(UNITED KINGDOM) Six UK Border Force immigration officers have been charged with money laundering offences linked to alleged thefts from migrants, after an investigation by the Home Office, in a case that has raised fresh concerns about trust and safety at the border for people arriving with little more than their documents and cash for a new start.
Charging decision and timeframe
The Crown Prosecution Service said on December 23, 2025 it had authorised charges after deciding there is enough evidence and that prosecuting is in the public interest. The allegations relate to an alleged pattern of thefts from migrants between August 2021 and November 2022, a period when many people arriving in the UK were already dealing with high stress, language barriers and fear about what might happen at immigration control.
All six defendants have been charged with money laundering under section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the offence that covers “concealing, disguising, converting, transferring, or removing criminal property.” An official copy of the law is published by the UK government at Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Prosecutors say the charge applies because the case involves alleged criminal property, and the prosecution alleges steps were taken that fall within the broad conduct covered by the section.
Who has been charged and court date
The CPS named the officers as:
- Besmir Matera, 36, from Reigate, Surrey (date of birth listed as 30/04/1989)
- Lee-Ann Evanson, listed as 42 or 52, from Bracknell, Berkshire
- John Bernthal, 53, from Welling in southeast London
- Ben Edwardes, 45, from Bexleyheath in southeast London
- Jack Mitchell, 33, from Dover, Kent
- David Grundy, 43, from Croydon in south London (date of birth recorded as 09/10/1982)
The CPS said the group will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on January 29, 2026.
Specific charges by defendant
Beyond the money laundering counts, the charge list sets out different allegations for different people:
- Besmir Matera
- Money laundering (section 327, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002)
- Conspiracy to steal (section 1, Criminal Law Act 1977)
- Misconduct in public office (common law)
- Obtaining leave to enter or remain by deception (section 24A, Immigration Act 1971)
- Three counts of possession of an identity document with improper intention (section 4(1)/(2), Identity Documents Act 2010)
- Lee-Ann Evanson, John Bernthal, Ben Edwardes, Jack Mitchell
- Each charged with:
- Conspiracy to steal
- Misconduct in public office
- Money laundering
- David Grundy
- Charged with money laundering only
Official responses
Malcolm McHaffie, Head of the CPS Special Crime Division, said:
“Our prosecutors have worked to establish that there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to court and that it is in the public interest to pursue criminal proceedings. We have worked closely with the Home Office’s Anti-Corruption Criminal Investigations Unit.”
The language reflects the CPS test for charging decisions, which weighs the evidence and the public interest, and it also signals that investigators treated the allegations as potential corruption inside a public-facing border role.
A Home Office spokesperson described the claims as alarming and tied the response to discipline as well as criminal action:
“These are extremely concerning allegations. We expect all of our officers to meet the highest standards. Where those standards are breached, we will take action without hesitation.”
The Home Office said the officers were suspended when the allegations came to light and that three have been dismissed, showing that the department moved to separate staff from frontline duties while the criminal investigation progressed.
Impact on migrants and vulnerability concerns
For migrants, the allegations strike at a point of maximum vulnerability. Many people pass through border control after long journeys, often carrying savings meant for rent, food, or onward travel, and some may not have access to UK bank accounts yet. If theft happens at that moment, the practical damage can be immediate:
- Missed transport or connections
- Inability to pay for a phone or accommodation
- Fear of complaining because of worries about immigration status
Even those with lawful permission to travel can feel powerless in a controlled setting where uniforms and authority shape every interaction.
Legal context: immigration enforcement and money laundering law
Cases like this sit at an unusual crossroads of immigration enforcement and financial crime law. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is often linked in the public mind with organised crime, but prosecutors can use it where money or property is said to come from theft or abuse of position and is then handled in ways the law describes.
In plain terms, the “money laundering offences” allegation is not only about taking money; it is also about what prosecutors say happened next to that money if it was treated as “criminal property” and then moved, hidden, or converted.
Court process, reporting restrictions and next steps
The CPS warned the case is active and asked people not to publish material that could sway the outcome. It urged no reporting or online commentary that could prejudice proceedings — a reminder that even widely shared posts can cause trouble once a case is heading to court.
Court coverage and online discussion can affect cases. Avoid publishing or sharing material that could prejudice proceedings while the case is in progress.
- Lawyers for the defendants have not been quoted in the material provided.
- The officers are entitled to a fair hearing where the prosecution must prove each charge.
The timing of the first court appearance means the public may wait weeks for detailed allegations to be aired in open court, including whether prosecutors say migrants were targeted in specific locations or during particular stages of the border process. Westminster Magistrates’ Court often handles early hearings for serious cases, with later decisions on whether matters should be sent to the Crown Court depending on the charges and legal arguments.
Wider implications and analysis
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, corruption allegations linked to immigration control tend to have ripple effects beyond the individual case. Those effects can include:
- Discouraging vulnerable travellers from reporting wrongdoing
- Putting extra pressure on oversight systems that already deal with high caseloads
The Home Office’s comments suggest it wants to reassure the public that internal discipline can move quickly, but the court process will ultimately test the evidence gathered between the alleged period of offending and the charging decision announced this week.
Six immigration officers are facing prosecution for allegedly stealing from migrants and laundering the proceeds. The crimes are said to have occurred during a period of high vulnerability for new arrivals. The Home Office and CPS have collaborated to bring charges that include conspiracy to steal and misconduct in public office. The case highlights efforts to maintain integrity within UK border security operations.
