Naomi Campbell Cleared: Tribunal Overturns Charity Trustee Ban, Blames Deceit by Fellow Trustee

Naomi Campbell has won her appeal against a five-year ban on serving as a charity trustee, after a tribunal concluded that the supermodel was deliberately kept in the dark about financial misconduct at the charity she founded, Fashion for Relief.

The ruling, handed down by the First-Tier Tribunal on Thursday, overturns a 2024 disqualification imposed after the Charity Commission found “serious mismanagement and/or misconduct” at the organisation, including funds spent on luxury hotels and spa treatments rather than the causes they were meant to support.

Campbell established Fashion for Relief in 2005 to raise money for victims of Hurricane Katrina, and the charity went on to run high-profile fundraising campaigns for disasters and humanitarian causes around the world. But it was shut down in 2023 following a Charity Commission inquiry, which found the organisation had failed to pass on as much donated money as it should have. Campbell and two fellow trustees were subsequently barred from trustee roles for five years.

Campbell fought the ban, arguing that a fellow trustee, lawyer Bianka Hellmich, had forged her signature and used a fake email address impersonating her to divert funds away from the charity’s intended purposes. At a tribunal hearing in June, Campbell said her “only mistake” had been trusting Hellmich. Hellmich has consistently denied the allegations.

The three-person tribunal panel sided decisively with Campbell, finding that her account of being deceived was backed up by documentary evidence. “For the avoidance of doubt, we accept that both Ms Campbell’s evidence, as well as her conduct during the operation of the Charity, was entirely honest,” the panel wrote.

Judges pointed to specific examples, including a 2018 trip to the south of France where €4,386 (£3,750) in hotel expenses — among them £1,100 for room-service dinners, £990 for spa treatments and £95 for cigarettes — were charged to the charity without Campbell’s knowledge.

“The panel is satisfied that Ms Campbell was not responsible for the inappropriate use of the charity’s resources or any unjustified expenditure, nor did she contribute or facilitate it,” the ruling stated. The tribunal did find that Campbell bore some responsibility for administrative lapses, such as late filing of accounts and missing minutes, but said these failings were not serious enough to justify disqualification.

Investigators had previously identified more than £290,000 in unauthorised payments made to Hellmich under the guise of consultancy fees. According to the tribunal, Hellmich “deceived Ms Campbell, used forged documents and a false email address purporting to belong to her, and also deceived professional advisers and the Commission.” The panel concluded that Campbell “had no reasonable basis to suspect Ms Hellmich’s dishonesty before regulatory concerns emerged and, when they did, Ms Campbell took reasonable steps in response.”

Speaking after the judgment, Campbell expressed relief and gratitude. “Giving back has been part of who I am, so having that questioned hurt deeply,” she said. “Now I can get back to what matters most to me: being there for the people and communities I’ve always wanted to serve. Thank you to my higher power.”

Hellmich, for her part, has rejected Campbell’s version of events. In comments to the Financial Times earlier this year, she called the accusations “false” and said they were “a device carefully designed to paint her as a victim, while scapegoating a so-called friend.” She added that she had “fully co-operated with the Charity Commission over the past six years” and said she hoped “Naomi finds peace and happiness in her future.”

The Charity Commission, which had opposed Campbell’s appeal and argued the ban should stand, issued a statement acknowledging the tribunal’s findings. “We made the disqualification order for Ms Campbell based on the evidence available to us at the time,” a spokesperson said. “The court recognised that Ms Campbell, the Commission and the law firm concerned were subject to sophisticated deception by one of the other trustees. This was referred to the Metropolitan Police when we became aware. We acknowledge and will reflect on the court’s decision and are considering any wider implications for our work.”

The regulator noted that its intervention had at least ensured other charities, including Save the Children, recovered almost £250,000 they were owed as a result of the mismanagement.

For Campbell, the ruling closes a difficult chapter that threatened to tarnish decades of charitable work alongside her modelling career. For the Charity Commission, the case raises awkward questions about how such a sophisticated deception was allowed to unfold under its watch — and what safeguards might be needed to prevent similar episodes in future.