What legal cases and sanctions have targeted Western-based charities accused of funneling money to Hamas?
Executive summary
Western authorities have pursued a two-track campaign — sanctions by U.S. financial regulators and criminal investigations by European prosecutors — targeting charities and nonprofit networks alleged to funnel donations to Hamas and affiliated militant groups [1] [2]. The centerpiece has been a series of U.S. Treasury/OFAC designations that label Gaza-based societies and several Europe- and Italy-based charities “sham” organizations integrated into Hamas’s military wing, while European law-enforcement actions have produced arrests, asset seizures and ongoing probes [3] [1] [2].
1. Major U.S. Treasury/OFAC sanctions in mid‑2025: naming networks and authorities
In June 2025 the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) publicly designated multiple Gaza-based societies — Waed, Al‑Nur, Qawafil, Al‑Falah, Merciful Hands and Al‑Salameh — and named an overseas umbrella, the Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad, accusing them of being organized by and integrated into Hamas’s military wing and of employing Hamas members inside these charities [3] [4]. Treasury said the action was taken under counterterrorism authorities, principally Executive Order 13224, which results in blocking of property interests in U.S. jurisdiction and exposure to civil and criminal penalties for violations [5] [6].
2. Sanctions and designations beyond Gaza: European charities and operatives identified
OFAC’s campaign has repeatedly reached into Europe and the Mediterranean: press releases and Treasury fact sheets named Italy‑based Associazione Benefica La Cupola d’Oro and the Netherlands’ Israa Charitable Foundation as part of networks used to raise millions for Hamas, and identified individuals accused of operating in Europe to fundraise on behalf of the military wing [1] [7]. Analysts at the George Washington University’s Program on Extremism and policy institutes have documented that Western-based charities linked to Hamas have been shut down, re‑named or used as fundraising covers, a pattern authorities cite to justify transnational designations [8] [9].
3. Criminal probes, arrests and asset seizures in Europe
National prosecutors have supplemented sanctions with criminal investigations: Italian anti‑mafia and anti‑terrorism units arrested nine people in December 2025 on suspicion of financing Hamas through charities, seizing more than €1 million in cash and material allegedly supportive of Hamas as part of a coordinated probe [2]. These cases echo earlier European enforcement actions described by policy analysts and Treasury reporting that identify specific charities and individuals accused of diverting donations to militant activities [9] [1].
4. Legal mechanics, consequences and stated objectives of sanctions
Treasury and State Department statements emphasize disruption of finance flows as the goal: OFAC designations block U.S. property interests, require reporting to OFAC, and are framed as tools to preserve legitimate humanitarian assistance by separating bona fide NGOs from covert militant networks [3] [6] [5]. U.S. officials contend documentary evidence seized from Hamas and other intelligence underpins some designations, and that sanctions are intended more to disrupt and deter than to be purely punitive [4] [10].
5. Contested cases, civil‑society pushback and evidentiary limits
Designations and arrests have not been uncontested: some Palestinian and European NGOs argue that humanitarian actors are being unfairly tarred and that designations risk impeding aid; OFAC itself notes it does not sanction for protected speech or religious practice [3]. The West‑focused reporting highlights both admitted successes in exposing “sham” charities and the limits of public reporting — many allegations rest on classified intelligence or documentary material not published in full, and critics warn that the label “sham” can be used broadly in contested political contexts [6] [8].
6. The pattern and remaining challenges for Western law enforcement
Taken together, the record shows repeated U.S. designations of Gaza and Europe‑linked charities, national criminal actions in Italy and an ongoing international effort to trace networks such as the Union of Good and other fundraising umbrellas — but enforcement faces a classic cat‑and‑mouse problem as entities dissolve, change names or exploit diasporic fundraising channels, and many prosecutions depend on cross‑border intelligence sharing that is not fully public [1] [9] [8]. Reporting documents the scale and methods of U.S. and European actions, but publicly available sources leave gaps on courtroom outcomes and the full evidentiary record in some cases [2] [11].