Britain’s top universities privately lobbied the government to keep secret the names of wealthy foreign donors, openDemocracy can reveal.

An 18-month investigation found more than £281m in anonymous donations has poured into so-called ‘Russell Group’ universities since 2017, much of it from foreign donors.

The lobbying campaign saw Cambridge University’s former vice chancellor tell a government adviser of his “dismay” at attempts to improve transparency. He said the university’s fundraising abilities could be “severely impacted” unless foreign benefactors remained secret.

Other universities privately wrote of “celebration” after learning that they could keep the identity of givers under wraps.

But records seen by openDemocracy reveal that university bosses have courted authoritarian regimes, controversial companies and “Chinese billionaires” for funding.

In one case, Oxford University accepted a mysterious £10m donation that was “facilitated” by the president of Azerbaijan’s sister-in-law. The university is so insistent on keeping the donor out of public scrutiny that it is going to court to block a Freedom of Information request from openDemocracy.

The identities of 68 Oxford donors have been kept anonymous since 2017, including at least ten who gave more than £2m each.

At Cambridge University, documents reveal its major benefactors have previously included fossil fuel giants, tobacco and arms companies. But the university is now fighting to keep a list of its recent donors secret.

Conservative MP Robin Walker, who chairs Parliament’s education select committee, told openDemocracy: “Universities are hugely important institutions and as they are in receipt of large amounts of public money it is beholden on them to be transparent about their other sources of funding – and particularly those from overseas.”

Anonymous donations

Documents show how the Russell Group’s 24 universities – often regarded as the UK’s most respected higher education institutions – have repeatedly agreed to hide the identities of wealthy donors.

Although university officials are usually aware of a donor’s identity, they often promise to keep it private.

Oxford University alone accepted more than £106m in anonymous donations – the highest amount of any Russell Group university. This came from just 68 donors, each giving an average of more than £1.5m. When asked what the money was spent on, the university merely referenced general areas such as “medical science” and “sports”.

Cambridge University refused to disclose the exact amount it has received in anonymous donations, but said the figure was between £25m and £49.9m, with the money going towards laboratories and a business school.

King’s College London received over £28m from secret funders, while Durham, Manchester and Edinburgh also accepted large sums.

While most donations were from the UK, others were from wealthy individuals and companies abroad, including China, Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore.

Lobbying campaign

Last year, MPs tried to improve transparency over overseas donations. Led by Conservative backbencher Jesse Norman, they introduced proposals to force universities to publish the names of any foreign donor who gives a university more than £50,000.

Ultimately, the move failed: it was massively watered down by the government and Norman described it as a “missed opportunity”.

Emails obtained by openDemocracy now expose a coordinated lobbying campaign by university bosses in a bid to keep their funding secret.

Writing to a government adviser, Cambridge University’s vice-chancellor at the time, Stephen Toope, said the proposals would “have a hugely damaging impact on our philanthropy”.

He said: “Many donors, especially those from countries that place emphasis on privacy as important, may feel that their giving is a private matter and expect high levels of donor privacy to be upheld by the institutions that they give to.”

Officials from Cambridge University also held private meetings with a number of special advisers in Whitehall.

Toope added that the transparency proposals would result in “a very substantial additional burden of red-tape”.

John Heathershaw, professor of international relations at the University of Exeter who helped develop the proposals, said the amendment was needed “to make influence on research and reputation laundering visible”. He added: “It is not excessive and was modelled on a legal requirement which has existed in the United States for nearly 40 years.”

Meanwhile, Colin Riordan – who was then Cardiff University’s vice chancellor – spoke of “celebration” after finding out the law would not apply in Wales. It came after he consulted the Russell Group for advice.

A Cardiff official later wrote: “I have reiterated to the Russell Group that we share wider concerns being raised about the amendment, and they will continue to keep us appraised of their work to lobby against it.”

When questioned by openDemocracy, a spokesperson claimed: “We do not accept anonymous donations and all donors are subject to our due diligence checks. However, we respect their right to remain anonymous if they so choose.”

Lobbying efforts were also made by Universities UK, an advocacy organisation for higher education bosses. An email raised “concerns” with the transparency proposals, adding: “[We] are in conversations with the Department for Education and Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about its implications.”

A further email from Universities UK, sent in June last year before the law was signed off in its watered down form, said: “We will continue to engage with the DfE on our concerns about the Bill, and a parliamentary briefing will be circulated to MPs in advance of the debates…”

Responding to our investigation, a senior legal researcher at the campaign group Spotlight on Corruption, George Havenhand, called for “far greater transparency” around foreign donations.

“When universities accept secretive donations from dodgy companies and unsavoury regimes, they open the door to undue influence and potentially to laundering the proceeds of crime,” he said.

‘Chinese billionaires’

The lobbying campaign came amid a huge wave of controversial donations, including money from authoritarian countries where academic freedom is under threat.

Last year, openDemocracy revealed large sums that Oxford had accepted from sources in Russia. It was also reported that universities had accepted millions from institutions linked to the Chinese military.

Analysis by openDemocracy now reveals that Russell Group universities took at least £139m from Chinese sources between 2017 and 2023. This includes large sums from Huawei, which has been banned from the UK’s 5G phone network over security concerns.

Sheffield University told us it had received a research grant worth more than £100,000 in 2017 from China Electronics Technology Group Corporation, which has been accused of involvement in the mass surveillance of Uighur Muslims. In 2021, the University of Manchester cancelled an agreement with the company.

And Exeter University received donations from Xi Jinping’s alma mater, Tsinghua University, where academics have been accused of being the “ideological architects” of Uighur oppression.

Emails obtained by openDemocracy also shed light on fundraising discussions held by Oxford University in 2019. In one message, the then vice chancellor was briefed on the university’s “ability to draw Chinese government funds to the UK”, saying that “funds are now flowing”.

It adds: “Your office is currently looking at potential dates to host the Chinese billionaires.”

openDemocracy understands that the meeting with “Chinese billionaires” never happened, as they were unable to visit the UK at the time. But the university refused to disclose any records related to the plan.

Oligarchs and opioids

At Cambridge University, big donors have previously included the likes of British American Tobacco, BP, Shell and the controversial Sackler family.

Their names were previously listed as members of the Guild of Cambridge Benefactors, an elite group of donors who have each given more than £1m.

A copy of this list from 2017 was obtained by openDemocracy, under the Freedom of Information Act.

But the university is refusing to disclose an up-to-date version, claiming that secrecy is essential due to “changes in data protection legislation”. The case is now being investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office after a complaint by openDemocracy.

Alongside numerous oil and gas companies, the names included Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash and his wife Lada. According to reports, the businessman often used to visit Cambridge and meet the students whose scholarships he funded, bringing a television crew along. The university also gave him a medal for his philanthropy.

In written evidence submitted to Parliament, Firtash was accused of having used “the wave of positive publicity and acclaim which followed the donations to garner legal standing in UK courts to pursue legal action against the daily newspaper Kyiv Post, which published an article about his allegedly illicit business dealings in Ukraine.”

Three years after being inducted into the Cambridge Guild in 2011, he was arrested on US charges of “alleged international corruption conspiracy”.

Cambridge University told openDemocracy that it had received no funding from the Firtash family since 2013 and that no further discussions about funding had taken place. However, records show the oligarch was still part of the elite Cambridge Guild – whose members are invited to an annual dinner – until at least 2017.

Other members of the guild in 2017 included the John Templeton Foundation, which has given millions of dollars to British right-wing groups.

Raymond Sackler and Beverly Sackler were also listed as guild members, having first been admitted in 1999. But the university said the family had not donated since 2015 and that no further donations would be accepted.

Reports say that money from the Sackler family – whose wealth was built on addictive opioid drugs – was previously used to fund lectures and scholarships at Cambridge.

The university said it rejected allegations by openDemocracy, claiming they “create a misleading picture about donations to Cambridge”.

A spokesperson said: “We do not accept completely anonymous donations,” adding that it respects the right of people who “wish their donations to be private” but that it carried out due diligence checks on all donors.

The Azerbaijan mystery

At Oxford, speculation has been circulating over the true source of a £10m gift to establish a new research centre specialising in Azerbaijan, the Caucasus and Central Asia.

Named after the 12th-century Muslim poet Nizami Ganjavi, the centre’s board members include Nargiz Pashayeva, the sister-in-law of Azerbaijan’s autocratic ruler.

When Oxford first announced the gift in 2018, it referred to philanthropic support “from” an organisation called the British Foundation for the Study of Azerbaijan and the Caucasus (BFSAC), which has since closed down. The university’s website included a picture of the university’s then vice-chancellor, Louise Richardson, at a signing ceremony with Pashayeva, the BFSAC’s chair of trustees.

However, the university’s website has since been altered. The photo is now a generic picture of Oxford’s skyline, while the text refers to “generous philanthropic support received and given in recognition” of BFSAC – with the word “from” removed.

Pashayeva was also co-chair of the Anglo-Azerbaijani Society, which attracted headlines in 2017 when one of its leading figures was caught up in the Azerbaijani Laundromat scandal.

Last month, a student newspaper dug up comments she reportedly made at BFSAC’s launch party in 2017, in which she thanked Azerbaijani business tycoon Iskander Khalilov “for his first financial support of the Oxford Nizami Ganjavi Centre”. She added: “Our main goal is to become part of Oxford University forever.”

Khalilov did not respond to openDemocracy’s questions about the £10m donation. Oxford has admitted only that it came from Azerbaijan, saying the person behind it was a “highly successful business person” who “wanted to be anonymous”.

Heathershaw said anonymous donations could be “problematic”. “Without knowing the identity of the donor,” he said, “it is impossible to know these vested interests and to assess the risk that influence may occur behind closed doors.”

The Azerbaijani regime has long been criticised for its human rights record. “Freedom of expression, assembly and association remained severely restricted,” Amnesty International says, adding that authorities regularly carry out “arbitrary arrests and politically motivated prosecutions”.

A spokesperson for Oxford University said donors have “no influence over how Oxford academics carry out their research,” adding that major donors are reviewed by a “robust” and independent committee.

“We take the security of our academic work seriously, and work closely with the appropriate government bodies and legislation.”