Match-Fixing in Sport
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Match-fixing in sport A mapping of criminal law provisions in EU 27 MARCH 2012 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In addition to the initiatives adopted by betting operators and sport organisations, EU Member States and European organisations have clearly shown their commitment to fight against match-fixing. In the last 6 months, the Council of Europe adopted the Recommendation on promotion of the integrity of sport against manipulation of results, the EU Council the Conclusions on combating match-fixing, and the European Parliament the Resolution on the European Dimension of Sport. These texts draw attention to the problem of match-fixing and call on national governments to ensure their legislation sanctions match-fixing in accordance with the seriousness of the conduct (Council of Europe Recommendation) and to make illegal activities affecting the integrity of sport a criminal offence (European Parliament Resolution). At the national level, France amended the Criminal Code to include betting related match-fixing as a modality of the offence of corruption; Sweden introduced a bill referring to betting corruption; and Greece presented a proposal to modify the Sports Law to ensure that betting related match-fixing is punished with 10 years of imprisonment. Similar proposals are under consideration in Australia and Russia. The purpose of this study is to illustrate how corruption in sport, specifically match-fixing, is covered in national criminal law. To this end, an extensive survey with national ministries in the 27 Member States, sporting organisations and betting operators was carried out. Information provided by these key stakeholders and completed by desk-based research, enabled the identification of the most relevant provisions that can be applied to episodes of match-fixing as well as existing case law. The European legal landscape is not uniform; whilst some countries focus on general offences of corruption or fraud, others have implemented specific sport offences to cope with match-fixing -contained either in their criminal codes (Bulgaria, Spain), sports laws (Cyprus, Poland, Greece) or special criminal laws (Italy, Malta, Portugal). In the UK, betting related match-fixing episodes are punished under the offence of cheating at gambling. Overall, these provisions differ greatly as regards the act to be criminalised as well as the scope, objective and subjective elements of the offences or the relevant sanctions. Although our respondents did not identify serious obstacles in applying existing legislation to episodes of match-fixing, a closer examination of the most relevant provisions (either referring to general or specific sport offences) shows shortcomings that could make the provisions difficult to apply to cases of major importance (for example betting related cases concerning amateur sports). Moreover, in light of the survey and experts’ interviews difficulties in prosecuting match-fixing are more operational than legal. Unfortunately, it was not always possible to verify the appropriateness or effectiveness of the relevant provisions against court decisions or legal doctrine. Case law is indeed very rare. The development of the European dimension in sport by promoting fairness in sporting competitions as well as the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen is one of the objectives of the European Union in the field of sports (ex art. 165 TFEU). Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty has streamlined EU competence in criminal matters. Taking these competences into account, at the end of the study some avenues which could be explored by the EU to combat match-fixing more effectively are suggested. Recommendations aim at overcoming loopholes in existing legislation; improving police and judicial cooperation; encouraging international cooperation; enhancing the exchange of information and best practices; or encouraging further research on key issues. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 6 1. MATCH-FIXING: A THREAT FOR SPORTS INTEGRITY, A PUBLIC ORDER ISSUE . 9 1.1 Putting Match-fixing in context .................................................................................................................................9 1.2 Measuring the problem ............................................................................................................................................. 11 1.3 Match-fixing in the POLICY agenda ...................................................................................................................... 13 1.4 FighTing match-fixing through criminal legislation .............................................................................................. 15 2. FIGHTING AGAINST CORRUPTION IN SPORTS – A REVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK ......................................... 17 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 2.2. International legal framework ................................................................................................................................ 17 2.3 European Union ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 3. FROM CORRUPTION AND FRAUD TO “MATCH-FIXING” OFFENCES – A MAPPING OF CRIMINAL PROVISIONS IN EU27 ............................................................................. 23 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 23 3. 2 Corruption (Belgium , Czech Republic, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia, and Sweden) ... 23 3.3 Fraud (Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Slovakia) ................................................................................................................................................................... 29 3.4 Cheating at gambliNg (UK) ...................................................................................................................................... 32 3.5 Sport offences: sport corruption in the criminal codes (Bulgaria and Spain) ..................................................... 33 3 3.6 Sport offences: sport corruption in sports laws (Cyprus, Greece and Poland) ................................................... 35 3.7 Sport offences: sport criminal laws (Italy, Malta and Portugal)........................................................................... 38 4. CONCLUSIONS: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................................................................... 42 4.1 Issues related to the legal provisions........................................................................................................................ 42 4.2 Operational problems ............................................................................................................................................... 47 5. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 48 BIBLIOGRAPHY (CITED REFERENCES) ....................................................................... 54 ANNEX 1 -COUNTRY PROFILES .................................................................................... 65 AUSTRIA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 65 BELGIUM ....................................................................................................................................................................... 66 BULGARIA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 67 CYPRUS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 69 CZECH REPUBLIC ....................................................................................................................................................... 71 DENMARK ..................................................................................................................................................................... 74 ESTONIA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 75 FINLAND ........................................................................................................................................................................ 76 FRANCE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 78 GERMANY ....................................................................................................................................................................