Former Director Alleges Al Fayed Used Cash to Control Harrods Managers

An anonymous former director informed the BBC that Mohamed Al Fayed manipulated Harrods managers to hide his illicit activities, dismissing those who resisted his influence. Jon Brilliant, who was employed in Al Fayed’s private office for 18 months, stated that the deceased businessman provided him with cash-filled envelopes, amounting to approximately $50,000 (£39,000), in an attempt to compromise and exert control over him. “He tried to own you. And ultimately, I got fired because I couldn’t be bought,” he says. Harrods did not issue a response regarding Mr. Brilliant’s assertions. The company had previously expressed being “utterly appalled” by the allegations of abuse, further stating that it is now a “very different organisation to the one owned and controlled by Al Fayed”. Mr. Brilliant recounted feeling “horrified” upon learning of the allegations that Al Fayed had abused hundreds of women, and he expressed self-reproach over whether he should have scrutinized anything more closely. He informed the BBC about instances of surveillance, dismissals, and an organizational culture structured to prevent senior managers from developing trust or engaging in communication with each other. This environment hindered their ability to fulfill their directorial responsibilities, which included exercising independent judgment and scrutinizing Al Fayed’s authority, or to pose questions that might have uncovered more details about his treatment of women. “I 100% can see how the management structure and culture was set up to cover it up, mask it from people,” says Mr Brilliant. Four additional former directors have anonymously corroborated aspects of this description. Mr. Brilliant, a US citizen, was 36 years old when he commenced employment with the company in August 2000, having been recruited to re-establish the Harrods online operation. He recounted that just prior to his initial business journey to Microsoft in Seattle, Al Fayed presented him with a brown envelope holding $5,000 (£3,993) in $50 denominations. Following the trip, he attempted to give back the entire sum. He stated that Al Fayed declined, inquiring, “You didn’t need any entertainment?” Mr. Brilliant responded that it was unnecessary, explaining that he had been too occupied to attend the cinema or theatre, and his dinner expenses had been covered by another individual. The practice of receiving cash before business trips, consisting of high-denomination notes in pounds, francs, or dollars based on his travel destination, persisted for the subsequent six months. At that time, three senior colleagues indicated to Mr. Brilliant that Al Fayed was attempting to put him in a compromising position. Mr Brilliant says they told him: “He was trying to get you to come back and say ‘oh, I spent money on drugs or I spent money frolicking, doing something that I shouldn’t have been doing,’ and that he would then use that information against you if you should ever turn on him.” He adds: “I am certainly aware of people who… succumbed to the temptation.” Mr. Brilliant persisted in his efforts to return the funds until his family relocated to London and he began searching for a residence. With Al Fayed’s approval, he allocated the money towards acquiring a property. Al Fayed had a history of employing cash envelopes as a means of exerting power and control. This practice led to a scandal in the 1990s when he compensated Members of Parliament to pose questions in the House of Commons, subsequently revealing the identities of those who had accepted his offerings. Mr. Brilliant suspects he was also subjected to Al Fayed’s widespread use of eavesdropping and monitoring, which was conducted by the Harrods owner’s substantial security team. “Even when I tell this story to you right now, I get kind of goosebumps and the hair stands up on the back of my neck, realising that my phones were being listened in on,” he says. Mr. Brilliant’s initial suspicion of being bugged arose in 2002, just prior to his dismissal. Following a dispute concerning the financing of Fulham FC, remarks from a private telephone discussion with an individual in the US were repeated to him during a meeting. An additional former Harrods director, who requested anonymity, informed us that upon commencing his employment at the store, he moved into a property owned by Al Fayed, where a member of the security team cautioned him that it was bugged. The director recounted that he and his wife would playfully greet the security guards, who they believed might be listening, with “good morning” upon waking. He observed that numerous directors maintained both a personal mobile phone and a work phone, due to concerns that the Harrods-issued phone could be monitored. Mr. Brilliant, now residing back in the US, expressed being “dumbfounded” upon initially learning about the BBC investigation. “I do look back and say, ‘should I have seen something? Did I miss something?’ And I’ve gone over it and over it,” he says. He was employed in Al Fayed’s “ring of steel” office suite, located on the fifth floor of Harrods and secured by two sets of security doors. He noted the presence of a group of administrative assistants who were all young, blonde, and attractive. Mr. Brilliant characterized them as “obedient”. He explains: “There was this notion of ‘do this, jump, how high should I jump?’ – and really being on the ball. Mohamed demanded a lot of people, and they were serving their role.” He further stated that he now wonders if the women behaved in that manner due to potential underlying circumstances. When questioned about whether he ought to have taken more action to safeguard the women, he indicated that he ponders if it would have been possible. “I wasn’t privy to that amount of information that would otherwise suggest that there was something deeper going on.” Mr. Brilliant asserted that Harrods’ managers were pitted against one another and subsequently tasked with monitoring their competitors. Beyond