Ex-CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch Questioned Over Sex Trafficking Allegations

Michael Jeffries, the ex-chief executive of Abercrombie & Fitch, has recently had his capacity to stand trial in a sex trafficking case questioned by a federal judge. Given his age of 80 and a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease necessitating constant supervision, Jeffries’ attorneys have cast doubt on his ability to fairly participate in court proceedings. This led to the judge ordering a hospital evaluation of Jeffries with the intent to assess whether his mental state may potentially improve over time. The ex-CEO had earlier secured his release via a bond following his denial of guilt regarding federal sex trafficking charges filed against him in October.

The allegations against Jeffries contain chilling details of his supposed actions, recruiting men for ostentatious global events under the guise of advancing their modeling careers with the renowned brand. Besides Jeffries, charges have also been brought against his romantic partner and another co-defendant over purported attempts to entice men towards illicit drugand sex-filled gatherings in exchange for professional modeling opportunities. These serious allegations are based on widespread claims about a pattern of sexual misconduct that has reportedly been ongoing for multiple years.

The charges leveled against Jeffries and his co-defendants are the culmination of a two-year long investigatory effort by the British Broadcasting Company. The BBC managed to secure conversations with twelve individuals who either attended or helped organise the parties for Jeffries and his partner, Matthew Smith, during a six-year span from 2009 to 2015. Of those testimonies, eight men expressed that they were methodically persuaded into attending through a network operated by a recruiter, who intriguingly was described as having a snake skin patch covering a absent nose.

The alleged intermediary, James Jacobson, purportedly baited some attendees with the likelihood of securing a role as an Abercrombie & Fitch model while with others, he was more direct about sexual expectations. The dynamics of the the engagements were often misrepresented, according to the men. Strikingly, most accounts mention that Jacobson would ‘audition’ these men sexually prior to arranging their introduction to Jeffries and Smith.

One hopeful model, David Bradberry, claimed that Jacobson explicitly stated that refusing to partake in oral sex meant no possibility of any future meetings with either Jeffries or Abercrombie & Fitch. Bradberry received $500 after the incident. Bradberry also narrated a separate occasion at Jeffries’ previous Hamptons residence, where after discussing his career goals, Jeffries supposedly administered a ‘popper,’ a disorienting, quick-acting recreational drug, and then had sex with him.

According to other testimonies, these parties would often host multiple male recruits, all reportedly pressured into engaging in sexual activities with Smith and Jeffries. The couple would either engage sexually with about four men or instruct the men to be sexually active with each other. At the end of these parties, the staff would compensate the attendees with large sums of money tucked into envelopes.

One struggling model articulated his perception of Jeffrey as the mastermind behind this entire scheme, referring to him as the ‘kingpin’ of a ‘well-oiled machine.’ According to him, Jeffries knowingly exploited individuals who found themselves at vulnerable positions in life. This testimony, along with others were meticulously scrutinised by the BBC, with additional measures such as document verification and corroborating resources being employed to ensure authenticity of the information.

In response to these allegations, Jacobson firmly denied engaging in any behavior that could be classified as ‘coercive, deceptive or forceful.’ He maintained that the participants had attended these parties fully aware of what was in store. In regards to allegations of misleading potential models with promises of lucrative career opportunities, Jacobson claimed to have no recollection of such interactions.

Abercrombie & Fitch, on learning of their former leader’s alleged activities, expressed profound shock and disgust. They declared that their executive team was entirely unacquainted with the accusations against Jeffries. Responding promptly to the allegations published in the BBC’s investigation, the company has initiated an independent review of the issues highlighted.

Jeffries’ tenure as CEO was during Abercrombie & Fitch’s pinnacle years in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He managed to morph the struggling company into a thriving teen retailer brand, capitalizing on racy marketing strategies such as semi-nude models both in store posters and at entrances. This phase saw Jeffries become one of America’s highest-paid CEOs. Despite his business successes, Jeffries and the company encountered numerous hurdles.

In 2003, Jeffries and his company found themselves at the heart of a lawsuit where employees alleged discrimination. They claimed they were systematically sidelined from public-facing roles or even discouraged from applying to certain positions. Abercrombie & Fitch, in response to the accusations, denied any and all malpractice and decided to settle the lawsuit for $40 million.

Not only were the discrimination charges a bone of contention at Abercrombie & Fitch, but Jeffries’ excessive expenditures and the subsequent boosting of Smith’s influence within the company also raised multiple eyebrows. In 2014, amidst decreasing profitability, Jeffries stepped down from his role, securing a hefty $25 million retirement deal, from which he still receives yearly payouts.

The case against Michael Jeffries continues to evolve, bringing up significant concerns pertaining to responsibility and the effect of mental health on judicial proceedings. The legal process appears to be painstakingly complex, with Jeffries’s Alzheimer’s diagnosis becoming a substantial factor in the deliberation of his fitness to stand trial. The scandal leaves the public and legal system grappling with the question of how to hold individuals accountable while still respecting their mental health conditions.