David Abrahams, the millionaire businessman at the centre of the Labour donor controversy, insisted last night that a desire for anonymity, not secrecy, was behind his funding of the party through intermediaries.

The Newcastle property developer admitted that mistakes were made over his £600,000-worth of covert donations but said that the affair was a product of “cock-up” not “conspiracy”.

Writing in The Guardian, Mr Abrahams said he had acted in good faith and was not aware that he risked breaking the law; he had wanted merely to preserve his low profile.

He said: “I didn’t want these things to become public because I want to be anonymous and have a private life. I was brought up to believe that if you donated to a good cause, you didn’t make a song and dance about it. And like most sensible lottery winners, I do not want my wealth to change the way I, as a working-class boy, lead my life, or to get in the way of my many friendships with people from a similar background.

“If people know you are wealthy, their behaviour towards you changes — often, perhaps through envy, for the worse. The last thing any wealthy person wants is to be inundated with begging letters from people, however well meaning. It ranks a close second to being inundated with calls from the media looking for a story that isn’t there.”

Mr Abrahams defended the behaviour of Peter Watt, the former Labour general secretary, who was forced to resign over the affair.

“In any walk of life administrative errors are made and have be corrected,” he said. “Humans are not made to be be perfect. But only in politics, it seems, do cock-ups get routinely turned into conspiracies. I donated money to the Labour party through intermediaries because of a desire for anonymity, not secrecy. In doing so my associates and I all acted in good faith over these donations. I believe Labour party officials — from general secretary to party treasurer — did so as well.”

However, Mr Abrahams did not deny that mistakes had been made.

“I didn’t read the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 before giving money to the Labour party any more than I read the Warwick University statutes or the Charity Act before parting with my money. I trusted Labour to ensure that donations were received and spent in the manner they were intended, as anyone in my position would.”

The businessmen declared that he was obliged to use his money to make a difference to people’s lives and he asked for nothing in return.

“Is it asking too much of our society that being a private individual should be incompatible with having a public-spirited side?”

Times Recommends

• Oh no, Mr Darling: you have failed
• BBC survives dogfight over Kennel Club expose
• Where the Rosetta belongs can’t be set in stone