The Duke of York and his former adviser twice went to Windsor “without being seen” to talk to the King about an investment fund linked to an alleged Chinese spy, according to newly released tribunal documents.
Yang Tengbo, who has previously said he had “done nothing wrong or unlawful”, was excluded from the UK on national security grounds in March 2023 after officials claimed he had been in a position to generate relationships between prominent UK figures and senior Chinese officials “that could be leveraged for political interference purposes”.
Mr Yang – also known as Chris Yang – unsuccessfully challenged the decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) last year, with judges finding the businessman was a “close confidant” of Andrew and had “won a significant degree, one could say an unusual degree, of trust” from the duke.
Documents in the legal challenge, including the witness statement of Andrew’s former senior adviser Dominic Hampshire, were made public on Friday following a request from several media organisations.
Buckingham Palace said that while the King met Andrew and his adviser to discuss proposals for independent funding, Mr Yang “was not mentioned at any time or in any way as part of these discussions”.
In Mr Hampshire’s 10-page statement, dated May 2024, the former aide told SIAC that he had met twice with Andrew and the King in the previous six months to discuss “what the duke can do moving forwards in a way that is acceptable to His Majesty”.
The former aide said both of these discussions covered topics including the Eurasia Fund, which Mr Yang described in his written evidence to the tribunal as a way to “upgrade” the duke’s Pitch@Palace initiative “into an investment-type business, or a fund”.
Mr Hampshire continued: “For both these meetings with His Majesty, despite less media interest in the duke, we took all precautions to get in and out of Windsor Castle without being seen.”
The former aide also said that Mr Yang had helped him draft letters which discussed the Eurasia Fund to Chinese president Xi Jinping, as well as being authorised to talk to “relevant people” in China.
In a statement, a Buckingham Palace spokesperson said: “While His Majesty met with the duke and his adviser to hear outline proposals for independent funding over the past year, the individual known as H6 [Yang] was not mentioned at any time or in any way as part of these discussions.”
The Palace is not commenting on individual claims in the testimony but it is understood the witness account does not conform with the Palace’s record of events, and the Eurasia fund was never given any form of approval by the King or was discussed in any detail.
In his statement, Mr Hampshire also said the duke’s reputation was “irrecoverable” following Andrew’s 2019 Newsnight interview over his relationship with late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which prompted a “look at options for the duke’s future away from royal duties”.
Mr Hampshire said the duke’s Pitch@Palace initiative, set up to support entrepreneurs, was one of Andrew’s “indisputable successes”, and that hopes were placed on it continuing internationally.
Mr Yang was the founder-partner of Pitch@Palace China, and Mr Hampshire said he had not deserted the duke while UK sponsors and supporters of Andrew’s initiative were “falling away” after the interview.
The former aide also told the tribunal there had been a “documented bombardment of the duke in the media” with photographers “camped” outside Andrew’s residence.
He continued: “There were daily attacks on the duke in the media with the press watching his every move, including who was going in and who was going out of Royal Lodge.”
Mr Hampshire, who told the tribunal he had spent 10 years in the British Army, including as an intelligence officer in Belfast, later said that a degree of confidentiality was required due to the amount of leaks in the royal household.
He said: “Every time the duke does anything, the media attempts to destroy or at very least, malign him, often via individuals who leak documents or intel to the press.
“To progress in anything we do, everything has to be confidential where at all possible, not just with the Chinese.”
In his written evidence, Mr Hampshire later said that Mr Yang “categorically does not have a close relationship with the duke”.
He continued: “Anyone who understands how a member of the British royal family is looked after/advised would immediately know this.
“Chris, of course, doesn’t have the duke’s telephone number or his email address and does not have the ability to talk directly to the duke on his own – ever.
“This is normal practice and Chris’s relationship with the duke is the same as numerous others – this is my role – to protect him.”
In a statement as the documents were made public on Friday, Mr Hampshire said he left the royal household in 2022 and no longer provides advice to Andrew.
He also said that Andrew “fully complied” with advice to end all contact with Mr Yang.
He added: “The Palace was kept informed of all my commercial endeavours on behalf of The Duke of York, and full disclosure of all communications with Mr Yang, the Hampton Group and China was offered to both Buckingham Palace and the intelligence services.
“At all times I sought to protect the best interests of the Royal Family with integrity and loyalty.”
Mr Hampshire continued: “He did not receive a penny in funding or support, directly or indirectly, from any Chinese individual or entity.
“In my personal business capacity, I continued dealings with the Hampton Group in China – which is not sanctioned – and, in accordance with current UK policy, doing business in China and with Chinese individuals is entirely legitimate.
“I am now a private businessman and none of my business interests are connected to any member of the Royal Family.”
Mr Hampshire previously said he was not warned of the possibility of his previous evidence being made public, stating he “would never have agreed to submit a witness statement” had he known.
In a ruling in March, three judges at SIAC said the statement could be disclosed, finding it was “drafted explicitly to be used in support of representations” by Mr Yang.
Mr Yang has previously said he intends to appeal against the decision upholding his ban from entering the UK.
