IPL PROBE COMMITTEE
A REPORT ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF BETTING AND SPOT/MATCH FIXING IN THE INDIAN PREMIER LEAGUE- SEASON 6
1. Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal
Retd. Chief Justice Punjab and Haryana High Court
2. Mr. L. Nageswar Rao
Additional Solicitor General of India
3. Mr. Nilay Dutta
Mr. Vidushpat Singhania
1. Ms. Abantee Dutta
2. Mr. Gautam Bharadwaj
2014 JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
IPL PROBE COMMITTEE REPORT
1. The 3-member Probe Committee has been appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India pursuant to an order dated 30th July 2013 in Special Leave Petition No.26633/2013 arising out of the judgment and order in PIL No.55/2013 of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
2. The committee comprises of Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal (Retired Chief Justice, Punjab & Haryana High Court) as the Chairman, Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, Sr. Advocate & Additional Solicitor General as Member, Mr. Nilay Dutta, Sr. Advocate, Guwahati High Court as Member. The terms of reference given of the committee as per the order of the Supreme Court are :-
“the allegations of betting and spot-fixing in the IPL matches against Gurunath Meiyappan, allegedly the team principal of Chennai Super Kings, 3rd respondent (India Cements Limited) and the players and the 4th respondent / team owner of IPL franchisee Rajasthan Royals (Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited). JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
the allegations against Gurnath Meiyappan, the respondents 3 (India Cements Limited) and 4 (Jaipur Cricket Private Limited) with regard to their involvement in spot-fixing and betting.”
3. Whereas the terms of reference of the committee are limited to Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan and Mr. Raj Kundra on the issue of allegations of betting and spot fixing, who comprise the management and team owners, the term of reference regarding the players is broader and beyond the players punished by the BCCI.
Procedure adopted by the Committee:
Taking into consideration the above terms of reference, the committee decided to adopt the following method of investigation in order to understand and submit a substantive report:
1) Inviting persons (through a press release) possessing information relating to the terms of reference and to communicate such information to the e-mail address email@example.com, on or before 15th November 2013;
JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
2) Interactions with Gurunath Meiyappan, Raj Kundra and the players against whom BCCI has taken action for match fixing and spot fixing;
3) Interactions with the law enforcement agencies; who had or are investigating, matters pertaining to the terms of reference;
4) Interactions with former players who have been associated with the IPL, for any information and recommendations to curb sporting fraud;
5) Interactions with personnel from the team management who are aware of participation of individuals in the team management;
6) Interactions with some eminent sports journalists and sports commentators who have made statement/comments in the public on sporting fraud;
7) Interactions with the anti-corruption unit personnel of the BCCI and the ICC;
JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
8) Interactions with the personnel from the BCCI and the IPL Governing body who may have been the part of initiating proceedings or may have had a role in proceedings, pertaining to the terms of reference;
9) Interactions with other persons whose name featured on a document pertaining to the terms of reference or whose name has been mentioned as a person having some knowledge pertaining to the terms of reference;
10) Requisitioning and evaluating documents requested and submitted to the Committee.
JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
The committee has interacted with several persons who are listed below as follows:-
1. Officers from Mumbai Police:-
i. Mr. Himanshu Roy, Jt. Commissioner of Police. (Crime)
ii. Mr. Niket Kaushik, Add. C.P. (Crime)
iii. Mr. Nandkumar Gopale, I.O.P.I, Crime Branch
iv. Mr. Dyaneshwar Wagh, Support Team, Mumbai Police
v. Mr. Manohar Ipalpalli, Support Team, Mumbai Police
2. Officers from Delhi Police:-
i) Mr. Manishi Chandra, ACP, Special Cell/ NDR, Delhi Police.
ii) Mr. Ravinder Kumar Tyagi, Sub-Inspector, Special Cell/NDR, Delhi Police.
3. Officers from Chennai Police:-
i. Ms. K. Bhuvaneswari S. P. (Q Branch)
ii. Mr. Perumal, SP, Spl. Unit, CBCID, Chennai
iii. Mr. Venkatraman, DySP, CBCID, Chennai
4. Officers from Jaipur Police
i. Mr. Sandeep Singh Chouhan- IPS Deputy Commissioner of Police (Metro)
ii. Mr. Ram Khiladi Meena -SHO Jyoti Nagar Police Station.
5. Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan along with his advocate Mr. Ishwar Nankani – against whom there are
JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
allegations of betting and spot-fixing in the IPL matches.
6. Mr. Raj Kundra – being one of the team owners of IPL franchisee Rajasthan Royals (Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited) and against whom there are allegations of betting and spot-fixing in the IPL matches.
7. Mr. S. Sreesanth – Former India Player and being a player having represented Rajasthan Royals in the IPL and against whom there are allegations of betting and spot-fixing in the IPL matches.
8. Mr. Ankeet Chavan – Being a player having represented Rajasthan Royals in the IPL and against whom there are allegations of betting and spot-fixing in the IPL matches.
9. Mr. Harmeet Singh – Being a player having represented Rajasthan Royals in the IPL.
10. Mr. Siddharth Trivedi – Being a player having represented Rajasthan Royals in the IPL and against whom there are allegations of betting and spot-fixing in the IPL matches.
11. Mr. Ravi Savani – Head of the BCCI, Anti Corruption Sports Unit (ACSU)
12. Mr. Sundar Raman – Chief Operating Officer, Indian Premier League
JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
13. Mr. Chirayu Amin – Former IPL Commissioner / Chairman
14. Mr. Harsha Bhogle – T.V Commentator and former media adviser to the Mumbai Indians
15. Mr. N.Ram – Chairman, Kasturi & sons Limited, Publisher, The Hindu Group of Publications.
16. Ms. Sharda Ugra – Senior Editor, ESPNcricinfo.
17. Ms. Kadambari Murali – Former Sports Editor at Hindustan Times and Editor in Chief at Sports Illustrative.
18. Mr. Pradeep Magazine – Senior Journalist, Hindustan Times.
19. Mr. Aniruddh Bahl – Journalist.
20. Mr. Kishore Bhimani – Senior Sports Commentator and Journalist.
21. Mr. Boria Majumdar – Consulting Editor, India Today Group.
22. Mr. Mehmood Abdi– The constituted Attorney for Mr. Lalit Modi, along with his advocates Mr. Abhishek Singh and Mr. Sandeep Singh Hora.
23. Mr. Naresh Makwani – A sports enthusiast who has filed a private complaint alleging that the IPL matches are fixed.
JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
24. Mr. Sachin Tendulkar – Former Indian Captain and has represented Mumbai Indians in the IPL.
25. Mr. Rahul Dravid – Former India Captain and Former Captain of Rajasthan Royals.
26. Mr. Saurav Ganguly – Former India Captain and has represented Kolkata Knight Riders and Pune Warriors in the IPL.
27. Mr. Venkatesh Prasad – Former India Player and bowling coach of Chennai Super Kings.
28. Mr. Anil Kumble – Former India Captain and has represented Royal Challengers Bangalore as a player and Mumbai Indians as a team mentor.
29. Mr. Avinash Vaidya – Team and Operations Manager of Royal Challengers Bangalore.
30. Mr. Sanjay Jagdale – Former Secretary of BCCI.
31. Mr. Venky Mysore – CEO of Kolkata Knight Riders.
32. Mr. N Srinivasan assisted by Mr. Prasanna Kannan – President, BCCI and a Director of India Cements.
33. Mr. Shashank Manohar – Former President, BCCI.
34. Mr. I. S. Bindra – President, Punjab Cricket Association and Former President of ICC and BCCI.
JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
35. Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya who was assisted by Mr. Abhishek Dalmiya – Former President ICC and BCCI and President of Cricket Association of Bengal.
36. Mr. A.C. Muthiah – Former President BCCI.
37. Mr. Aditya Verma – PIL Petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
38. Mr. Krishnamachari Srikkanth – Former India Captain and Chairman of the National Selection Committee and was also a former Brand Ambassador for Chennai Super Kings and is currently the mentor of Hyderabad Sun Risers.
39. Mr. Rakesh Singh – President, Marketing India Cements Limited along with his advocate Mr. TK Bhaskar-Partner, HSB Partners.
40. Mr. T S Raghupathy – Executive President, Chennai Super Kings.
41. Mr. S. Ravi – International Umpire and has also officiated in IPL matches.
42. Mr. R K Raghavan – former Director of CBI.
43. Mr. Rahul Mehra – Advocate.
JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
44. Mr. M.S. Dhoni – Captain of the Indian Cricket Team and is also the captain of Chennai Super Kings.
45. Mr. Rajiv Shukla – Hon’ble Union Minister and former Chairman Indian Premier League.
46. Mr. Arun Jaitley – Hon’ble Leader of Opposition and former Vice-President BCCI.
47. Mr. Neeraj Kumar – former Delhi Police Commissioner.
48. Mr. Niranjan Virk – ICC’s Anti-Corruption and Security Unit Officer, who has covered various IPL matches.
49. Mr. C. Aryama Sundaram – Senior Advocate, representing the BCCI.
50. Prof. Ratnakar Shetty along with Mr. Rahul Mascharenas, Advocate – Representing the Board of Control for Cricket India.
and a few persons who desired that their identity be protected, which the committee has respected.
The Committee sought the appearance of Mr. Vindoo Dara Singh, however he abstained from appearing before the Committee and the same has been dully recorded. JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
The Committee, while interacting with the above mentioned persons was mindful of the fact that various criminal cases are currently pending against a few individuals, who are connected to this probe. Further the committee was aware of its limitations as its mandate was that of a fact finding probe committee.
. . . JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
The Committee has broadly drawn its inference under the following heads:-
I. Inferences having a direct bearing on the terms of reference.
II. Inferences indirectly related to the terms of reference.
I. Inferences having a direct bearing on the terms of reference
1. The role of Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan in Chennai Super Kings.
Representatives of India Cements, who appeared before the Committee, contended that Mr. Meiyappan had no share holding in India Cements and hence cannot be considered as an owner of CSK. Further, Mr. M.S. Dhoni, Mr. N. Srinivasan and officials of India Cements took the stand that Mr. Meiyappan, had nothing to do with the cricketing affairs of Chennai Super Kings and was a mere cricket enthusiast supporting CSK.
However, while conducting its probe the Committee sought to ascertain from various JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
persons it had interacted with, as to what was the role and position of Mr. Meiyappan in CSK. It came to light that Mr. Meiyappan would be with the team (CSK) during the practice sessions, would be present during team meetings, at the auction table, in the owners dug out, participated in the IPL owners meet, travelled with the team, participated in the IPL owners workshop representing himself to be the owner of CSK and held out to the world at large as the Team Principal/ Team Owner of CSK.
Ms. Sharda Ugra, told us that prior to the allegations, Mr. Meiyappan was openly representing on his twitter handle that he was the team principal of Chennai Super Kings, the same was substantiated by saved web-pages of the twitter handle of Mr. Meiyappan. It was also brought to our notice that once allegations started surfacing against Mr. Meiyappan, there were efforts being made to erase proof of Mr. Meiyyappan’s link with Chennai Super Kings.
Further, after interacting with Mumbai Police and going through the case property, it is apparent that Mr. Meiyappan was holding out to the world JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
at large as the Team Owner/ Principal of CSK. The Mumbai Police had shown us business cards and letter heads which were recovered, wherein Mr. Meiyappan had claimed to be the Team Owner/Principal.
The Committee in relation to IPL franchisees in general and Mr. Meiyappan in particular questioned Mr. Sundar Raman as to who an owner of a team is, to which he replied that the ownership structures of teams are in general ambiguous. Mr. Raman further stated that the term “owner” for the purpose of accreditation is loosely used and has no implication, while identifying an owner under the franchise agreement. He further stated that the status of an ultimate owner is not clear, but may be read as per the Franchise Agreement. Mr. Raman also admitted that the IPL Governing Council had not made any effort to determine who the ultimate owners of the franchisees were.
The Committee is of the view that Mr. Meiyappan was accredited/authorized (though implicit at times) by the Franchise Owner i.e. India Cements, to participate and be present when various crucial JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
decisions were taken in relation to CSK. One such example of authorization is, the fact that India Cements themselves forwarded accreditation requests for Mr. Meiyappan, every year for the last 6 seasons, requesting for grant of accreditation access cards in the name of Mr. Meiyappan under different nomenclatures (i.e. Owner and Management)
A letter from of BCCI dated 03.02.2013 annexed the details of accreditation sought by CSK Chennai, which shows that in 2011 at Sl. No4 Sri Gurunath Meiyappan is described as Director. This in our view demonstrates beyond doubt that at least in 2011 in a representation made by CSK for accreditation to BCCI, Mr. Meiyappan was described as a Director. This document also seeks access to Mr. Meiyappan to all areas. A gold pass and a management blue pass have also been sought for Meiyappan. The above documents further strengthen our conclusion that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan was the part of CSK.
The Committee is of the firm belief that Mr. Meiyappan had knowledge of or was in position to easily access, sensitive team information, team JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
strategies, knowledge about match conditions, etc., which knowledge/ information was outside the preview of an ordinary person following the game of cricket.
Mike Hussey a CSK cricketer in his book “Underneath the Southern Cross” had written at Page-197 about CSK as under:
“Our owner was Indian cements headed by Mr. Srinivasan. As he was also on the board of the BCCI, he gave control of the team to his son-in-law Mr. Gurunath. He ran the team along with Kepler Wenels, who was coach, and I assure one of the reasons I chose to play for them”
However we must also bring to the notice of the Hon’ble Court, that in a subsequent public statement Hussey has disassociated from the above assertion.
After interacting with several persons who were/ are part of CSK, former and current players who have participated in the IPL, administrators who have been involved in the IPL, persons representing other IPL teams, cricket JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
commentators and sports journalists, the Committee is of the considered opinion that Mr. Gurunath Meiyappan formed an integral part of Chennai Super Kings and most persons viewed him as the face of the team. Though the de-jure ownership vests in India Cements, the Committee finds that Mr. Meiyappan was in fact acting as a team official if not the defacto owner of CSK.
For the purpose of this report the Committee is of the opinion that the terminology used to describe Mr. Meiyappan be it ‘TEAM PRINCIPAL’ or ‘OWNER’, would not materially alter his status/position held in CSK.
Thus, the Committee is of the opinion that Mr. Meiyappan would be a ‘Team Official’ under the IPL operational rules;-
Team Official – ‘means any director, secretary, officer, management staff, employee, coach, physio (or other medical personnel) or duly authorised (express or implied) agent of a Team or Franchisee or any consultant to or other person serving in any official capacity for any Franchisee including those persons who are accredited in connection with the JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
League as contemplated by paragraph 1.1 of Section 4;’
and would consequentially be a Person subject to these Operational Rules as has been defined in the operational rules itself.
The term ‘Player Support Personnel’ and ‘Participant’ have also been defined under the IPL Anti –Corruption Code , which is extracted herein as follows:-
Player Support Personnel – “Any coach, trainer, manager, selector, team official, doctor, physiotherapist or any other person employed by, representing or otherwise affiliated to a playing/touring team or squad that is chosen to represent a National Cricket Federation in any Domestic Match or International Match or series of such Matches.”
Participant – “Any Player, player support personnel, umpire, match referee or umpire Support Personnel”
Thus, it is established that Mr. Meiyappan is also a Participant under the IPL Anti Corruption Code JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
and hence all IPL rules and regulations would squarely apply to Mr. Meiyappan.
2. The status of Mr. Raj Kundra in relation to Rajasthan Royals.
Mr. Raj Kundra, being one of the team owners of IPL franchisee Rajasthan Royals (Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited), would be a person who would fall within the ambit of the terms of reference of this Committee, as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
However, there is no dispute in so far as the status of Mr. Raj Kundra in relation to Rajasthan Royals is concerned, as Mr. Kundra has himself admitted that he along with his wife Ms. Shilpa Shetty and 3 others namely, Mr. Rupert Murdoch, Mr. Manoj Badale and Mr. Suresh Chellaram are shareholders in Jaipur IPL Cricket Private Limited and hence owners of Rajasthan Royals.
Thus, the Committee is of the opinion that Mr. Kundra would be a ‘Team Official’ under the IPL operational rules and would also be ‘Player Support Personnel’ and ‘Participant’ as defined JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
under the IPL Anti –Corruption Code, as has been extracted above and hence all IPL rules would squarely apply to him.
3. The Relevant Rules and Regulations that would govern the conduct of support personnel, players and franchisee;-
After perusing the IPL rules and Regulations, the franchisee agreements, the committee is of the opinion that the following rules and regulations would apply to, franchisees, player support personnel and players:-
1. The IPL Operational Rules
2. IPL Regulation,
3. The IPL Anti Corruption Code
4. The IPL Code of Conduct for Players and Match Officials
5. The Franchisee Agreements
Before proceeding further the committee feels it essential that the relevant definitions and clauses are extracted for easy and ready reference:- JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
I. IPL OPERATIONAL RULES, Effective as from 15thMarch, 2013
SECTION 1 – DEFINITIONS
1.1 In these Operational Rules (unless the context requires otherwise) the following expressions shall have the following meanings:
Franchisee means an entity which has entered into a Franchise Agreement with BCCI;
Franchise Agreement means an agreement between BCCI and a third party (a Franchisee) under which such Franchisee as agreed to filed a Team in the league and pursuant to which such Franchisee enjoys certain rights and has assumed certain obligations as set out therein and as contemplated by these Operational Rules;
Person means any individual, company, partnership or any other entity of any kind.
Person subject to these Operational Rules means any Franchisee, any Player, any Team Official and/or any Match Official; JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
Player means a person who has been registered as a player with BCCI;
Regulations means, together, these Operational Rules and the IPL Regulations;
SECTION 2 – FRANCHISEE AND TEAM/PLAYER OBLIGATIONS-GENERAL
2.1 EFFECT OF OPERATIONIAL RULES
Participation in or other involvement with the League is deemed to constitute and to be an acceptance by each person subject to these Operational Rules of an agreement with and obligation owed to BCCI to be bound by and subject to the Regulations, the Laws of Cricket, the terms of each relevant Player Contract (insofar as such Player Contract relates to any Persons subject to these Operational Rules) and the jurisdiction of the BCCI in connection therewith.
2.2 OBLIGATION TO COMPETE / OTHER MATCHES
2.2.1 Each Franchisee shall procure that its Team shall in good faith compete to the best of its ability JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
in the League in general and in each Match in which its Team participates.
Each person subject to these Operational Rules shall not, whether during a Match or otherwise, act or omit to act in any way which would or might reasonably be anticipated to have an adverse affect on the image and/or reputation of such Person, any Team, any Player, any Team Official, the BCCI, the League and/or the Game or which would otherwise bring any of the foregoing into disrepute.
SECTION 4 – OTHER FRANCHISEE OBLIGATIONS
4.1 TEAM OFFICIALS
4.1.1 Each Franchisee shall ensure that each of its Team Officials complies with the Regulations, including without limitation, the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants (and the attention of Franchises is drawn in particular to Article 2 of the BCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants for a list of the offences under that code). For the avoidance of doubt, all of those persons who are accredited as representing the Franchisee, whether JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
accredited for the League by BCCI either centrally or locally, shall be deemed to be a Team Official for the purpose of the Regulations.
REGULATIONS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE
6.1 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
6.1.1 The provisions of the regulations listed in paragraph 1.2 of this Section (being the IPL Regulations) together with these Operational Rules shall apply to the League and bind any person subject to these Operational Rules such that they shall be bound to comply with such of them as apply to each such Person.
6.1.2 The IPL Regulations referred to in paragraph 1.1 above are as follows;
(viii) the IPL Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials;
(xiv) the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants;
(xv) the IPL Auction Briefing;
(xvi) BCCI’s Minimum Standards for Players and Match Officials Areas at Matches. JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
(xvii) any other code as may be issued by BCCI from time to time which shall be made available either on the Official IPL website, the Tournament Handbook or otherwise by BCCI (and each Person subject to these Operational Rules shall be obliged to ensure that it abides by the latest version of the Regulations).
4.4.2 The Commission may, through BCCI, impose one or more of the following sanctions or actions in relation to any Offence;
(a) order compensation and/or an order that the reasonable costs of the proceedings in relation to any Complaint be borne by whichever Person has been found to have committed the Offence or apportioned in cases where two or more Persons have committed an Offence;
(b) suspend a Player or other Person Subject to these Operational Rules from playing or otherwise being involved in Matches for a specified period;
(c) suspend a Team or Franchisee from the League;
(d) order the payment of money from a Person subject to these Operational Rules either to BCCI or JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
to another Person including another Person subject to these Operational Rules;
(e) order a declaration as to any finding of fact or interpretation of the Regulations and/or any Player Contract;
(f) order a deduction of points from a Team;
(g) order rectification of a contract or refuse the registration of a Player by BCCI;
(h) order the specific performance of an act or matter, or to do or stop doing or not to do something;
(i) impose a financial penalty payable to BCCI or any other Person;
(j) order any other sanction or action that the Commission views as reasonable in the interest of justice.
7 GOVERNING LAW
The Regulations shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India.
II. ANTI-CORRUPTION CODE FOR PARTICIPANTS
The relevant definitions and clauses under the IPL Anti Corruption Code has been defined in following terms as follows:- JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
Anti Corruption Code. This Anti-Corruption Code promulgated by the BCCI on the Effective date.
Bet. Any wager, bet or other form of financial speculation, and Betting is the carrying out of such activity.
Corrupt Conduct. Any act or omission that would amount to an offence under Article 2 of this Anti-Corruption Code or the equivalent provisions of anti-corruption rule of any other National Cricket Federation or the ICC Anti-Corruption Code.
Domestic Match. Any ‘First-Class Match’, ‘List A Limited Overs Match’ or ‘List A Twenty20 Match’, as those terms are defined in the ICC Classification of Official Cricket (as amended from time to time) including all matches organized by the BCCI.
Event. Any competition, tournament, tour, event or equivalent that involves one or more Matches.
Ineligibility. Means the Participant is barred for a specified period of time from participation in the sport of cricket, as set out more specifically in Article 6.5.
Inside Information. Any information relating to any Match or Event that a Participant possesses by virtue of his/her position within the sport. Such JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
information incudes, but is not limited to, factual information regarding the competitors in the Match or Event, the conditions, tactical considerations or any other aspect of the Match or Event, but does not include such information that is already published or a matter of public record, readily acquired by an interested member of the public, or disclosed according to the rules and regulations governing the relevant Match or Event.
Match. A cricket match of any format and duration in length in which two cricket teams compete against each other.
Participant. Any Player, Player Support Personnel Umpire, Match Referee or Umpire Support Personnel.
Player. Any cricketer who is selected (or who has been selected in the preceding twelve (12) months) in any playing or touring team or squad that is chosen to represent the BCCI or any of its affiliate and associate bodies in any international match or Domestic Match.
Player Support Personnel. Any coach trainer, manager, selector, team official, doctor, physiotherapist or any other person employed by, representing or otherwise affiliated to a playing/touring team or squad that is chosen to JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
represent a National Cricket Federation in any Domestic Match or International Match or series of such Matches.
Suspension. Means the Participant is temporarily barred from participating in the sport of cricket pending a decision on the allegation that he/she has committed an offence under this Anti-Corruption Code, as set out more specifically in Article 4.6.
ARTICLE 2 – OFFENCES UNDER THIS ANTI-CORRUPTION CODE
2.1.1 Fixing or contriving in any way or otherwise influencing improperly, or being a part to any effort to fix or contrive in any way or otherwise influence improperly, the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any Match or Event.
2.1.2 Seeking, accepting, offering or agreeing to accept any bribe or other Reward to fix or to contrive in any way or otherwise to influence improperly to result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any Match or Event.
2.1.4 Soliciting, including, enticing, instructing, persuading, encouraging or facilitating (a) any Participant to commit an offence under any of the JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
foregoing provisions of this Article 2.1 and/or (b) any other person to do any act that would be an offence if that person were a Participant.
2.2.1 Placing, accepting, laying or otherwise entering into any Bet with any other party (whether individual, company or otherwise) in relation to the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any Match or Event.
2.2.2 Soliciting, including, enticing, instructing, persuading, encouraging, facilitating or authorising any other party to enter into a Bet for the direct or indirect benefit of the Participant in relation to the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any Match or Event.
2.2.3 Ensuring the occurrence of a particular incident in a Match or Event, which occurrence is to the Participant’s knowledge the subject of a Bet and for which he/she expects to receive or has received any Reward.
2.3 MISUSE OF INSIDE INFORMATION:
2.3.1 Using, for Betting purposes, any inside information.
2.3.2 Disclosing inside information to any person (with or without Reward) before or during any JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
Match or Event where the participant might reasonably be expected to know that disclosure of such information in such circumstances could be used in relation to Betting.
NOTE: Any potential offence under this Article will be considered on its own set of facts and the particular circumstances surrounding any relevant disclosure. For example, it may be an offence under this clause to disclose inside information: (a) to journalists or other members of the media; and/or (b) on social networking websites where the Participant might reasonably be expected to know that disclosure of such information in such circumstances could be used in relation to Betting. However, nothing in this Article is intended to prohibit any such disclosure made within a personal relationship (such as to a member of the Participant’s family) where it is reasonable for the Participant to expect that such information can be disclosed in confidence and without being subsequently used for Betting.
2.3.3 Soliciting, inducing, enticing, persuading, encouraging or facilitation (a) any Participant to commit an offence under any of the foregoing provisions of this Article 2.3 and/or (b)any other JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
person to do any act that would be an offence if that person were a Participant.
2.4.1 Providing or receiving any gift, payment or other benefit (whether of a monetary value or otherwise) in circumstances that the Participant might reasonably have expected could bring him/her or the sport of cricket into disrepute.
NOTE: This Article is only intended to catch ‘disrepute’ that, when considered in all of the relevant circumstances, relates (directly or indirectly) to any of the underlying imperatives of and conduct prohibited by this Anti-Corruption Code (including as described in Article 1.1)
Where any substantial gift, payment or other benefit is received by any Participant from an unknown person or organization and/or for no apparent reason, such Participant is advised to report such receipt to the Designated Anti-Corruption Official (or his/her designee). Where such Participant does not make such a report, then that is likely to constitute strong evidence of the commission of this offence.
2.4.2 Failing or refusing to disclose to the ACU BCCI (without undue delay) full details of any approaches or invitations received by the JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
Participant to engage in conduct that would amount to a breach of this Anti-Corruption Code.
2.4.3 Failing or refusing to disclose to the ACU BCCI (without undue delay) full details of any incident, fact, or matter that comes to the attention of a Participant that may evidence an offence under this Anti-Corruption Code by a third party, including (without limitation) approaches or invitations that have been received by any other party to engage in conduct that would amount to a breach of this Anti-Corruption Code.
Note: All Participants shall have continuing obligation to report any new incident, fact, or matter that may evidence an offence under this Anti-Corruption Code to the ACU-BCCI, even if the Participants’ prior knowledge has already been reported.
2.4.4 Failing or refusing, without compelling justification, to cooperate with any reasonable investigation carried out by the Designated Anti-Corruption Official (or his/her designee) in relation to possible offences under this Anti-Corruption Code, including failure to provide any information and/or documentation requested by the Designated JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
Anti-Corruption Official (or his/her designee) (whether as part of a formal Demand pursuant to Article 4.3 or otherwise) that may be relevant to such investigation.
2.5.1 Any attempt by a Participant, or any agreement between (a) a Participant and (b) any other person, to act in a manner that would culminate in the commission of an offence under this Anti-Corruption Code, shall be treated as if an offence had been committed, whether or not such attempt or agreement in fact resulted in the commission of such offence. However, there shall be no offence under this Anti-Corruption Code where the Participant renounces the attempt or agreement prior to it being discovered by a third party not involved in the attempt or agreement.
2.5.2 A participant who authorises, causes, knowingly assists, encourages, aids, abets, covers up or is otherwise complicit in any acts or omissions of the type described in Articles 2.1 – 2.4 committed by his/her coach, trainer, manger, agent, family member, guest or other affiliate or associate shall be treated as having committed JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
such acts or omissions himself and shall be liable accordingly under this Anti-Corruption Code.
ARTICLE 6 -SANCTIONS
6.1 Where it is determined that an offence under this Anti-Corruption Code has been committed, the BCCI Disciplinary Committee will be required to impose an appropriate sanction upon the Participant from the range of permissible sanctions described in Article 6.2. In order to determine the appropriate sanction that is to be imposed in each case, the BCCI Disciplinary Committee must first determine the relative seriousness of the offence, including identifying all relevant facts that it deems to:
6.1.1 aggravate the nature of the offence under tis Anti-Corruption Code, namely;
22.214.171.124 where the offence substantially damaged (or had the potential to damage substantially) the commercial value and/or the public interest in the relevant Match(es) or Event(s)
126.96.36.199 where the offence affected (or had the potential to affect) the result of the relevant Match(es) or Event(s); JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
188.8.131.52 where the welfare of a Participant or any other person has been endangered as a result of the offence;
184.108.40.206 where the offence involved more than one participant or other persons; and/or
220.127.116.11 any other aggravating factor(s) that the BCCI Disciplinary Committee considers relevant and appropriate.
6.1.2 mitigate the nature of the offence under the Anti-Corruption Code, namely;
18.104.22.168 the Participant’s good previous disciplinary record;
22.214.171.124 the young age and/or lack of experience of the Participant;
126.96.36.199 where the Participant has cooperated with the Designated Anti-Corruption Official (or his/her designee) and any investigation or Demand carried out by him./her;
188.8.131.52 where the offence did not substantially damage (or have the potential to substantially damage) the commercial value and/or the public interest in the relevant Match(es) or Event(s).
184.108.40.206 where the offence did not affect (or have the potential to affect) the result of the relevant Match(es) or Event(s); JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 2014
220.127.116.11 where the Participant has already suffered penalties under other laws and/or regulations for the same offence; and/or
18.104.22.168 any other mitigating factor(s) that the BCCI Disciplinary Committee.
|6.2 Having considered all of the factors described in Article 6.1.1 and 6.1.2, the BCCI Disciplinary Committee shall then determine, in accordance with the following tale, what the appropriate sanction(s) should be; ANTI-CORRUPTION CODE OF OFFENCE||RANGE OF PERMISSILE PERIOD OF INELIGIBILTY||ADDITIONAL DISCRETION TO IMPOSE A FINE|
|Article 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 (Corruption)||A minimum of five (5) years and a maximum of a lifetime.||AND, IN ALL CASES: the BCCI Disciplinary Committee shall have the discretion to impose a fine on the Participant up to a maximum of the value of any Reward received by the Participant directly or indirectly, out of, or in relation to, the offence committed under this Anti-Corruption Code.|
|Article 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 (Betting)||A minimum of two (2) years and a maximum of five (5) years.|
|Article 2.3.1 and 2.3.3 (as it relates to an offence under Article 2.3.1) (Misuse of inside information)||A minimum of two (2) years and a maximum of five (5) years.|
|Article 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 (as it relates to an offence under Article 2.3.2) misuse of inside information)||A minimum of six (6) months and a maximum of five (5) years.|
|Article 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 (General)||A minimum of one (1) year and a maximum of five (5) years.|
|Article 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 (General)||A minimum of six (6) months and a maximum of two (2) years.|