Mohamed Al-Fayed: The answer behind the accusations

Mohamed Abdel Moneim Al-Fayed, a renowned Egyptian billionaire most widely known for his ownership of Harrods and Fulham F.C., was a keen businessman in the 20th Century. He appeared a prosperous, charitable gentleman who knew well his way around the corporate sphere, however following his death on the 30th of August 2023, accusations and allegations emerged from the shadow Al-Fayed had left behind. I, as an enthusiastic Fulham supporter, was greatly intrigued upon hearing these breakthroughs surface and I plan to shed light on the full legal situation about Al-Fayed’s case, including some history, what had taken place, and what can be done to repair the damage left behind by the billionaire.

Firstly, a brief introduction to the foundation of Al-Fayed’s most successful businesses would freshen the perspective with which one will view this article. In 1984, the entrepreneur Al-Fayed and his brother Ali bought a thirty per cent stake in the House of Fraser, the group which contained the department store Harrods, for £138 million from Roland Rowland, an old business partner and adversary of Al-Fayed’s who had been pursuing the ownership of the House of Fraser since 1977. Rowland was doubtful that Al-Fayed would have the money to buy full ownership. Still, he was proven wrong when his old partner bought the remaining seventy per cent stake for £615 million, souring their relationship even further.

This provided Al-Fayed with ownership of Harrods, which accounted for half of the House of Fraser’s profits, even though it was going through a rough patch then. In more or less the same way, Al-Fayed purchased Fulham F.C. through the Muddyman’s Muddyman Group for £6.25 million in 1997. Ever since his ownership, Fulham rose from their position in Division One to become a Premier League team in the 2001-02 season under their appointed manager Jean Tigata. In both his ownership of the department store and the football club, Al-Fayed showed great passion towards the businesses that he owned and put great effort into the contributions he made to them.

However, while this story was being told on the outside, another was being narrated on the internal side of things. Mohamed Al-Fayed is being accused by a shockingly large group of female employees of sexual harassment, assault and ultimately unacceptable sexist behaviour. It was revealed in a 1995 profile by Maureen Orth in Vanity Fair that young women with the intent of applying for working positions at Harrods would be tested for HIV and led into gynaecologist examinations, then were “selected” to spend time with Al-Fayed in Paris. Not only this but Fayed was reported to be walking through the store “on the lookout for young, attractive women to work at his office.” He then sued Vanity Fair, resulting in no damages paid except the company’s obligation to put away all evidence into locked storage.

Furthermore, more about this case came out just recently in September 2024, when twenty female Harrods employees came forward to allege that Al-Fayed had sexually assaulted all of them, five of them even stating that he raped them. Moreover, the former manager of the women’s club Fulham L.F.C., Gaute Haugenes said at the same time that players were not allowed to be left alone with Al-Fayed to protect themselves from him. On the 21st of September 2024, Dean Armstrong KC, the barrister representing alleged victims of Fayed’s crimes, said that even though his team had thirty-seven clients, he had been contacted by about one hundred and fifty people. For these accusations to come out so much later even when the perpetrator himself is a year dead, it begs the question: Why didn’t this come out sooner?

The most prominent answer to this is the “culture of fear” that ran through Harrods, even reaching up to the most senior roles. All of the women spoken to who had come forward claimed that they were “too intimidated at work to speak out,” due to believing that their phones were tapped and that they were being recorded by hidden cameras. The ex-deputy director of security at Harrods, Eamon Coyle, backed these statements by sharing how “part of his job was to listen to tapes of recorded calls.” He also stated that “he [Fayed] bugged everybody that he wanted to bug.” The NDAs that employees had to sign would also ask for the confidentiality of the information about the business. This intimidation was so ever-present that justice couldn’t be delivered until much later.

As for the law itself, Al-Fayed’s allegations accuse him of breaking the law under the Sexual Offence Act 2003 on many different occasions, including the sexual assault of a minor and the rape of some employees. Usually, these offences would be collected to mean a maximum life sentence in prison. However, as these allegations have come out a year after Al-Fayed’s death, there is no direct perpetrator to pursue. So, one is most likely left asking: How can justice be delivered?

As of the 8th of November, the Met Police have made an executive decision to refer two Al-Fayed complaints to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, (IOPC), as the Met’s Special Crime Team’s Commander, Stephen Clayman, found that “it is only appropriate that the IOPC assess these complaints.” This is not a massive jump in progression, but will hopefully be one of the small steps towards a just end. In any case the IOPC will have better conscience while “assessing” the cases, as they speak more about how the allegations were handled by police at the time, rather than at this current juncture. Nothing has come out from the news and affiliate sources about there being a prosecution to come, but as the truth of these allegations is readily apparent, one can expect the victims to be able to pursue a case against Harrods, or at least be given compensation for the assaults against them. However, most victims have stated how money isn’t the main focus of the case, the main point being the shedding of light on the atrocious acts of the “benevolent” billionaire.

Fundamentally, the allegations against the late Mohamed Al-Fayed have certainly ruined his legacy, as well as the reputation of his main business, Harrods, as higher-ups in the firm had been aware of the owner’s scandals, yet had said nothing. Al-Fayed’s other companies, such as Fulham F.C. will most likely be less affected by these allegations, as Al-Fayed was not as in control of the club’s decisions as he was with the department store. The victims have the right to pursue compensation against Harrods for the late owner’s breaking of the Sexual Offence Act 2003, but we will have to see in the coming months what the Met Police’s review of the case will discover. For now, one can only hope that the proper amount of justice is served and that the exploiting Mohamed Al-Fayed’s victims receive their lawfully right amount of compensation. 

Mohamed Abdel Moneim Al-Fayed, a renowned Egyptian billionaire most widely known for his ownership of Harrods and Fulham F.C., was a keen businessman in the 20th Century. He appeared a prosperous, charitable gentleman who knew well his way around the corporate sphere, however following his death on the 30th of August 2023, accusations and allegations emerged from the shadow Al-Fayed had left behind. I, as an enthusiastic Fulham supporter, was greatly intrigued upon hearing these breakthroughs surface and I plan to shed light on the full legal situation about Al-Fayed’s case, including some history, what had taken place, and what can be done to repair the damage left behind by the billionaire.

Firstly, a brief introduction to the foundation of Al-Fayed’s most successful businesses would freshen the perspective with which one will view this article. In 1984, the entrepreneur Al-Fayed and his brother Ali bought a thirty per cent stake in the House of Fraser, the group which contained the department store Harrods, for £138 million from Roland Rowland, an old business partner and adversary of Al-Fayed’s who had been pursuing the ownership of the House of Fraser since 1977. Rowland was doubtful that Al-Fayed would have the money to buy full ownership. Still, he was proven wrong when his old partner bought the remaining seventy per cent stake for £615 million, souring their relationship even further.

This provided Al-Fayed with ownership of Harrods, which accounted for half of the House of Fraser’s profits, even though it was going through a rough patch then. In more or less the same way, Al-Fayed purchased Fulham F.C. through the Muddyman’s Muddyman Group for £6.25 million in 1997. Ever since his ownership, Fulham rose from their position in Division One to become a Premier League team in the 2001-02 season under their appointed manager Jean Tigata. In both his ownership of the department store and the football club, Al-Fayed showed great passion towards the businesses that he owned and put great effort into the contributions he made to them.

However, while this story was being told on the outside, another was being narrated on the internal side of things. Mohamed Al-Fayed is being accused by a shockingly large group of female employees of sexual harassment, assault and ultimately unacceptable sexist behaviour. It was revealed in a 1995 profile by Maureen Orth in Vanity Fair that young women with the intent of applying for working positions at Harrods would be tested for HIV and led into gynaecologist examinations, then were “selected” to spend time with Al-Fayed in Paris. Not only this but Fayed was reported to be walking through the store “on the lookout for young, attractive women to work at his office.” He then sued Vanity Fair, resulting in no damages paid except the company’s obligation to put away all evidence into locked storage.

Furthermore, more about this case came out just recently in September 2024, when twenty female Harrods employees came forward to allege that Al-Fayed had sexually assaulted all of them, five of them even stating that he raped them. Moreover, the former manager of the women’s club Fulham L.F.C., Gaute Haugenes said at the same time that players were not allowed to be left alone with Al-Fayed to protect themselves from him. On the 21st of September 2024, Dean Armstrong KC, the barrister representing alleged victims of Fayed’s crimes, said that even though his team had thirty-seven clients, he had been contacted by about one hundred and fifty people. For these accusations to come out so much later even when the perpetrator himself is a year dead, it begs the question: Why didn’t this come out sooner?

The most prominent answer to this is the “culture of fear” that ran through Harrods, even reaching up to the most senior roles. All of the women spoken to who had come forward claimed that they were “too intimidated at work to speak out,” due to believing that their phones were tapped and that they were being recorded by hidden cameras. The ex-deputy director of security at Harrods, Eamon Coyle, backed these statements by sharing how “part of his job was to listen to tapes of recorded calls.” He also stated that “he [Fayed] bugged everybody that he wanted to bug.” The NDAs that employees had to sign would also ask for the confidentiality of the information about the business. This intimidation was so ever-present that justice couldn’t be delivered until much later.

As for the law itself, Al-Fayed’s allegations accuse him of breaking the law under the Sexual Offence Act 2003 on many different occasions, including the sexual assault of a minor and the rape of some employees. Usually, these offences would be collected to mean a maximum life sentence in prison. However, as these allegations have come out a year after Al-Fayed’s death, there is no direct perpetrator to pursue. So, one is most likely left asking: How can justice be delivered?

As of the 8th of November, the Met Police have made an executive decision to refer two Al-Fayed complaints to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, (IOPC), as the Met’s Special Crime Team’s Commander, Stephen Clayman, found that “it is only appropriate that the IOPC assess these complaints.” This is not a massive jump in progression, but will hopefully be one of the small steps towards a just end. In any case the IOPC will have better conscience while “assessing” the cases, as they speak more about how the allegations were handled by police at the time, rather than at this current juncture. Nothing has come out from the news and affiliate sources about there being a prosecution to come, but as the truth of these allegations is readily apparent, one can expect the victims to be able to pursue a case against Harrods, or at least be given compensation for the assaults against them. However, most victims have stated how money isn’t the main focus of the case, the main point being the shedding of light on the atrocious acts of the “benevolent” billionaire.

Fundamentally, the allegations against the late Mohamed Al-Fayed have certainly ruined his legacy, as well as the reputation of his main business, Harrods, as higher-ups in the firm had been aware of the owner’s scandals, yet had said nothing. Al-Fayed’s other companies, such as Fulham F.C. will most likely be less affected by these allegations, as Al-Fayed was not as in control of the club’s decisions as he was with the department store. The victims have the right to pursue compensation against Harrods for the late owner’s breaking of the Sexual Offence Act 2003, but we will have to see in the coming months what the Met Police’s review of the case will discover. For now, one can only hope that the proper amount of justice is served and that the exploiting Mohamed Al-Fayed’s victims receive their lawfully right amount of compensation.