Naomi Campbell wins legal challenge to overturn five-year ban on being a charity trustee
Developing story first seen 2 hours ago
Naomi Campbell has won a tribunal ruling to overturn a five-year ban on serving as a charity trustee, originally imposed by the Charity Commission following an investigation into her Fashion For Relief charity. The tribunal found that whilst serious misconduct and mismanagement occurred within the charity, Campbell herself had been deceived by fellow trustee Bianka Hellmich, who used forged documents and false communications to conceal the misconduct from her.
The Charity Commission's investigation revealed that donations to Fashion For Relief were misused for personal expenses including Campbell's luxury accommodation in Cannes, spa treatments, room service and cigarettes. Three trustees were originally disqualified as a result: Hellmich for nine years, Veronica Chou for four years, and Campbell for five years. However, the tribunal determined that Campbell had not been involved in or aware of Hellmich's misconduct, and that her responsibility for late accounts filing did not render her unfit to serve as a trustee given the sustained deception she had faced.
- Naomi Campbell wins tribunal ruling to overturn five-year charity trustee ban.
- Tribunal found she was deceived by co-trustee who forged documents and concealed misconduct.
- Investigation revealed fund misuse including luxury hotel stays and spa treatments.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Campbell was the victim of sophisticated fraud perpetrated against her through forged documents and false communications, and the tribunal found she played no part in the misconduct. Permanently disqualifying someone from trusteeship for crimes committed against them—rather than by them—contradicts basic fairness and the rule of law. She should have the opportunity to return to charitable work and demonstrate reformed governance, particularly given that the actual fraudster received a longer ban.
The case against
Regardless of Campbell's personal innocence, her charity misappropriated substantial donor funds for luxury personal expenses whilst under her foundational oversight. The ban exists not as punishment but as assurance that trustees maintain rigorous governance standards and due diligence. The incident, whether through Campbell's negligence or the betrayal she suffered, represents a significant failure to safeguard charitable assets. Restoring her immediately raises legitimate questions about whether such protections for donors and charities remain sufficiently robust.