What we know so far about the alleged Chinese spy with links to Andrew

An alleged Chinese spy who was banned from the UK and linked to the Duke of York has been named as Yang Tengbo, following a High Court ruling.

The 50-year-old is said to have become a “close” confidant of Andrew and has also been pictured with senior politicians including Lord David Cameron and Baroness Theresa May.

Mr Yang was known only as H6 until an anonymity order was lifted on Monday.

Mr Yang – who is also known as Chris Yang – challenged his ban on entering the UK at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) in July, but lost his appeal last week.

Here is what we know about the businessman so far.

Mr Yang was born on March 21 1974, according to information in the SIAC ruling.

He studied at university in China and then worked as a junior civil servant in China for a number of years, the 53-page document stated.

Mr Yang came to the UK in 2002, studying language in London for one year, then taking a master’s degree at the University of York in Public Administration and Public Policy, the ruling also said.

It added that Mr Yang originally intended to return to China to advance his career in the public sector there, but “he perceived opportunities for activity bridging the gap between China and the UK”, according to his evidence.

Since at least 2005, Mr Yang has divided his time between the two countries, then was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK in 2013, the ruling said.

He is listed as a director of Hampton Group International, a business consultancy which says it acts as a bridge between China and the rest of the world.

Mr Yang was the founder-partner of Pitch@Palace China. The Pitch@Palace initiative was the Duke of York’s scheme to support entrepreneurs.

The judges in the ruling said that before the Covid pandemic, Mr Yang spent one to two weeks in the UK each month, and he “considers the UK to be his ‘second home'”.

Mr Yang forged links with the duke, and according to the Court Circular, had engagements with him on June 25 and June 29 2018.

Last week, Andrew said he “ceased all contact” with the businessman when concerns were first raised about him.

The duke met the individual through “official channels” with “nothing of a sensitive nature ever discussed”, a statement from his office said.

On November 6 2021, Mr Yang was subject to a port stop under Schedule 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and surrendered digital devices including his mobile telephone, the ruling said.

He lodged a challenge against the retention of the copy data to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office in February 2022, and a Judicial Commissioner initially directed that the copies be destroyed but, on appeal, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner allowed them to be retained, the SIAC ruling said.

During that litigation, Mr Yang was “informed that he was believed to be associated with an arm of the Chinese state known as the United Front Work Department”.

On February 16 2023, the businessman was “off-boarded” from a flight from Beijing to London and was told that the home secretary was in the process of making a decision to exclude him from the UK, the ruling added.

And the next month, then-home secretary Suella Braverman said he should be excluded from the UK.

In a briefing for the home secretary in July 2023, officials said Mr Yang had been in a position to generate relationships between prominent UK figures and senior Chinese officials “that could be leveraged for political interference purposes”.

They also said that he had downplayed his relationship with the Chinese state, which combined with his relationship with Andrew, represented a threat to national security.

At a hearing in July, the specialist tribunal heard that the businessman was told by an adviser to Andrew that he could act on the duke’s behalf when dealing with potential investors in China, and that Mr Yang had been invited to Andrew’s birthday party in 2020.

The Home Office confirmed in July 2023 that Mr Yang would be excluded from the UK as he was considered to have engaged in “covert and deceptive activity” on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and that he likely posed a threat to national security.

The former civil servant brought legal action for a review of the decision, arguing that it was unlawful.

The tribunal in London heard that he had said he avoided getting involved in politics, and only had limited links to the Chinese state.

His lawyers also argued that there was evidence that it was difficult for a Chinese national involved in business to avoid any contact with the CCP, and that material related to his relationship with Andrew had to be read in the context of an adviser writing to someone who had been loyal to the duke in difficult times.

But Home Office lawyers argued that Mr Yang had downplayed his links to an arm of the CCP, and that his relationship with Andrew could be used for political interference.

In their ruling, the judges said that Andrew could have been made “vulnerable” to the misuse of the influence he had.

In their ruling last week, Mr Justice Bourne, Judge Stephen Smith and Sir Stewart Eldon dismissed Mr Yang’s challenge.

The Chinese national had been due to be named after an anonymity order made in May 2023 was lifted by judges at the specialist tribunal.

But the day before the judgment was due to be published, he made a successful bid at the High Court for a temporary block on being named, which has now been lifted.

His anonymity came amid calls from MPs for Mr Yang to be named.

Mr Yang has insisted he has “done nothing wrong or unlawful”.

Mr Yang said it was “entirely untrue” to claim he was involved in espionage, and said he was a victim of a “political climate” which had seen a rise in tensions between the UK and China.

In a statement after a High Court judge lifted an order granting him anonymity, he said: “Due to the high level of speculation and misreporting in the media and elsewhere, I have asked my legal team to disclose my identity.

“I have done nothing wrong or unlawful and the concerns raised by the Home Office against me are ill-founded. The widespread description of me as a ‘spy’ is entirely untrue.”