Why has the Independent not published evidence to support its claim that Rishi Sunak is the beneficiary of an offshore trust? It is being reported that the Treasury denies any knowledge of the trusts cited by Anna Isaac in her scoop. That is a direct contradiction.

The specific allegation is that:

“Trusts in the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands, created to help manage the tax and business affairs of his wife Akshata Murty’s family interests, note Mr Sunak as a beneficiary in 2020, according to people familiar with Ms Murty’s financial affairs and evidence reviewed by this publication. Mr Sunak became chancellor in February that year, and had previously been chief secretary to the Treasury since 2019.”

The only way the two claims could be compatible is if Rishi didn’t know he had been made a beneficiary of a family trust or if it was voided before he took office. However the “father-in-law did it without telling me” defence is preempted by this Daily Mail source quote “A Treasury source said that neither Mr Sunak, his wife nor her family were aware of any trusts naming him as a beneficiary.” If the Independent has evidence to the contrary, that is of public interest and will be very damaging for the Chancellor. Something doesn’t add up…

Incidentally, there is nothing illegal or morally wrong about using offshore trusts. It is just politically impossible to be a tax hiking Chancellor when you minimise your own taxes.