‘Giving Back Has Been Part of Who I Am’: Naomi Campbell Wins Legal Battle to Overturn Five-Year Charity Ban

Naomi Campbell spent decades turning one of fashion’s most recognizable names into a platform that extended far beyond the runway. But the supermodel’s philanthropic reputation took a serious hit when British regulators banned her from running a charity following allegations of lavish spending and financial mismanagement.

For Charity

Now Campbell has scored a major legal victory that changes the narrative around what happened behind the scenes at Fashion for Relief, the organization she founded more than two decades ago.

This week a first-tier tribunal overturned Campbell’s five-year disqualification from serving as a charity trustee after concluding that she had been deceived by fellow trustee Bianka Hellmich. The ruling clears Campbell, 56, to once again serve as a trustee in England and Wales.

“Giving back has been part of who I am, so having that questioned hurt deeply,” Campbell said following the decision, according to The Associated Press. She said she was “so grateful” for the ruling and hoped to return to helping others.

Fashion for Relief was launched in 2005 following Hurricane Katrina. Campbell used her celebrity and fashion-industry relationships to stage high-profile fundraising events designed to fight poverty and support humanitarian causes.

But the charity eventually became the subject of a Charity Commission investigation.

The regulator found “multiple instances of misconduct and/or mismanagement.”

Expenses scrutinized included a five-star hotel stay in Cannes, spa treatments, room service, and cigarettes. The commission ultimately banned Campbell from serving as a trustee for five years. Fashion for Relief was dissolved and removed from the charity register in 2024.

The Guardian previously reported that the commission accused Campbell of having “completely abdicated” her responsibilities and argued during her appeal that she was unfit to serve as a trustee.

Campbell, however, maintained that the story regulators initially saw was not the full story.

During a four-day tribunal hearing in June, she argued that Hellmich had deceived her, falsely presented herself as a qualified charity lawyer and forged documents.

Campbell described trusting Hellmich as her “only mistake.”

This tribunal ultimately agreed that the deception dramatically changed Campbell’s level of responsibility.

Judges acknowledged “serious misconduct and mismanagement” at Fashion for Relief but determined that the most serious financial problems resulted from Hellmich’s conduct and had been concealed from Campbell. The tribunal found that Hellmich used forged documents while misleading Campbell, professional advisers and even the Charity Commission.

That distinction proved critical.

Campbell was not completely absolved of every governance failure.

Judges found that she shared responsibility for Fashion for Relief failing to file accounts on time. But they concluded that the administrative failure was not enough to establish that she was unfit to serve as a charity trustee.

The tribunal also rejected suggestions that Campbell had attempted to manipulate the public narrative surrounding the scandal.

The judges found her evidence to be honest and concluded that she did not know about Hellmich’s more serious conduct. The newspaper reported that Campbell’s successful appeal is only the second time a Charity Commission trustee disqualification has been overturned.

Hellmich previously denied Campbell’s accusations, saying there was “absolutely no truth” to them. She was disqualified from serving as a trustee for nine years. Fellow trustee Veronica Chou received a four-year disqualification.

The Oct. 1 ruling does not erase Fashion for Relief’s financial problems. It does, however, draw a significant distinction between mismanagement that occurred inside the organization and what Campbell personally knew or authorized.

The Charity Commission acknowledged that distinction following the ruling.

“The court recognised that Ms Campbell, the commission and the law firm concerned were subject to sophisticated deception,” a commission spokesperson said. The regulator said it had referred the matter to London’s Metropolitan Police.

For Campbell, the decision restores something potentially more valuable than the right to sit on a charity board: her ability to argue that the scandal that threatened her philanthropic legacy was not what it first appeared to be.