British supermodel Naomi Campbell has alleged in an appeal against a Charity Commission ban that her fellow trustee carried out a “concerted deception” against her.
It was revealed last year that the 54-year-old had been disqualified from being a charity trustee for five years after the watchdog – which regulates charities in England and Wales – found serious mismanagement of funds at Fashion for Relief, which she founded.
This included using charity funds to pay for her stay at a five-star hotel in Cannes, France, as well as spa treatments, room service and cigarettes.
The model has launched an appeal against her ban, claiming she was a “victim of fraud and forgery” – including a fake email account said to have been used to impersonate her in communications with lawyers.
Her case came before a tribunal on Friday in which lawyers for her and for the Commission variously applied for disclosure of documents.
In written arguments for Campbell, barrister Andrew Westwood KC said: “Ms Campbell says that the (disqualification) order was wrongly made because she was not able adequately, or at all, to deal with issues that arose with the running of Fashion For Relief and/or present her proper and accurate position during the process which led to the making of the order.
“That was so as a result of deception on the part of, at least, her co-trustee Ms Bianka Hellmich.”
Mr Westwood added: “From the further documents that have now been provided by the commission there is significant further evidence of motive on the part of, at least, Ms Hellmich for the concerted deception of Ms Campbell, both in relation to the commission’s inquiry that led to the making of the order and in the running of the charity more broadly.
“In particular, the documents appear to show that during the period that the charity was operational (2016-2021), Ms Hellmich was paid in excess of £500,000 out of charity funds.”
He argued that was “fundamentally unfair”, and applied for disclosure of the entirety of the commission’s investigation file, but this was rejected – with the judge ordering the commission to disclose a smaller amount of only relevant documents.
Faisel Sadiq, for the Charity Commission, said in written argument that Campbell is “positively asserting that she was the victim of fraud and forgery”.
“An important feature of the appellant’s grounds of appeal is that broadly she does not dispute that there was misconduct/mismanagement in the administration of the charity, but instead she contends that she was unaware of the misconduct/mismanagement due to wholesale deceit being perpetrated against her by a fellow trustee, Ms Bianka Hellmich,” he said.
“Indeed, the appellant goes so far as alleging that her signature on a document had been forged.”
Mr Sadiq told the tribunal on Friday that Campbell’s position “is not to criticise the commission”, but to say that it was a fraud and that her case in a nutshell is: “I knew nothing about it, I was a figurehead.”
He successfully applied for Campbell to disclose communications between herself and her fellow trustees.
In a statement on Wednesday, Campbell said: “I am grateful to the tribunal for allowing me to appeal the Charity Commission’s findings after considering the evidence I have submitted. Ever since the commission’s report, I have fought to uncover the facts. What has been unearthed so far is shocking.
“I want to shine a light on how easy it is to fake identities online and prevent anybody else going through what I have been through.
“I want to ensure that those responsible are held accountable and justice is done.”
She said this was “just the beginning” and reiterated that she has “never undertaken philanthropic work for personal gain, nor will I ever do so”.
A Charity Commission spokesperson said: “The commission notes the tribunal’s initial ruling and the judge’s comment that the case will require Ms Campbell to prove very serious allegations of wrongdoing against a fellow trustee.
“These are significant allegations for the courts to consider, and we will continue to co-operate fully with the tribunal as it does so.”
