0:00
0:00
Naomi Campbell Claims Unawareness of Financial Irregularities at Fashion for Relief.
Supermodel Campbell asserts that she was unaware of the mismanagement occurring at her charity while a tribunal assesses her disqualification by the Charity Commission.
Naomi Campbell, the globally renowned supermodel, has expressed that she was not aware of significant financial improprieties and mismanagement at Fashion for Relief, the anti-poverty organization she founded and served on the board for over five years.
Campbell was barred from running the charity in May 2024 following a watchdog investigation that revealed administrative disarray, fund misuse, and inadequate record-keeping.
The findings indicated that the charity spent tens of thousands of pounds on extravagant expenses like luxury hotel accommodations, flights, spa services, personal security, and cigarettes for Campbell, with only a fraction of the donations actually benefiting the intended charitable efforts.
At fifty-four years old, Campbell is attempting to challenge the five-year ban imposed by the Charity Commission.
During a charity tribunal session on Friday, her legal representatives contended that she was a victim of a deliberate deception by another trustee.
They claimed that a former trustee, Bianka Hellmich, utilized a fraudulent email account to impersonate Campbell in communications with legal representatives, a claim that Hellmich has denied.
A third former trustee, Veronica Chou, has chosen not to contest her disqualification.
Charity law specialists have noted that it is uncommon for a tribunal to overturn a disqualification order.
Liz Brownsell, who heads the charities division at the law firm Birketts, pointed out that active participation in a charity's management is a fundamental duty for trustees, and failure to act can be seen as mismanagement.
Faisel Sadiq, representing the Charity Commission, highlighted that Campbell’s involvement was mainly ceremonial and that her lack of engagement played a role in the commission’s decision.
In written arguments, Campbell’s attorney Andrew Westwood claimed that the disqualification order was issued without giving her the chance to review the documents the Commission relied upon or adequately respond to the allegations.
Campbell has asserted that she has been actively seeking to uncover the truth since the Commission’s report was released in September, emphasizing that she has never engaged in philanthropic activities for personal benefit.
The tribunal is now evaluating the evidence and legal points, including requests for the disclosure of Commission documents, to decide whether to reverse the disqualification.
Campbell was barred from running the charity in May 2024 following a watchdog investigation that revealed administrative disarray, fund misuse, and inadequate record-keeping.
The findings indicated that the charity spent tens of thousands of pounds on extravagant expenses like luxury hotel accommodations, flights, spa services, personal security, and cigarettes for Campbell, with only a fraction of the donations actually benefiting the intended charitable efforts.
At fifty-four years old, Campbell is attempting to challenge the five-year ban imposed by the Charity Commission.
During a charity tribunal session on Friday, her legal representatives contended that she was a victim of a deliberate deception by another trustee.
They claimed that a former trustee, Bianka Hellmich, utilized a fraudulent email account to impersonate Campbell in communications with legal representatives, a claim that Hellmich has denied.
A third former trustee, Veronica Chou, has chosen not to contest her disqualification.
Charity law specialists have noted that it is uncommon for a tribunal to overturn a disqualification order.
Liz Brownsell, who heads the charities division at the law firm Birketts, pointed out that active participation in a charity's management is a fundamental duty for trustees, and failure to act can be seen as mismanagement.
Faisel Sadiq, representing the Charity Commission, highlighted that Campbell’s involvement was mainly ceremonial and that her lack of engagement played a role in the commission’s decision.
In written arguments, Campbell’s attorney Andrew Westwood claimed that the disqualification order was issued without giving her the chance to review the documents the Commission relied upon or adequately respond to the allegations.
Campbell has asserted that she has been actively seeking to uncover the truth since the Commission’s report was released in September, emphasizing that she has never engaged in philanthropic activities for personal benefit.
The tribunal is now evaluating the evidence and legal points, including requests for the disclosure of Commission documents, to decide whether to reverse the disqualification.
