Decision

Anatolia People’s Cultural Centre

Published 1 March 2018

This decision was withdrawn on 18 January 2022

This Inquiry report has been archived as it is over 2 years old.

The Charity

Anatolia People’s Cultural Centre (‘the Charity’) was registered on 4 February 2005. It’s governed by a constitution dated 12 January 2005. The Charity was removed from the Register of Charities (‘the Register’) on 6 September 2017 for the reason that it ceased to operate.

The Charity’s objects were:

• the relief of poverty, sickness and distress of members of the community, particularly those of Kurdish or Turkish descent who are resident in London by the provision of information, guidance and support; and

• to advance the education of such person

Issues under Investigation

On 12 April 2016, the Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Command (‘the police’) shared information with the Charity Commission (‘the Commission’) under section 54 of the Charities Act 2011 (‘the Act’) following the arrest of one of the Charity’s then trustees, Miss Ayfer Yildiz (‘Miss Yildiz’), on suspicion of offences under section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006.

The police also advised the Commission that the Charity’s premises were subject to a temporary closure order (‘the closure order’) under section 76 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Due to the serious nature of the information shared with the Commission by the police a statutory inquiry into the Charity was opened on 22 April 2016.

The opening of the Commission’s inquiry into the Charity was not announced publicly due to ongoing criminal proceedings. A public statement was made on 19 June 2017 following the conclusion of these proceedings. Miss Yildiz was tried for two counts of disseminating terrorist publications contrary to section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 and was found not guilty on both counts on 18 May 2017.

In addition to the arrest of one of the Charity’s trustees and the closure order, the Commission had a number of regulatory concerns relating to the management and administration of the Charity. The Charity’s entry on the Register at the time the inquiry was opened showed that the trustees were in default of their legal duties to submit statutory returns with the Commission, most notably those for the financial years ending 31 March 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.

It is an offence by virtue of section 173 of the Act to fail to submit statutory returns on time with the Commission. In failing to submit statutory returns with the Commission the trustees of the Charity had also failed to comply with the relevant provisions of the Charity’s governing document, which is misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the Charity by its trustees.

At the time the inquiry was opened it was the Commission’s understanding, based on information provided by the police, that the Charity did not have a bank account. This raised further concerns as to how the trustees were holding any funds donated to or raised by the Charity. The Charity’s governing document required the trustees of the Charity to maintain a bank account and to pay all incoming donations into it.

Failure to comply with the Charity’s governing document is mismanagement in the administration of the Charity and called into question how any income received by the Charity was being protected and accounted for. The Commission was aware at the time the inquiry was opened that the Charity had been receiving donations as the police seized collection tins from the Charity’s premises and elsewhere, containing a total of £822.30.

Additionally, the premises from which the Charity operated were rented, the inquiry obtained information from the proprietor of the premises that the monthly rent of the premises was £1,000.

The inquiry sought to investigate the following issues:

• the administration, governance and management of the Charity by the trustees

• the conduct of the trustees

• the financial controls and management of the Charity

• whether or not the trustees have and continue to comply with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities as trustees under charity law

The inquiry closed with the publication of this report.

Findings

The administration, governance and management of the Charity by the trustees

The Charity was mismanaged by its trustees. Information provided to the court as part of the application for the closure order showed that the Charity’s premises were used to display images which were unacceptable and entirely inappropriate for a charity. These included images associated to the Revolutionary Peoples’ Liberation Party/Front (Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Partisi – Cephesi) which is a proscribed organisation, pursuant to schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The DHKP-C aims to establish a Marxist-Leninist regime in Turkey by means of armed revolutionary struggle and has been linked to a series of terrorist attacks in Turkey (Ibid).

The information provided to the court by the police, which was also shared with the Commission, in relation to the police’s searches of the Charity’s premises identified what was described as a shrine which displayed various images.

The images displayed on the shrine included two females brandishing firearms with flags depicting the logos of the DHKP-C clearly displayed in the backdrop. These females have been identified as Çiğdem Yakşi and Berna Yilmaz who were killed on 3 March 2016 following an attack they carried out on the Riot Police Directorate in Bayrampasa, Istanbul, with automatic firearms and home-made explosives. The text on the shrine, which is in Turkish, “salutes” the two attackers and refers to them as “justice warriors”. A literal translation of the text is “I am at the peak of dying with honour.”

Further images on the shrine included two males brandishing firearms; these males have been identified as Safak Yayla and Bahtiyar Dogruyo, who were responsible for the kidnapping of State Prosecutor Selim Kiraz (‘Mr Kiraz’) in the Caglayan Justice Palace on 31 March 2015. Following negotiations, the Police stormed Mr Kiraz’s office after gunshots were heard.

The two attackers died during the police operation, while Mr Kiraz was badly wounded and later died of his injuries. There were multiple copies of a photograph of one of the men holding a gun to Mr Kiraz’s head which were found at the Charity’s premises. Flags depicting the logos of the DHKP-C are clearly displayed in the backdrop of this photograph.

The shrine also included an image of a female in a blue shirt who has been identified as Meryem Altun, a DHKP-C member who died in hospital in Istanbul in April 2002 following a hunger strike.

The images displayed in the shrine was visible to members of the public from the street.

The police’s search also identified a number of items with explicit links to the DHKP-C. This includes, as well as photographs contained within the shrine, pamphlets and literature bearing the DHKP-C logos and slogans such as “Surrender or Die”. These are pamphlets with armed fighters; on the front covers and a wall containing the rules of the DHKP-C.

Open source research conducted by the Commission in respect of the Charity found ^{[footnote 1]} a post dated 3 April 2015 titled ‘Londra’da Şafak Yayla ve Bahtiyar Doğruyol ve Elif Sultan Kalsen İçin Anma Yapıldı’ (Translation: Memorial Held for Elif Safak, Bakhtair Dogruyol and Sultan Kalsan in London). A translation of post explains that a ceremony was held to commemorate the actions of Safak Yayla and Bahtiyar Dogruyo. The post describes the attackers as “DHKP-C warriors” who warned that Mr Kiraz “would be punished if their demands were not met”. The post continues to state that the attackers were “heroic to the last bullets”. The post sets out that 100 people attended the event at the Charity’s premises.

It is the inquiry’s view that the display of these images would lead an ordinary member of the public to infer that the Charity supported the conduct of those individuals who featured in the images, and endorsed acts of terrorism and/or extremism.

The individuals recorded as trustees of the Charity repeatedly failed to comply with directions and orders of the Commission, issued by the inquiry, to obtain information and copy documents relating to the management and administration of the Charity. Since the closure order was granted the Charity ceased to operate.

Prior to this it is evident that the Charity did operate, however, the inquiry was unable to ascertain the extent and nature of any activities undertaken at the Charity’s premises due to the failure of its trustees to comply with all of the legal directions and orders issued to the trustees compelling them to provide information.

The conduct of the trustees

The trustees failed to comply with legal directions and orders of the Commission, issued by the inquiry, which sought to obtain information and copy documents relating to the activities of the Charity and its management by the trustees. This was mismanagement and/or misconduct on the part of the trustees of the Charity.

The inquiry received no response to any of its correspondence to the Charity’s then trustees.

The Commission and the courts expect trustees to cooperate with it as regulator and during its investigations into charities, it is difficult to see why a prudent body of trustees would not cooperate with the Commission as regulator. The public would expect trustees to act reasonable and responsibly and that the Commission will intervene to take action against those who do not, particularly where there is further evidence of failings on the part of those trustees.

The financial controls and management of the Charity

The inquiry was unable to identify the income received by the Charity or a bank account in its name. It is aware that the Charity applied for and received a grant/funding from the Big Lottery Fund in July 2010 for £10,000. Additionally, the premises occupied by the Charity incurred an annual rental charge of £12,000, which excluded utilities.

The inquiry was able to confirm that the Charity’s rent was paid monthly and in cash. It has not been possible to determine the income received by the Charity due to the fact that the inquiry was unable to identify a bank account in the name of the Charity and lack of cooperation from the Charity’s trustees. In addition to the grant received by the Charity from the Big Lottery Fund in July 2010 for £10,000, the £822.30 seized by the police in collection tins in the name of the Charity, the inquiry has been able to establish that between 2014 to 2016, the Charity’s income was in excess of £18,000 as it was able to meet its rental payments during this period of time.

The Charity’s governing document required the trustees to maintain and operate a bank account, the inquiry was unable to identify a bank account in the name of the Charity. The trustees failed to comply with this provision in the Charity’s governing document, this was misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the Charity by its trustees.

Whether or not the trustees have and continue to comply with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities as trustees under charity law.

As a result of the various failings on the part of the Charity’s trustees all of the individuals recorded as trustees of the Charity at the time the inquiry was opened were removed or disqualified by the Commission – see ‘regulatory action taken’ below for more information.

The inquiry found that the trustees did not fulfil their duties and responsibilities as trustees under charity law. The trustees failed to comply with (i) various provisions of the Charity’s constitution, (ii) legal directions and orders of the Commission issued by the inquiry to obtain information and copy documents, and (iii) the statutory duty to file annual documents ^{[footnote 2]} with the Commission for various financial years.

The inquiry found that, in allowing images to be displayed at the Charity’s premises which were offensive and entirely inappropriate, the trustees failed to ensure that the Charity’s funds, assets and reputation were not placed at undue risk and that its activities would not lead a reasonable member of the public to conclude that the Charity supports terrorism and/or extremism.

The inquiry saw no evidence that the trustees took any steps or actions to challenge the closure order or to recover any of the property which was held at the premises at the time of the closure order. The inquiry would have expected trustees acting diligently and in the best interests of their charity would have taken action to protect the charity’s property.

Furthermore, the trustees also failed to respond to negative media reporting relating to the Charity. Following the arrests and closure order hearing, on 27 May 2016, the Charity was named in an article titled ‘Lottery cash for drama classes sent to Turkish terror group’. The article quotes the barrister who represented the police at the closure order hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court who referring to the Charity’s premises said, “the premises act as a terrorist hub – a focal point for DHKP-C activity and in particular for activities relating to garnering support, both financial and ideological, for the DHKP-C”. In addition, the barrister is also quoted saying that the Charity “would appear to be little more than a front for terrorist activity”.

Irrespective of whether or not the article was correct, the trustees should have responded to demonstrate that they were acting in the best interests of the Charity in order to protect its reputation. The inquiry saw no evidence that the trustees took any steps or actions to mitigate against potential damage to the Charity, including to its reputation in response to the negative media reporting.

In addition to the above, the barrister’s chambers published a separate article on its website, dated 22 April 2016, which states that the District Judge sitting at Westminster Magistrates Court “accepted the police’s case that offences including the distribution of terrorist material contrary to section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006, terrorist fund-raising contrary to section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and inviting support for a proscribed organisation contrary to section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 had taken place at the premises.” The application to close the Charity’s premises were uncontested.

At Westminster Magistrates Court, on 1 February 2017 and 23 June 2017 respectively, orders were granted under Schedule 1 to the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to forfeit the amount of £822.30. In securing the forfeitures, the police told Westminster Magistrates Court that it was their belief that the funds were being collected under the Charity’s name with the (i) intention to be used for the purposes of terrorism and (ii) that the funds forms part of the resources of a proscribed organisation (the DHKP-C).

The police’s applications to forfeit the seized funds were uncontested.

Conclusions

The Commission concluded that there was misconduct and/or mismanagement by the Charity’s trustees for the following reasons:-

• the trustees either consented to or failed to take action to prevent the display of images at the Charity’s premises which were entirely inappropriate and which would likely lead a reasonable member of the public to conclude that the Charity supports terrorism and/or extremism

• the Charity’s premises were subject to a temporary closure order as a result of the conduct of the trustees in either consenting to the display of, or failing to take action to prevent the display of, images which are offensive and entirely inappropriate for a Charity to display and which were associated with terrorism and/or extremism

• the trustees failed to take any actions or steps to in relation to the negative media reporting and the police’s application to forfeit the seized funds

• the trustees failed to comply with the commission as regulator and respond to legal directions and orders compelling them to provide information about the management and administration of the Charity

• the trustees failed to comply with various provisions of the Charity’s governing document – which is a fundamental duty of charity trustees – and failed to comply with the statutory duty to file annual documents with the Commission for relevant financial periods

The inquiry concluded that the Charity had ceased to operate following the closure order. The Charity was removed from the Register on 6 September 2017 for the reason that it ceased to operate.

Regulatory action taken

During the inquiry, information was exchanged with the police and law enforcement agencies under section 54-56 of the Act.

At the time of opening the inquiry, the inquiry exercised the Commission’s power under section 76(3)(f) of the Act to restrict certain transactions that all of the trustees were able to enter into without the prior written consent of the Commission. The transactions which were restricted related to fundraising on behalf of or in the name of the Charity whilst the order remained in effect. This order was discharged on 15 September 2017. Whilst the order was in effect the Commission received no written request from the trustees to undertake any of the activities which were restricted by virtue of the order.

On 23 June 2016, the inquiry exercised the Commission’s power under section 76(3)(d) of the Act; this order prohibited the Charity’s trustees from parting with any property that they held on behalf of the Charity without the prior written consent of the Commission. This order was discharged on 15 September 2017. Whilst the order was in effect the Commission received no written request from the trustees to undertake any of the activities which were restricted by virtue of the order.

The inquiry took the decision to limit its correspondence with Miss Yildiz pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, to ensure that there was no potential for the Commission to be seen as interfering with Miss Yildiz’s right to a fair trial. The exception to this was to provide Miss Yildiz with copies of orders and accompanying statements of reasons to which the Commission is obliged under the Act to provide her with.

On 20 September 2016, following Miss Yildiz being charged with offences under the Terrorism Act 2006, the inquiry exercised the Commission’s power under section 76(3)(a) of the Act to suspend her pending consideration being given to her removal. Following the conclusion of criminal proceedings against Miss Yildiz concluding in May 2017, in which she was found not guilty, the Commission issued notice of its intention to remove her as a trustee, officer or agent of the Charity under section 79(4) of the Act. An order under section 79(4) of the Act was made on 4 August 2017.

The consequence of removal is automatic disqualification from being a trustee of any other charity without a waiver from disqualification from the Commission or the courts. It is an offence to act as a trustee whilst disqualified.

On 29 March 2017, the Commission issued notice of its intention to disqualify, under section 181A of the Act, five of the Charity’s trustees for a period of 10 years. The proposed disqualification would prevent the individuals from being trustees of any other charities and holding a senior management function in any charity in England and Wales throughout the period of their disqualification. On 2 May 2017, after the notice period expired, the Commission proceeded to make orders disqualifying five of the Charity’s then trustees.

These orders came into effect on 13 June 2017 after the period of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Charities) expired. On 13 June 2017, the Commission issued a further five orders under section 79A of the Act to remove a disqualified trustee; exercise of this power was necessary as the now former trustees of the Charity subject to the disqualification orders did not resign from their position nor did the Charity’s governing document contain a provision automatically removing them as a result of the Commission’s disqualification order.

On 11 November 2016, the inquiry exercised the Commission’s power under section 47(2)(a) and (b) of the Act which directed the former trustees (excluding Miss Yildiz for the reasons set out above) to provide information, copies of documents and answers to questions in relation to the Charity and their role in it. The former trustees failed to respond to the direction.

As a result, on 4 January 2017, the inquiry exercised the Commission’s power under section 335(1) of the Act and served an order on to the former trustees which directed them to secure the default referred to above (in respect of failing to comply with the section 47 direction) was made good. The former trustees failed to respond to the Commission’s order.

On 3 January 2017, the inquiry exercised the Commission’s information gathering powers to direct the proprietor of the property, which was being rented by the Charity, to provide information, copies of documents and answers to questions relating to the Charity. This direction was made under section 47(2)(a) and (b) of the Act. The propriety responded to the direction on 12 January 2017.

Following the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, on 2 June 2017, the inquiry exercised the Commission’s power under section 47(2)(a) and (b) of the Act to direct Miss Yildiz to provide information, copies of documents and answers to questions in relation to the Charity and her role within it. No response was received from Miss Yildiz.

On 12 June 2017, the inquiry issued an order under section 335(1) of the Act which directed Miss Yildiz to secure the default referred to above (in respect of failing to comply with the section 47 direction) was made good. Miss Yildiz failed to respond to the Commission’s order.

Lessons for the Wider Sector

The purpose of this section is to highlight the broader issues arising from the commission’s assessment of the issues raised publicly that may have relevance for other charities. It is not intended as further comment on the charity in addition to the findings and conclusions set out in the earlier sections of this report, but is included because of their wider applicability and interest to the charity sector.

Charities and affiliations to proscribed organisations and/or designated individuals

Trustees are custodians of their charities. They are publicly accountable, and have a responsibility and duty of care to their charity which will include taking the necessary steps to safeguard their charity and its beneficiaries from harm of all kinds, including from terrorist abuse. Trustees must therefore not engage in conduct or activities which would lead a reasonable member of the public to conclude that the charity or its trustees are associated with a proscribed organisation or terrorism generally.

Links between a charity and terrorist activity corrode public confidence in the integrity of charity. Links include, but are not limited to, fundraising, financial support or provision of facilities and formal or informal links to proscribed organisations. The conduct of, or comments made by, an individual connected to the charity (such as a trustee) in relation to terrorist, or criminal purposes may be taken into account.

Trustees must be vigilant to ensure that a charity’s premises, assets, staff, volunteers and other resources cannot be used for activities that may, or appear to, support terrorist activities. People and groups can be designated for association with terrorist groups (UN designations) or because HM Treasury reasonably believes that that person is/or has been involved in terrorist activity or for any other reasons given in the Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act 2010. Some are also designated as part of sanctions against foreign countries, governments, entities or individuals.

Given the financial restrictions on the affairs of designated individuals and entities, they may seek to take advantage of charities and their work. Trustees must therefore put in place proper procedures for managing the risks of coming into contact with designated entities, groups or persons, and taking appropriate steps if the situation arises.

Where a charity’s activities may, or appear to support, condone or encourage terrorist activity and terrorist ideology, trustees should take immediate steps to make clear it does not support terrorist or violent activities and views, these are not the charity’s views and that it does not condone or support them. If there is a close association between the activities and a terrorist group, the charity is likely to have to stop those activities.

What steps will be required will depend on the circumstances, but may include some of the following:

• ceasing the activities immediately; for example, withdrawing further copies of literature

• if a speaker or literature content gives the impression that the charity supports or condones terrorist activity or violence, making clear these are not the charity’s views and that it does not condone or support these views

• not using the speaker again

• not promoting literature by that author again

• if the individual speaker or author is a trustee, member of the charity’s staff or agent, considering whether further internal action is required or may be appropriate

If trustees, charity employees or volunteers have information about possible terrorist activity they should telephone the Anti-Terrorist Hotline on 0800 789 321. Charity trustees, employees and volunteers are now under a positive legal duty (section 19 of the Terrorism Act 2000) to report their suspicions of terrorist financing offences to the police. If they do not, they may commit a criminal offence. In addition, if a charity is concerned about an immediate threat to life they should contact the police immediately by dialling 999.

Financial controls

Trustees of charities with an income of over £25,000 are under a legal duty as charity trustees to submit annual returns, annual reports and accounting documents to the commission as the regulator of charities. Even if the charity’s annual income is not greater than £25,000 trustees are under a legal duty to prepare annual accounts and reports and should be able to provide these on request. All charities with an income over £10,000 must submit an annual return.

Failure to submit accounts and accompanying documents to the commission is a criminal offence. The commission also regards it as mismanagement and misconduct in the administration of the charity.

Trustees must ensure that their charity has adequate financial controls in place, It is important that the financial activities of charities are properly recorded, and their financial governance is transparent. Charities are accountable to their donors, beneficiaries and the public. Donors to charity are entitled to have confidence that their money is going to legitimate causes and reaches the places that it is intended to, this is key to ensuring public trust and confidence in charities. In this case there was no clear audit trail of cash donations from donor to bank, or to expenditure.

The commission has produced guidance to assist trustees in implementing robust internal financial controls that are appropriate to their charity. Internal Financial Controls for Charities (CC8) is available on the commission’s website. There is also a self check-list for trustees which has been produced to enable trustees to evaluate their charity’s performance against the legal requirements and good practice recommendations set out in the guidance.

Charity trustees should ensure that adequate records are kept of their decisions so that they can demonstrate that they have acted in accordance with the governing document and with best practice. In this case there were no records of either trustees meetings or decisions taken in relation to the charity. Such records ensure that trustees can demonstrate that they had:

• acted honestly and reasonably in what they judged to be the best interests of the charity

• taken appropriate professional or expert advice where appropriate

• based their decisions on directly relevant considerations

Trustees are jointly and equally responsible for the management of their charity. To be effective and to meet their statutory duties as charity trustees they must contribute to the management of the charity and ensure that it is managed in accordance with its governing document and general law. All charities should have appropriately tailored internal policy documents which address the specific risks associated with the kind of activities that are undertaken.

Trustees should ensure that these policies are implemented and reviewed at appropriate junctures. A failure to implement internal policy documents could be evidence of mismanagement in the administration of the charity and can put assets, beneficiaries and a charity’s reputation at risk.

1. A post dated 3 April 2015 titled ‘Londra’da Şafak Yayla ve Bahtiyar Doğruyol ve Elif Sultan Kalsen İçin Anma Yapıldı’ (Translation: Memorial Held for Elif Safak, Bakhtair Dogruyol and Sultan Kalsan in London) was available at http://halkinsesitv2.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/londrada-safak-yayla-ve-bahtiyar.html - the webpage is no longer active ↩

2. The annual documents consist of an Annual Return, and if the income exceeds £25,000 a Trustees Annual Report and Accounts. ↩