed pot of money. When one thing becomes more expensive, that puts more pressure on other areas of the [education] budget,' she told The Independent. Ms Farquharson said predictions for how many parents would take up the free hours were 'complex' but added: 'It does seem like [the Tories] underestimated take-up pretty systematically.' It is just one of many financial decisions facing the chancellor ahead of the autumn Budget after planned welfare cuts, aimed at saving £5bn annually, were reversed. Ms Reeves is being pushed to bend her rules on borrowing or to rise taxes to keep public finances on track. The free childcare policy was launched in December 2023 with great fanfare under former Tory chancellor Jeremy Hunt. The first stage was put in place from September 2024, when the government extended 15 hours a week of free term-time childcare to working parents with a child aged nine months and over. From September, that will be extended to 30 hours a week . Labour say they were left a 'pledge without a plan' when they entered government. Ministers have been working to massively expand the number of nursery spaces and staff but the task has been made more difficult by the fact that, unlike schools, many nurseries are private providers. But industry leaders warned that, with 8 in 10 of all nursery hours soon set to be paid for by the government, the infrastructure was at risk of 'collapse' without more money. The sector has already been forced to absorb huge additional costs in recent years, including April's national insurance rise, it warned. Childcare in the UK is one of the most expensive in the world, according to the OECD. Mr Leitch added: 'What we have to bear in mind is that we've already got a recruitment and retention crisis. The reality is, many settings don't have the people to be able to accommodate those additional hours. So I'm afraid there will be parents that will be disappointed.' Sarah Ronan, the director of the Early Education and Childcare Coalition, said the IFS was right to sound the alarm, adding that if the government did not match demand with funding it is leaving providers with 'no choice' but to limit the number of places they offer – or raise fees. 'The harsh reality is that if providers don't do that, they'll face closure and then we'll have an even worse crisis on our hands,' she said. Purnima Tanuk, the executive chair of the National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA), said the government's ambitions 'will be put at risk if there is not sufficient investment in early years.' She added that 'almost 70 per cent of nurseries told us that staff shortages mean they cannot offer the children's places they have room to deliver'. Munira Wilson, the Lib Dem education spokesperson, said providers had been left 'hanging by a thread and parents (are) facing the prospect of childcare deserts'. 'The government need to ensure that the funding for childcare hours matches the actual costs of delivery,' she said. Official statistics released last week showed a 7.2 per cent increase in early years staff, the largest annual rise since the series began. The Department for Education would not be drawn on where any extra money might come from. But Ms Phillipson insisted she was unafraid of the policy's popularity. She urged families to check what they are are entitled to, adding: 'I want as many parents as possible to take up the offer. It allows parents to juggle work and family life, but it also sets up children to succeed And the demand that parents are showing is a good problem to have, because it also brings economic dividends as well. 'If people are able to work, or work a few more hours… that helps us all as a society as well and it gets economic growth going'. Ms Phillipson has previously warned that, as the policy expands again in September, parents in the first wave might not get their first choice of nursery. Asked if she could say that all parents who want a space would get one, she told The Independent: 'What I can't guarantee is that it will be as close to home as they would like or it will be their first choice, but we're confident that the roll out will go well in September.' Ms Farquharson did add that the higher uptake of free childcare could ultimately be a good sign for the economy, even if it is more expensive in the short term. 'This higher uptake might mean that we're getting a lot more parents moving into paid work because of these entitlements than first predicted,' she said. 'If the goal for this policy is to drive growth, then this would be a fantastic success story.' However, the extent to which that is the case will only become apparent over the next few years, she said. A DfE spokesperson said: "High-quality, affordable childcare plays a vital role in our Plan for Change, which is why early years funding will rise to over £9 billion next year helping us meet our target of getting tens of thousands more children each year ready for school. 'We're backing families with this record investment including a £75 million grant this year to support providers in delivering more places and a 45 per cent uplift in early year pupil premium, building on the real difference this is making for families as highlighted by the Coram survey who say costs for some has halved.'
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Recognising Palestine would reward Oct 7 murderers, Starmer told
Sir Keir Starmer will 'reward' the Oct 7 terrorists if he recognises a Palestinian state, Israel's ambassador to the UK has said. Tzipi Hotovely has described proposals for recognising a Palestine state as 'nothing less than a reward for terrorism'. The ambassador, writing for The Telegraph, said that 'Palestinian recognition would be a reward for hostage-taking, for rape, for murder, for burning innocent people alive'. Ms Hotovely added that recognition would also be a 'significant departure from the policy of the US administration ', risking a damaging rift with the White House. She said: 'Terrorists are watching intently and the signal that they are receiving is that their violent tactics yield positive results for them in the UK and the West.' Her intervention came as Jewish faith leaders in Britain told the Prime Minister that recognition 'cannot improve the situation' and would be 'gesture politics'. Jewish faith leaders at the Board of Deputies, Britain's largest Jewish community organisation, have also told Sir Keir not to recognise a Palestinian state. Phil Rosenberg, the board's president, said that Hamas 'will claim recognition of Palestine as a vindication of their murderous rampages and hostage-taking'. Mr Rosenberg, writing for The Telegraph, said 'unilateral recognition cannot be a substitute for the difficult negotiations and concessions needed to realise an enduring peace'. Sir Keir has come under increasing pressure from his own party to recognise a Palestinian state. This week, 131 Labour MPs penned a letter urging their leader to follow Emmanuel Macron, the French president, and announce a plan to recognise a state. Sir Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, and Anas Sarwar, the leader of Scottish Labour, have also told the Prime Minister to act immediately. The Labour-led foreign affairs committee also recommended immediate recognition this week, describing it as 'inalienable right'. Cabinet ministers have also reportedly urged the Prime Minister to act on the issue. The setting up of a new Left-wing party under Jeremy Corbyn, pledging to support 'a free and independent Palestine', is also likely to put electoral pressure on Sir Keir. On Saturday, the Prime Minister rejected calls from his party and Mr Macron to recognise a Palestinian state within the next few months. He said that while he was 'unequivocal' about recognising a Palestinian state as part of a peace process, this should come after a ceasefire and the return of Israeli hostages. Sir Keir said recognition 'must be part of a wider plan which ultimately results in a two-state solution and lasting security for Palestinians and Israelis'. The issue is set to dominate Donald Trump's four-day visit to the UK, with Sir Keir due to meet the US president at the latter's Turnberry golf course in Scotland on Monday. He is attempting to finalise a UK-US trade deal with Mr Trump, the general terms of which were set out in May. There are fears within the Government that a disagreement with the president over Palestine recognition, which Mr Trump opposes, could derail the trade deal. Ms Hotovely described recognition as 'an act of grandstanding and virtue-signalling' and accused Mr Macron of 'Napoleonic cosplaying'. She claimed that after any recognition by Western powers, 'a Palestinian state would have all the ingredients of a would-be failed state'.
