Cynthia O’Murchu in London and Raya Jalabi in Beirut
Sanctioned-listed charities linked to Hizbollah have routinely instructed donors to direct financial transfers through Lebanese digital payments providers that have partnerships with US payment card companies, the Financial Times has found.
Several charities in the militant group’s network of social programmes have asked donors to send money to digital wallets held by private individuals through Beirut-headquartered Whish Money, or to donate through its competitor OMT, interviews and transaction records show.
The FT’s findings highlight how Hizbollah appears to be exploiting weaknesses in the fight against terrorism financing and money laundering to raise funds, despite coming under intense global pressure since its battering in last year’s war with Israel.
Hizbollah, long a dominant political and military force in Lebanon, has a sprawling network of social welfare organisations including schools, hospitals and food banks, which are critical to maintaining its influence and support.
Routing funds through non-sanctioned individuals rather than official charity accounts increases the likelihood that sanctions-screening tools and know-your-client processes fail to detect links between the recipient of the transfers and the end beneficiary.
Lebanon’s money-transfer industry rapidly expanded in the wake of the country’s 2019 economic and banking crises, with users flocking to digital payments companies for both local payments and international remittances.
With millions of Lebanese diasporans living overseas, nearly $6bn in remittances entered the country in 2024, according to the World Bank.
To facilitate cross-border remittance services Whish has linked up with US- headquartered international payment card giants Visa and Mastercard, which in an August press release said the collaboration would allow Lebanese users to fund Whish wallets with their cards.
More recently Whish, which says it serves more than 2mn customers in more than 110 countries, secured a financial services license in Canada. OMT is Western Union’s long-standing agent in Lebanon and is partnered with Visa.
Though proponents say the move away from cash has made financial transfers more traceable and transparent, the FT’s findings raise concerns about the ability of payments companies such as Whish or OMT to stem the flow of funds to organisations that are under sanctions by the US.
In August, September and October, FT reporters on multiple occasions contacted three of Hizbollah’s charities, which provide health and other support to the group’s operatives and their families.
These were the Lebanese branch of the Imam Khomeini Relief Foundation, known as the Emdad Association, and the Martyr Foundation — both of which are the subject of US sanctions — along with the Wounded Foundation.
Each of the charities asked for donations to be sent via Whish or OMT.
They provided reporters with names of individuals and Lebanese phone numbers linked to Whish wallets to receive the donations. Tellers at three separate Whish branches confirmed the wallets were active.
Each of the phone numbers were linked to a named individual rather than a charity business account, suggesting that the individuals were collecting donations on behalf of the charities.
However, one of the phone numbers provided is also listed on the website of the Martyr Foundation, raising questions about the level of due diligence that Whish carried out on the account holder.
In the case of OMT, tellers told the FT that the individuals did not have wallets on their platform but could collect cash sent by donors who transmitted money using the recipient’s name and phone number.
Documents seen by the FT, along with screenshots of WhatsApp chats and a recording of communication with donees, suggest the charities also fundraise internationally through some of the same intermediaries.
In one instance earlier this year an individual representing Emdad instructed a donor to send funds via Whish using his name and phone number as a recipient.
A transaction receipt shows that a dollar-denominated transfer was subsequently sent from the Democratic Republic of Congo — which has a sizeable Lebanese diaspora — to the individual via Whish’s international partner RIA. The donor later received a receipt from Emdad for a matching transaction.
The name and number correspond to that of the intermediary to whom Emdad directed FT reporters for local Lebanese and international transfers and to whom reporters spoke.
In another instance, a donor looking to donate more than $10,000 to Emdad was directed to do so in a set of smaller tranches by an individual operating the Emdad WhatsApp account, who also provided names of several individuals to send the funds to.
Whish has skyrocketed in popularity since the banking sector’s collapse but found itself in the crosshairs of interest groups — including Lebanon’s powerful banking lobby — who have variously accused it of being pro- and anti-Hizbollah.
Pro-Hizbollah newspaper Al Akhbar this month accused Whish of succumbing to US pressure by shuttering the accounts of an NGO and a local official operating in southern Lebanon, a traditional stronghold of the militant group.
There is no suggestion that Whish, OMT or RIA were aware that any payments to the individuals would likely go to charities under sanctions.
Whish said it was the target of a smear campaign “orchestrated by a group of corrupt politicians and bankers” and rejects “any attempts to associate Whish Money with illicit activities”.
It said every user was “rigorously and continuously” screened against international sanctions and central bank watch lists and all transactions are monitored “to detect and prevent any form of money laundering or terrorism financing”.
“As a licensed and regulated financial entity, we report transactions to the Central Bank of Lebanon and to the national security forces as required by law.”
OMT said, by virtue of its status as Western Union’s agent in Lebanon, that it operated in full compliance with US and international regulations, screens customers and monitors transactions and had no relationship with any of the three charities.
Visa said it complied with all applicable regulations, including sanctions, and required its clients and partners to do the same, while Mastercard said it uses the latest technologies and best practices to monitor activity on its network and “address and remediate any areas of concern”.
There is no indication that Visa or Mastercard systems were used in the transactions examined by the FT.
Ria said the company had a strong system of controls and “undertakes reasonable efforts” to detect suspicious activity and report them to the authorities.
The Hizbollah foreign media relations office sent statements on behalf of the Wounded and Martyr foundations, both of which highlighted their humanitarian work and said they did not have official accounts on either Whish or OMT. Martyr added that it also did not have “authorised” accounts.
The Wounded Foundation said it was the charity’s duty to receive support for the “wounded and people with disabilities”, from a “broad community of supporters, both inside Lebanon and abroad”. Emdad did not respond.
Additional reporting Malaika Kanaaneh Tapper