When a non-profit’s finances depend on one person

In a non-profit, one person may handle purchases, collect invoices and report to the board on the organisation’s finances. With this arrangement, it is worth asking how others can verify that expenditure is justified and that the necessary approvals have actually been given.

Supermodel Naomi Campbell had entrusted the finances of Fashion for Relief, the charity she founded, to her adviser Bianka Hellmich. Both women served as trustees of the charity.

Hellmich had paid herself £290,572 in fees without the required approval. To try to prove that the payments had been approved, she used a forged letter presented in Campbell’s name. She also used an email address similar to Campbell’s real address to impersonate her.

In 2024, Campbell was disqualified from serving as a charity trustee for five years. A UK tribunal overturned the ban on 1 October 2026, finding that she had been unaware of the payments to Hellmich and would not have approved them. It also found that she shared responsibility with the other trustees for inadequate records of decisions and the late filing of accounts.

The abuse of Campbell’s trust therefore had consequences that extended far beyond the payments themselves. A lengthy dispute takes time and involves legal costs. Defending a reputation adds further strain, and rebuilding it may continue even after a favourable ruling.

Trust should be supported by working arrangements that make it possible to verify both the basis for a payment and who actually approved it. Clearly defined checks help protect the organisation’s funds and the people responsible for their use.

Each approver should know what to check

When setting up an approval workflow, a useful starting point is to agree who will check what. This makes it clear which details each person needs to verify and what their approval is based on.

Even for a small non-profit, I recommend the four-eyes principle as a minimum safeguard. This means involving at least two people in checking expenditure and making payments, with clearly agreed responsibilities.

The Charity Commission, which regulates charities in England and Wales, also recommends separating financial duties. Its internal financial controls guidance says that carrying out a transaction and authorising it should be handled by different people. In a small organisation, dividing responsibilities can also help prevent one person from becoming overloaded or having sole control.

Responsibilities for a purchase invoice can be allocated according to what each person knows.

• The person familiar with the purchase checks what the invoice covers. Have the goods or services been received, or is this an agreed advance payment? Do the quantities and prices match what was agreed?
• The person approving the expenditure checks that it is justified and within their authority. Is it consistent with the organisation’s activities and budget? Can they approve it themselves, or does it require board approval?
• The person making the payment checks the approval and payment details. Has the necessary approval been given? Are the recipient, amount and bank account correct, and is the invoice still unpaid?

These responsibilities can be allocated to suit the organisation’s size and resources. In a small non-profit, one person may take on more than one role, but involving a second person should serve a clear purpose. A payment to someone involved in the approval or payment process should be checked and approved by another authorised person.

This division of responsibilities also helps catch ordinary mistakes. The person who handled the order can assess whether the service matches what was agreed, while the person making the payment can focus on ensuring that the approved amount reaches the correct recipient.

The information behind an approval should be verifiable

Having several people involved does not guarantee that misleading information will be spotted. Estonia’s Information System Authority (RIA) has described a case in which a company received a €29,000 invoice for a membership fee. The invoice went through an approval workflow and the payment was authorised, but fraudsters had altered the bank details.

This example shows why invoice details should also be compared with information already on record. If a bank account has changed, RIA recommends contacting the business partner through another communication channel, for example by calling the contact named in the contract. A reply to the suspicious email may still come from the fraudster.

Internal approvals should also be linked to a specific invoice and amount. The quotation or contract, together with the explanations needed for the decision, should be kept with the invoice. The next person handling it can then see why the expenditure was approved.

An electronic approval workflow can also retain a record of who approved the invoice and when. If the invoice amount or payment details change after approval, the amended details should be checked again before payment.

Board members should be able to view financial reports and supporting transaction documents, and where necessary compare them with the bank statement. This enables them to ask specific questions and verify the information behind the answers.

Financial records and knowledge must survive board changes

In some organisations, the regular rotation of board members or those responsible for finances is part of the agreed governance arrangements. Day-to-day working practices should therefore allow for the handover of documents, outstanding tasks and records of decisions.

If the explanation for an expense exists only in a predecessor’s inbox or memory, the person taking over has to piece together earlier decisions. Missing explanations also make it harder to justify even a perfectly valid transaction to members or a funder.

Together, the invoice, the underlying agreement, the necessary explanation and the approval history preserve the organisation’s financial history and the reasons behind its decisions. A shared system keeps this information available for the next person taking responsibility. When people change roles, approvers and access permissions can be updated while retaining the history of earlier decisions.

This is one of the key benefits of an approval workflow. The reasons for spending the organisation’s money remain available even after the people who made those decisions have moved on to other responsibilities.

A useful starting point is to review a recently paid purchase invoice. Can another board member use the information available to understand what was paid for, who approved the expenditure and what the decision was based on? The answer shows how well the current arrangements support both financial oversight and the handover of responsibilities.

Trigon Community brings accounting for non-profits and purchase invoice approvals together in one system. The organisation can keep documents with their explanations, assign users permissions that reflect their responsibilities and see who approved an invoice and when. The approval workflow is included, and there is no additional charge for adding users. This makes it possible to involve the people needed for the checks and retain the organisation’s financial knowledge as responsibilities change. Explore Trigon Community’s features.