Vogue defends Rachel Williams, whom fake heiress Anna Delvey conned out of $62,000

Two-and-a-half weeks after Inventing Anna premiered on Netflix, Vogue is calling out the hit series for ‘[blurring] the lines between reality and fiction in a peculiar way’ — and in particular, the fashion bible is coming to the defense of fake heiress Anna Delvey’s Vanity Fair editor pal Anna DeLoache Williams.

Anna, whose real last name is Sorokin, allegedly conned Rachel out of $62,000 after promising to use her supposedly ample funds to pay for a first-class trip to Morocco — and then leaving Williams to foot the bill. 

But Anna wasn’t found guilty of larceny in relation to the incident, and Inventing Anna seems to imply that Rachel may have had it coming due to her greed and shallowness.  

In a new piece titled ‘Why Does Inventing Anna Turn Its Victim Into a Joke?‘, British Vogue editor Hayley Maitland takes issue with Netflix’s portrayal of Rachel, accusing the series of confusing the villain with the victim — and misleading viewers about who Rachel really is.

Vogue has come to the defense of Rachel DeLoache Williams, a former friend of fake heiress Anna Delvey – and a real-life victim whom they say was unfairly treated in Inventing Anna

Anna allegedly conned Rachel out of $62,000 after promising to use her supposedly ample funds to pay for a first-class trip to Morocco – and then leaving Williams to foot the bill (pictured at La Mamounia) 

‘Inventing Anna does blur the lines between reality and fiction in a peculiar way — and this is where it gets into trouble, particularly when it comes to Rachel DeLoache Williams,’ Maitland writes for Vogue.com, describing the series’ treatment of the Vanity Fair editor as a ‘demonization’.

Vogue and Vanity Fair are both owned by media company Condé Nast. 

Maitland notes that the series uses plenty of real details about Rachel, including her real name, where she lives, and where she went to college.

But, she says, several of the details about her personality, her behavior, and what happened with Anna have been changed.

Maitland says the Netflix portrayal ‘makes Rachel out to be simultaneously vacuous and materialistic, naive and snobby,’ and points to how the series has one of Anna’s other friends, Neff, saying that Rachel was only there for the ‘Instagram moments.’

The series shows Rachel enjoying free dinner, free private workout clothes, and even free designer clothes care of Anna. She also gets extremely excited over the Kardashians.

But Maitland says this portrayal isn’t true, and that Anna never bought Rachel clothes — and Rachel has never watched Keeping Up with the Kardashians. 

‘Rachel is no wide-eyed ingenue dazzled by Sorokin’s tacky displays of wealth and gaggle of celebrity hangers-on,’ Maitland writes. 

Vogue says says the Netflix portrayal ‘makes Rachel out to be simultaneously vacuous and materialistic, naive and snobby’ (pictured: Julia Garner and Katie Lowes as Anna and Rachel in the Netflix series)

British Vogue editor Hayley Maitland ticks off the ways that the show was allegedly inaccurate, including how Rachel says she was pressured to give her credit card to the hotel

The real Anna Delvey is pictured at the Marrakech hotel during the ill-fated trip

‘Inventing Anna does blur the lines between reality and fiction in a peculiar way — and this is where it gets into trouble, particularly when it comes to Rachel DeLoache Williams,’ Maitland writes 

‘This is someone who spent most of her 20s planning Vanity Fair’s annual Hollywood portfolios, and scheduled that infamous Marrakech trip around a work visit to Arles for an Annie Leibovitz exhibition. It is hard to imagine her losing her mind over the chance to “play AmEx roulette” with Martin Shkreli or do tequila shots with Billy McFarland.’

Maitland points out that Rachel wrote her own account of the infamous trip to La Mamounia in Marrakech for Vanity Fair, and later in her own book, My Friend Anna — and her version of events differs quite a bit from what’s show on the screen. 

In the show, when Anna’s credit card doesn’t work at La Mamounia and the hotel demands a card on file, Rachel offers up her own — panicked and unhappy, but willingly. Some pressure is applied, but it all happens within a few seconds, and Rachel insists she is OK with it. 

In real life, according to Rachel, Anna and the hotel put a lot of pressure on her to hand over her card ‘for a block.’

In the show, Rachel panics that her bosses at Vanity Fair will see the $62,000 she put on the company credit card before she can pay it off — and she ultimately gets caught. 

But in real life, Rachel transferred the debt to her personal card.

In the show, there’s a ‘gotcha’ moment in which some of the other characters learn that Rachel’s debt has been forgiven by American Express. The scene happens during the trial, and the other characters are upset with her, viewing her move to still press charges as greedy.

In the show, there’s a ‘gotcha’ moment in which some of the other characters learn that Rachel’s debt has been forgiven by American Express – but Rachel says that didn’t happen until after the trial (pictured)

In the show, Rachel panics that her bosses at Vanity Fair will see the $62,000 she put on the company credit card. In real life, Rachel transferred the debt to her personal card

But in real life, her credit card debe wasn’t forgiven until after the trial.

Maitland writes that in the show, several of the characters, including the journalist stand-in for Jessica Pressler, view Rachel as ‘some fame-hungry opportunist for telling her story in Vanity Fair.’

But speaking to Vogue, Rachel said that Anna’s charges were already in the paper and she knew the story would would be covered no matter what — so she she wanted to be able to tell her experience.

‘Once the tabloids picked the story up, I got contacted by a reporter for New York magazine,’ she said.

‘At that point, I realized the story would be coming out with or without me. I’m fortunate enough that I worked for a place where I could share this crazy life experience [at that point]. It felt important to tell it in my words.’

 The show also includes another ‘gotcha’ moment, which frames it as shocking and greedy that Rachel sold the rights to her story to HBO.

What it fails to point out is that Anna also sold the right to her story to Netflix for $300,000 — and Rachel knew that the deal was in the works. 

The show also includes another ‘gotcha’ moment, which frames it as shocking and greedy that Rachel sold the rights to her story to HBO

What it fails to point out is that Anna also sold the right to her story to Netflix for $300,000, and that was already in the works during the trial (pictured in 2019) 

Rachel said Netflix’s series (pictured) has depicted the con as ‘fun’ and have ‘cherry picked’ the parts of reality to include

‘During the trial, I was aware that both Anna and Anna’s lawyer were working closely with Netflix, who had writers in the courtroom, so it felt like an episode of Black Mirror to then be accused of using my situation for “entertainment,”‘ she told Vogue.

Maitland points out that Jessica Pressler’s original story doesn’t do any of this, and that these were choices made for the Netflix show.

Rachel has also slammed the Netflix show, accusing Netflix of ‘celebrating a sociopathic, narcissistic, proven criminal.’

Speaking to Vanity Fair, she said that she was ‘caught off guard’ before the show was even released, when she read the character description for the fictionalized Rachel.

It described Rachel as ‘a natural-born follower whose blind worship of Anna almost destroys her job, her credit, and her life. But while her relationship with Anna is her greatest regret, the woman she becomes because of Anna may be Anna’s greatest creation.’

‘To say a woman is someone else’s creation is counter to a feminist narrative,’ the real Rachel argued. 

‘I looked at it and I was like, Really? That’s where you’re going to go with this? So I had some unease, but nobody thinks that someone is going to be reckless with facts, especially when the character is given my name. To me, it’s not making a statement but convoluting truth in a way that’s dangerous.’

Rachel has also slammed the Netflix show, accusing Netflix of ‘ celebrating a sociopathic, narcissistic, proven criminal’ 

Rachel details her own version of what happened in her book, My Friend Anna

‘Some people online think this is a fact-checked series,’ she went on. ‘This show is playing with a fine line — peddling it as a true story, but also [in the opening disclaimer] saying, “except for all the parts that aren’t.” 

‘I think it’s worth exploring at what point a half-truth is more dangerous than a lie. That disclaimer gives the show enough credibility so that people can believe [the fictional elements] more easily. I think that’s really dangerous territory. Plus, it affected real-time criminal-justice proceedings.’

She added: ‘Everybody has bought into this fantastical narrative that has become so devoid of fact but still has the illusion of truth. The facts are boring, I guess, but they’re important.’ 

In April of 2019, Anna was convicted of four counts of theft services, three counts of grand larceny, and one count of attempted grand larceny. She was sentenced to a minimum of four years in prison, but was out in February of 2021.

She was then arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on March 25 after she overstayed her visa. She faces deportation back to Germany but was still in ICE custody at an Orange County Jail in upstate New York. 

In a letter published by Insider, Anna lamented about being held behind bars after being ruled ‘a continuous danger to the community’ and insisted that she was fully and legally self-sufficient after being released in 2021. 

The 31-year-old noted that she paid off her criminal restitution and ‘accomplished more in the six weeks they deemed were long enough for me to remain free than some people have in the last two years’ although she does not specify how.   

‘Everybody has bought into this fantastical narrative that has become so devoid of fact but still has the illusion of truth. The facts are boring, I guess, but they’re important,’ Rachel said

She also noted that she is appealing her criminal conviction in an attempt to clear her name. 

‘I did not break a single one of New York state’s or ICE’s parole rules,’ she adamantly stated. 

She mocked the immigration judge’s ruling that ‘even if released from detention and ordered to report regularly to ICE, the respondent would have the ability and inclination to continue to commit fraudulent and dishonest acts’ and claim that she ‘failed to demonstrate remorse.’ 

Anna also complained about having to be put in ‘medical isolation’ for contracting COVID ‘even though there’s nothing medical about it.’  

The convicted criminal ended her open-letter rattling off a series questions:

 ‘Will I forever be judged by my early-to-mid-twenties? Is there anything else I could possibly have done to close this chapter? Will I forever be stuck in a past not entirely of my creation without getting a chance to move on? How many years of reflecting on an overdrawn bank account are socially acceptable before one is allowed to open another one? How many ancient VHS tapes does one have to watch before one’s considered reformed?’ 

Anna Delvey: The fake heiress who conned New York high society

Sorokin was born in Russia in 1991 and moved to Germany in 2007 when she was 16 with her younger brother and parents. 

Her father had worked as a truck driver and later as an executive at a transport company until it became insolvent in 2013. He then opened a heating-and-cooling business specializing in energy-efficient devices. 

After moving to London to attend Central Saint Martins fashion school, Sorokin returned to Berlin and interned in the fashion department of a public relations firm.

She then relocated to Paris where she secured a coveted internship at the French fashion magazine Purple. It’s believed to be around this time that she changed her name from Sorokin to Delvey.  

Jailed: Fake heiress Anna Sorokin was jailed for swindling banks, hotels and members of New York high society out of $275,000

Sorokin was already brushing shoulders with rich people in the years before she came to New York and started dazzling Manhattan’s social elite.

Acquaintances say Sorokin had spent several years playing the part of an art-obsessed German heiress across the world.

She rubbed shoulders with the fashion elite at Paris Fashion Week as early as 2013 and was frequently spotted at London nightspots like the Chiltern Firehouse and Loulou’s. 

By the time Sorokin arrived in New York in early 2016, she seemingly had the social connections to make a name for herself, as well as a designer-clad wardrobe that exuded wealth.

At the time, she had 40,000 followers on Instagram and was regularly pictured at events and parties with well-to-do people.

She quickly went about proving herself to be an impossibly rich heiress who had plans to shake up New York’s art world.

Anna Delvey a.k.a. Anna Sorokin during her trip to Morocco

She made a show of proving she belonged and would regularly be decked out in her now signature Celine glasses, Gucci sandals and high-end buys from Net-a-Porter and Elyse Walker.

Sorokin rented a $400-a-night room for several months at Manhattan’s expensive 11 Howard hotel and was often seen to pass out $100 tips to concierges and Uber drivers.  

She would also splash out on shopping sprees in luxury boutiques, expensive personal training sessions and beautician appointments.

The socialite elite were drawn to her and she would regularly host large dinners for celebrities, artists, CEOs and the like at the lavish Le Coucou restaurant in SoHo.

Sorokin kept up the heiress ruse when she went looking for a $22 million loan to fund her new club in November 2016. 

Her fall from grace seemingly began when she was kicked out of the 11 Howard hotel in New York in early 2017, after racking up $30,000 of charges and failing to provide a working credit card. 

Around the same time she also chartered a private plane for a trip to Nebraska to try and meet billionaire Warren Buffet. 

However, the $35,400 bill was never paid so the charter company cancelled the return leg of her journey. 

Upon her return to New York, she was evicted from the 11 Howard hotel and moved to the Mercer hotel around the corner. 

She subsequently embarked on a $62,000 extravagant trip to Morocco. Her friend, a former Vanity Fair photo editor Rachel Deloache Williams paid for the flights on her work credit card with the assumption she would be reimbursed as promised by Sorokin.  

They checked into a $7,000-a-night villa at the five star resort La Mamounia, which Williams also paid for, after Sorokin promised to pay her back when they returned to New York.  

The six-day trip was without hiccups for several days until the hotel staff insisted on putting a credit card on file because Sorokin had booked their trip without a working one. 

Williams, who said she had $410 in her checking account at the time said the $70,000 balance was more than she earned in a year.  

After months of hassling her for the money, Williams reported Sorokin to police and then the New York district attorney’s office.   

Sorokin was then arrested in October 2017 for stealing $275,000 through multiple scams between November 2016 and August 2017.    

At a parole board hearing in October 2019, Sorokin apologized for her crimes for the first time. 

‘I just want to say that I’m really ashamed and I’m really sorry for what I did,’ she said according to the transcript of the hearing, the New York Post reported. 

‘I completely understand that a lot of people suffered when I thought I was not doing anything wrong.’ 

Sorokin was released from prison on 11 February 2021.