***Official*** Spot-Fixing Scandal

[BoyBrumby]

I'm assuming its a means of ensuring they satisfactorily complete that course they've been required to do

Interesting. Does that mean the ICC isn't much bothered if Amir completes it then?

 

[social]

They have admitted to taking money from bookmakers (they said it was because he was their agent ).

Amir accepts money from bookmaker

Maybe I'm blind but the article (as opposed to the headline) doesnt say any such thing

 

[fredfertang]

Interesting. Does that mean the ICC isn't much bothered if Amir completes it then?

The fact he wasn't captain and had no previous as far as I'm aware are doubtless part of the reason - I have another theory too but have no wish to be infracted so will keep that to myself

 

[G.I.Joe]

If something like this happened in Australia and, for example, Michael Clarke as captain ordered Pat Cummins to bowl no balls, I would be pretty upset and quite frankly insulted if at least Clarke didn't get a life ban.

Would it have to involve monetary benefit?

Dilshan 'suggesting' that Randiv bowl a no-ball to deny Sehwag his 100 in that ODI comes to mind.

 

[pup11]

Agree with the sentiment that these tainted players have been let off the hook a bit here, Butt and Asif's international careers are all but over given their present age but Mohd.Aamir would be back at an age of 23 which is still a pretty young age to be starting a career all over again.

I basically have a huge problem with that becuase what the ICC are telling young players across the world is that, you can fix games and make all the money you want and even if you get caught your punishment won't be too harsh.

I would have liked to see all these three players being handed over with life bans which would have sent a strong message right across the cricketing world that if you get caught fixing games, then you would be chucked out of the game regardless of your age, talent or stature.

Btw... why have there been no action taken against the likes of Kamran Akmal and Wahab 'Jacket' Riaz...?

 

[Debris]

Maybe I'm blind but the article (as opposed to the headline) doesnt say any such thing

You might be blind.

"They were asked about secret accounts in Swiss and British banks, which, according to the News of the World investigation, Mr Majeed said he had set up in their names."

Or another link

Amir confesses

This may also explain why Amir's sentence was lighter than expected. He owned up.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Btw... why have there been no action taken against the likes of Kamran Akmal and Wahab 'Jacket' Riaz...?

I'm only guessing here, but I'd imagine there wasn't enough evidence of wrong doing in their cases.

Does perhaps point to there being further evidence regarding those banned that isn't yet in the public domain.

 

[smash84]

I'm only guessing here, but I'd imagine there wasn't enough evidence of wrong doing in their cases.

Does perhaps point to there being further evidence regarding those banned that isn't yet in the public domain.

hmmm........the video showing Riaz looked quite damning. I wonder how he got away with it? And if the video was made up or something then why didn't he sue NOTW?

 

[Cevno]

The judgement is fine for me.

In any case i am pretty sure they will get the bans shortened at the CAS.

 

[Cevno]

They have admitted to taking money from bookmakers (they said it was because he was their agent ).

Amir accepts money from bookmaker

Did Mark Waugh and Shane Warne not admit to doing the same ,which was conveniently revealed 5 years after by CA? And he wasn't even the agent?

 

[smash84]

Did Mark Waugh and Shane Warne not admit to doing the same ,which was conveniently revealed 5 years after by CA? And he wasn't even the agent?

true......Mark Waugh and Shane Warne were very lucky to get away with not even a slap on the wrist.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

hmmm........the video showing Riaz looked quite damning. I wonder how he got away with it? And if the video was made up or something then why didn't he sue NOTW?

It looked damning and we all know that he did it, but no court of law would find him guilty for it. A competent lawyer could easily get him off the hook by saying that he took the jacked for other reasons and that he didn't know about the cash in the jacket

As for Kakmal, well its only Majeed's words (a crook) against him

Smalishah84, I don't really understand your position regarding this issue. On the one hand you agree with posters who suggest the harshest possible punishment i.e. jail time. While on the other hand you agree with posters who hate Amir but want him to play because he was good. Please stop playing this tennis match and make up your mind. Personally Amir shouldn't play even after 5 years for what he did no matter how good he was.

 

[Debris]

true......Mark Waugh and Shane Warne were very lucky to get away with not even a slap on the wrist.

There were a couple of things in their favour. They only accept money for weather reports and to say who was twelfth man, never to manipulate a match that I am aware of. Secondly, they reported to the relevant authorities what they had done without any prompting.

There should probably be a minimum 6 month ban for taking money from a bookmaker even if the activities are harmless. The fact that it was the players themselves that brought it to the authorities attention probably counted heavily in their favour. It was before any of the actual match-fixing was discovered so that helped as well.

Still, I think there should have been some penalty imposed.

 

[zaremba]

let's have a look at the section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005:

Cheating

(1)A person commits an offence if he—

(a)cheats at gambling, or

(b)does anything for the purpose of enabling or assisting another person to cheat at gambling.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether a person who cheats—

(a)improves his chances of winning anything, or

(b)wins anything.

(3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with—

(a)the process by which gambling is conducted, or

(b)a real or virtual game, race or other event or process to which gambling relates.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both, or

(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

(5)In the application of subsection (4) to Scotland the reference to 51 weeks shall have effect as a reference to six months.

(6)Section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845 (c. 109) (winning by cheating) shall cease to have effect.

The real concern for the trio is the highlighted part; section 3. However how can CPS prove that they were gambling or were going to gamble. Money was paid to Majeed for a demonstration.

I disagree. To my mind the relevant section is likely to be sub-section (1)(b). Seems to me that the facts of the case seem to fit within that quite neatly, either by way of an offence or an attempted offence, even if what they were participating in was in fact just a "demonstration".

Sub-section (3) doesn´t narrow the scope of that section (see the opening words: "without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)") but broadens it. And I don´t think that the prosecution would need to rely on sub-section 3 at all. And in any event if you read section 3, you'll see that, contrary to your suggestion, there is no requirement that the prosecution must prove that any of the trio was either "gambling or going to gamble".

 

[zaremba]

true......Mark Waugh and Shane Warne were very lucky to get away with not even a slap on the wrist.

That was a different (pre-Cronje) era. I´d expect them to be more harshly dealt with these days. And Lillee/Marsh would obviously have got banned for their famous bet on England at 500-1 had that happened today.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I disagree. To my mind the relevant section is likely to be sub-section (1)(b). Seems to me that the facts of the case seem to fit within that quite neatly, either by way of an offence or an attempted offence, even if what they were participating in was in fact just a "demonstration".

Sub-section (3) doesn´t narrow the scope of that section (see the opening words: "without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)") but broadens it. And I don´t think that the prosecution would need to rely on sub-section 3 at all. And in any event if you read section 3, you'll see that, contrary to your suggestion, there is no requirement that the prosecution must prove that any of the trio was either "gambling or going to gamble".

For 1b how were Asif and Amir enabling or assisting gambling? As I mentioned there isn't really any evidence linking them to Majeed or the money. For all we know they could have just been asked/coerced to bowl the no-ball.

 

[fredfertang]

Could be an interesting legal argument about the requisite knowledge/intent as far as Asif and Amir are concerned

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Could be an interesting legal argument about the requisite knowledge/intent as far as Asif and Amir are concerned

Agree with you on this. Also gambling never took place,so subsection 1b isn't really relevant because it relates to actual cheating taking place. Subsection 3 on the other hand relates to attempted deception, so that is why i thought that was relevant, but maybe i read the whole thing wrong? Could someone clarify please.

 

[fredfertang]

Agree with you on this. Also gambling never took place,so subsection 1b isn't really relevant.

Whether any actual gambling took place is, I believe, irrelevant. I can't be bothered to check but my recollection is that this was the whole purpose of the 2005 Act, as prior to that, for a charge of Conspiracy to Defraud, the prosecution would have had to point to some actual gambling having taken place

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Whether any actual gambling took place is, I believe, irrelevant. I can't be bothered to check but my recollection is that this was the whole purpose of the 2005 Act, as prior to that, for a charge of Conspiracy to Defraud, the prosecution would have had to point to some actual gambling having taken place

OK, thanks for the info. If you don't mind me asking, do you practise law in the UK?