In 1990, Scargill was accused in a series of Daily Mirror articles of mishandling money donated for the striking miners during the 1984-5 strike, with many of the sources being those who had previously worked with him in the NUM such as Kim Howells, Jim Parker and Roger Windsor. It was alleged that, of the money donated from Libya, Scargill took £29,000 for his own bridging loan and £25,000 for his home in Yorkshire, but gave only £10,000 to the striking Nottinghamshire miners. In addition, it was alleged that he had taken £1,000,000 of cash donated by the Soviet Union for the Welsh miners and placed it in a Dublin bank account for the "International Miners' Organisation", where it stayed until a year after the strike had finished. There was much criticism of Scargill within the NUM from the Welsh and Scottish areas, who briefly considered splitting from the NUM. An internal NUM report by Gavin Lightman QC found that Scargill had used some of the Libyan money to pay for improvements to his bungalow but not to pay off his mortgage (as had been alleged), and stated that Scargill's failure to make a full report on the Soviet money donated for the Welsh miners was "a remarkable breach of duty" and that he should repay the money back to the NUM. Scargill accepted Lightman's statement that many of his actions suffered from a lack of professional advice, which he was unwilling to be bound by.
In July 1990, the NUM executive voted unanimously to sue Scargill and general secretary Peter Heathfield. Negotiations between Scargill and the NUM took place in France. Airport staff at Leeds-Bradford Airport identified Scargill attempting to travel under a false name (Arthur Fenn) wearing a disguise on 20 July, and turned him away to purchase a genuine ticket with his true identity. In September 1990, the Certification Officer brought criminal charges against Scargill and Heathfield for wilfully neglecting to perform the union's duty to keep proper accounting records. Scargill reached an agreement to repay money to the NUM shortly after this. The prosecution brought by the Certification Officer was rejected in July 1991 on the grounds that it would be inappropriate to use the material provided in confidence to Lightman's enquiry.