Naomi Campbell was given a five-year ban for her insane ‘Fashion for Relief’ grift

For many years, Naomi Campbell organized Fashion for Relief, a charity fashion show attached to London Fashion Week. There hasn’t been a Fashion for Relief event in years – since 2019, from what I can see. Fashion for Relief supposedly raised money to support charities working in Africa. Well, Britain’s Charity Commission did some digging and they discovered that nothing was as it seemed. Now Naomi Campbell has been banned from “being a charity trustee” for five years, following the Charity Commission’s investigation.

Naomi Campbell has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog investigation uncovered widespread evidence of financial misconduct at the poverty relief charity she founded. The supermodel was disqualified for five years after a Charity Commission inquiry found that Fashion for Relief passed on only a small fraction of the millions of pounds it raised from star-studded celebrity fashion events to good causes.

The charity inappropriately spent tens of thousands of pounds on luxury hotel rooms, flights, spa treatments, personal security and cigarettes for Campbell, while unauthorised consultancy payments running into hundreds of thousands of pounds were made to one of Campbell’s fellow trustees, the commission said.

It found that over a five-year period from 2016, Fashion for Relief raised just under £4.8m from a series of fashion shows but paid out only £389,000 in grants to partner charities once the cost of events and other expenses were accounted for.

Nearly £350,000 was later recovered from the charity by interim managers appointed by the commission and paid to the charities Save the Children and the Mayor’s Fund for London, which reported Fashion for Relief to the regulators four years ago after failing to receive promised payments from fundraising agreements..

Campbell’s fellow trustee Bianka Hellmich, who the inquiry found received £290,000 in unauthorised consultancy fees and £26,000 a year in travel expenses from the charity over a two-year period, was disqualified from being a charity trustee for nine years. Hellmich proposed to the commission to repay the fees and expenses in February 2022 and a repayment plan was agreed with the commission. The full amount was repaid in April 2023. A third trustee, Veronica Chou, was banned for four years.

Fashion for Relief has previously argued that it was not solely a fundraising charity but also a platform that, through its high-profile fundraising events, encouraged donors to give directly to its partner charities and good causes. The commission report, however, reveals that it did not immediately pay Save the Children €450,000 (£375,000) raised at a 2017 fundraising event. Fashion for Relief paid some of the funds, and the remaining money it owed – £147,000 – was eventually paid by Fashion for Relief’s interim managers in January 2023.

[From The Guardian]

The commission’s investigation also had details like Naomi using Fashion for Relief funds to stay at a “€3,000-a-night hotel room” in Cannes. She also used the charity’s funds for “just under €8,000 on spa treatments, room service, purchases of cigarettes and hotel products.” Sounds like she was using her charity as her own personal piggy bank. £4.8 million raised from Fashion for Relief events and only £389,000 in charitable grants? And Naomi was only suspended for five years? She should have been given a lifetime ban for this insane grift.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

29 Responses to “Naomi Campbell was given a five-year ban for her insane ‘Fashion for Relief’ grift”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lucía says:

    This is why I never understood the worship of this woman. Time and time again she has proved to be a despicable human being. Slaying will only take you so far.

    • CooCooCatchoo says:

      She rolled deep with people like Jeffrey Epstein and Diddy. Ugh – I’m so disappointed in her.

      • Nikki (Toronto) says:

        I’m deeply uncomfortable with this need to highlight the names of the young models hanging out with Epstein. Save that energy for the men. Many of the Supermodel era models were trafficked by their agencies – hell, it’s still happening. The fact that many of them, Naomi included, were 19 to 24 years old and “dating” middle-aged billionaires, who were all invited to Epstein’s island, should tell you something. When Naomi was “with Epstein,” she was dating Flavio Briatore (Heidi Klum’s eldest child’s father) – he’s always near her in the photos with EP.

        I have my theory on how Naomi supplements her income, but I believe in the early years, she was a victim, not a predator.

      • Emcee3 says:

        Men like Epstein compartmentalized their public persona, leveraging famous people to launder their reputation & avert the gossip.
        .
        We saw this with fashion/celebrity photographer Terry Richardson. There where whispers, but people hesitated to believe he was a predator to the nameless girls & women because he photographed President Obama…& Miley Cyrus consented to her nude photoshoot.

    • Kitten says:

      Yeah she caught a misdemeanor assault charge for throwing her phone at her maid and i STG people were like “SLAY GURL”.

      She is a really terrible person–always has been.

    • Emcee3 says:

      Not defending Naomi on this one, but putting some perspective on her behavior/actions. I think so much stems from her valid experience of racism in the industry. She spoke about this back in the day; Despite her massive popularity on the runway & demand for the seasonal print campaigns, she wasn’t offered a lucrative contract to be the “face” of a major cosmetics/fragrance line. I remember Christy & Kate each had one w/ Calvin Klein. Linda Evangelista had one w/ Chanel or Dior. Versace (ffs!!!!) didn’t seem to make the effort to court Naomi for the same deal she saw her friends getting.
      .
      I also remember some discussion from the 90s modeling industry, the agency negotiated & handled all the travel/hotel booking & expenses. Invisible stuff like this becomes reflexive in those high-profile / high-altitude environments. It just becomes assumed as the years go on. Lesson being: Naomi needed to do her non-profit homework.

      • theotherviv says:

        Not getting a beauty contract seemed like a sore point. Campaigns back then were not diverse and when they used WOC it was primarily ones with lighter skin and/or caucasian “features”. Naomi had her nose job later in life and I always wondered whether it was because of that. But she was HUGE and like Elle MacPherson, she was “THE BODY” and did not need a beauty contract. Out of the 90s supermodels she seems to thrive on fame most. She knows that charities exist to aid poor people. She’s been to Africa. She wasn’t born rich. Some of her fellow supermodels bought horse farms and shovelled manure. I think she knows the cost of things but feels she deserves it, no matter what. Plenty of celebrities support charities and pay their own way or offer to reimburse their expenses. She decided unlimited room service, a massage and cigarettes on donated money was fine despite being independently wealthy . She produced TV shows and built houses but didn’t look into the finances of something she chaired and signed as a trustee for? Yes, she really needed to do the homework.

      • NariB says:

        @EMCEE3 you say you are not defending her then you promptly try to give a justification for her ripping of a charity. Was the not getting of a contract what “forced” her to accept blood diamonds from Charles Taylor? I am sure his victims would empathise if they hadn’t been raped and buried alive. She is an amoral person who is always near or at the centre of cadres of despicable people. She is drawn to corruption.

  2. Wow that was quite the grift! She should be banned for life. Now they need to do a deep dig on the royal foundation charity wonder what they would find going wrong there? Oops no they would never do a deep dive on them.

    • Kathleen says:

      £389k in donations on collections of £4.8M? Her donation to collection rate is worthy of the royals. The Wails have a similar record.

  3. Steph says:

    Is the ban specifically for Fashion for Relief or for all charities?

  4. Cheshire Sass says:

    Naomi has shown herself for years to be a terrible human. Why would anyone think that she would be a humanitarian ambassador for charities ? Idk people will tell & show you who they are. Believe them.

  5. Laalaa says:

    Banned? How about charged with fraud? This would happen in my country.

    • Kirsten says:

      Yeah I don’t understand why she isn’t being charged with fraud and embezzlement. This is the purposeful misuse of millions in funds.

  6. K says:

    Karma is the hautest bitch on the runway. Watch out cause Naomi’s name is out there.

  7. ANDREA1 says:

    Stealing from charity is really the lowest of all lows. She should be banned for life. This woman has continuously shown her hands that she is a very despicable human yet people continue to grant her audience and grace.

  8. Alice B. Tokeless says:

    She’s always been trash. That level of fraud should have her behind bars.

  9. Amy Bee says:

    Terrible.

  10. Nanea says:

    I’d like to know how the Commonwealth Trust plans on continuing with her.

    They could have gone on the record by having the Guardian include a message from them in their reporting.

    The longer they wait with announcing anything on behalf of the CT, the more their brand will be damaged.

  11. Stef says:

    She’s always been kinda terrible, violent, and selfish. She was notorious for her temper tantrums and phone throwing in the 90’s, didn’t realize she also scammed her charity for “personal expenses”.

    How horrible and out of touch do you have to be to scan a charity that feeds starving children? Yikes.

  12. Kat says:

    I have never liked this bi*ch.

    Even at the height of the Supermodels of the 90s era.

    She’s trash, always has been.

    I will eat my hat if she isn’t part of this Sean Combs crime syndicate horrendousness, even peripherally.

  13. Traveller says:

    You have to be some deep level of awful to be rich and stealing from a charity.
    That’s why I go to the charitynavigator.org site to check them out before giving to any charity.
    I just have to hope their ratings are legit – it’s so sad that you have to be skeptical of everyone these days.

  14. StillDouchesOfCambridge says:

    Scandalous. I hope she’s ashamed and hides.

    • TN Democrat says:

      This sounds like deliberate fraud that should have resulted in crime prosecution/jail time. She should be banned from ever setting foot near charity again and publically disgraced.

  15. Laura says:

    Most big charities are just well publicized money laundering schemes (I’m a social assistant and see this everyday).
    Celeb charities?? Can’t think of a single one that seems legit. In my country, at least, there are none.

  16. Maggielou says:

    Getting off easy if you ask me. Only being banned from being a “charity trustee”, after fraudulently raising funds for “charity”, then embezzling said cash for your Euro trash lifestyle. Karma going to get you. Seems to have already started, did a double take when I saw her photo, plastic surgery to her face is so jarring I did not recognize her. What is that old saying “At fifty you get the face you deserve”

  17. Sara says:

    I know its late and no one will see this but does the UK not have the whole you rip off a charity for millions of dollars you go to jail law?

  18. Gewels says:

    She was in actual fact banned for having an obscene evoense account – hello charities! A lot of fundraising charities do this – for the people here calling her trash, you are saying her doing what charity bosses do, but on a supermodel scale – means she’s a horrible person?
    Why would she be going to jail – she’s not been accused of theft.
    In fact no one here is mentioning the other trustee who was paid hundreds of thousands in shady consultancy fees 🤔 and was nade to repay them 🙄. It’s all Naomi is this or that.