Facebook
Britain's News Portal
Around The Clock
BREAKING
Loading latest headlines…

Naomi Campbell Claims 'Deception' in Charity Ban Appeal Hearing

Supermodel Naomi Campbell has told a London tribunal she was 'deceived' regarding the financial mismanagement of her charity, Fashion For Relief. She is appealing a five-year disqualification from acting as a charity trustee.

  • Naomi Campbell is appealing a five-year ban from being a charity trustee.
  • The ban stems from serious mismanagement of funds at her charity, Fashion For Relief.
  • Campbell claims she was deceived by former associate Bianka Hellmich, who she alleges forged signatures and misrepresented her credentials.
  • Charity funds were reportedly used for Campbell's five-star hotel stay, spa treatments, and cigarettes.
  • Campbell stated her 'only mistake' was trusting Hellmich, who allegedly received over £500,000 from charity funds.

Supermodel Naomi Campbell appeared before a central London tribunal on Tuesday, claiming she was “deceived” in connection with the financial mismanagement of her charity, Fashion For Relief. The 56-year-old is seeking to overturn a five-year ban from acting as a charity trustee, which was imposed by the Charity Commission in 2024 following an investigation into serious fund mismanagement.

The Charity Commission, which regulates charities in England and Wales, found that charity funds had been used for personal expenses, including a stay at a five-star hotel in Cannes, France, spa treatments, cigarettes, and room service for Campbell. She was one of three trustees disqualified, with Bianka Hellmich receiving a nine-year ban and Veronica Chou a four-year ban.

During her evidence, Campbell asserted that her “only mistake” was placing trust in Bianka Hellmich, who she alleges forged her signature and made false claims about her qualifications as a charity lawyer. Campbell told the tribunal, “I did not do a check on Bianca [Hellmich] – when I’m introduced to a lawyer, I assume they are acting within the law.” She rejected suggestions that she should have conducted further checks, stating Hellmich “came across as a lawyer” and held “official positions.”

Campbell’s legal team previously informed the tribunal that Hellmich appeared to have received in excess of £500,000 from charity funds between 2016 and 2021. Andrew Westwood KC, representing Campbell, stated in written submissions that Hellmich “held herself out as a lawyer with the expertise to handle the charity’s legal, regulatory and financial functions and advised Ms Campbell that she could properly confine herself to a limited role assisting with the charity’s fundraising efforts and strategy – in effect, acting as a figurehead.” He added that Hellmich “carried out a long-term and consistent scheme of mismanagement and deception.”

However, Faisel Sadiq, representing the Charity Commission, argued in his written submissions that it was “not legally open” to Campbell to “abdicate” her responsibilities as a trustee and merely act as a figurehead. Campbell countered this, saying, “I trusted the wrong person, what more do you want?” She also questioned the Charity Commission’s own due diligence on Hellmich, stating, “I’m one person, I don’t have a management team, the Charity Commission is a government body, did you do your due diligence? No.”

The proceedings saw some tense exchanges, with Judge Joe Neville intervening during cross-examination by Mr Sadiq. Campbell stated, “I’m here because I have been deceived, you are here because you have been deceived, so let’s both be respectful to each other.” Judge Neville later cautioned Mr Sadiq for being “unnecessarily challenging.” Campbell clarified that Fashion For Relief was established in the US in 2005 and “did not have a problem” before becoming a registered charity in the UK. She rejected the suggestion that her charity work was for “the PR,” stating, “I’m already famous enough.”

Source: Central London tribunal hearing

Why this matters: This case highlights the serious responsibilities of charity trustees and the potential for mismanagement, even in high-profile organisations. It underscores the importance of robust oversight and due diligence in the charity sector.

What this means for you: What this means for you: This case serves as a reminder for anyone involved in charity work, or donating to charities, about the necessity of ensuring proper governance and financial accountability to maintain public trust in the sector.

Related Articles

Get the news that matters.

Join thousands of readers getting the best of British news straight to their inbox.