Naomi Campbell arriving at a central London tribunal for a hearing in an appeal against her charity commission ban. Alamy Stock Photo
London
She was banned in 2024 after a watchdog found serious mismanagement of funds at a charity she founded.
BRITISH SUPERMODEL NAOMI Campbell has arrived at London court to give evidence of how she was “deceived” in her appeal against a Charity Commission ban.
In 2024 , it was revealed the 56-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.
Campbell was one of three of the charity’s trustees to be disqualified as a result of the probe, with Bianka Hellmich disqualified for nine years, and Veronica Chou for four years.
The model launched an appeal against her ban last year, 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.
Campbell arrived at court to give evidence to a tribunal this morning, hoping to overturn her ban.
In a written statement provided before she gave evidence, Campbell said: “I am bringing this appeal to shine a light on the deception I believe was waged against the charity, stopping money from going to the causes it was supposed to.
“My investigation has revealed identity fraud and deception and helps uncover why most of the funds weren’t used as intended.
“What my legal team has unearthed is shocking, involving fake email addresses and forged communications with the authorities.
“I am pleased the tribunal has given me the chance to speak out, to ensure those responsible are held accountable and justice is done.
“As I have said before, I have never undertaken philanthropic work for personal gain, nor will I ever do so.”
Campbell is currently giving evidence to the tribunal in person.
Read the full article at TheJournal.ie →📄Source document: Charity Commission inquiry findings
2 reports
RTÉ NewsState / PublicCenter5 days ago Campbell says she was 'deceived' in charity ban appealBritish supermodel Naomi Campbell has arrived at court in the UK to provide evidence in her appeal against a five-year ban from serving as a charity trustee. The ban was imposed by the Charity Commission following an inquiry into the charity Fashion for Relief, which Campbell founded. The commission found that charity funds were used for personal expenses such as hotel stays, spa treatments, and other services. Campbell, along with two other trustees, was disqualified, though the durations of their bans differ. She claims she is a victim of fraud and forgery and alleges that a fake email was用来
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information without overtly biased language or framing. It reports on legal proceedings involving a public figure and does not take a stance on the validity of her claims or the actions of the Charity Commission.
Official sources cited
- government Charity Commission inquiry findings
TheJournal.ieIndependentCenter5 days ago Naomi Campbell tells court she was 'victim of fraud' in appeal against charity banBritish supermodel Naomi Campbell appeared in court to appeal a five-year ban from serving as a charity trustee, imposed by the UK Charity Commission due to alleged mismanagement of funds at her charity, Fashion for Relief. The commission found that Campbell used charity money for personal expenses such as hotel stays, spa treatments, and other luxury items. Campbell claims she was a victim of fraud and forgery, citing a fake email account used to impersonate her during legal proceedings. She is appealing the decision, seeking to overturn the ban.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information without overtly favoring one side. It reports on Campbell's claim of being a victim of fraud and her appeal against the charity commission's findings, while also detailing the allegations made by the commission. There is no clear ideological framing or biased