• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ANTI-CORRUPTION TRIBUNAL ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ICC ANTI-CORRUPTION CODE BETWEEN: INTERNATIONAL CRICKET COUNCIL (“ICC”) -and- MR ASHFAQ AHMED INTERNATIONAL CRICKET COUNCIL (“ICC”) -and- MR AMIR HAYAT ____________________________________________ AWARD ____________________________________________ I Preface 1. This is a very unusual case. Mr Ahmed and Mr Hayat (“The Players”) were effectively condemned out of their own mouths by admissions made in interviews with the ICC ACU and in emails sent in response to the Notice of Charge which alleged, in broad terms, failure to report breaches of the ICC Anti-Corruption Code for Participants (the “Code”). Each developed a diluted version of the cut throat defence, not actually disputing the charges so much as seeking to suggest that the other was the moving spirit in what was on the face of it a joint enterprise. Their closing submissions were more in the nature of pleas in mitigation than actual defences. II Parties 2. The ICC is the international federation responsible for the global governance of the game of cricket. As part of its continuing efforts to maintain the public image, popularity and integrity of cricket, and in particular to take the strongest possible stand against the scourge of match- fixing and related corruption in the sport, the ICC has adopted and implemented the Code. 3. The Code (i) sets out details of the conduct that, if committed by a Participant in relation to International Matches, will be considered an offence under the Code, (ii) provides ranges of sanctions that are to be imposed in the event of the commission of such offence, and (iii) establishes the disciplinary procedures to be followed following allegations of such offence. 4. Mr. Ahmed is a Pakistani national who has been residing in the UAE. He was born on 26 March 1985 and is therefore currently 36 years old. Between January 2018 and October 2019, he represented the UAE in 16 One Day Internationals and 12 Twenty20 Internationals. 5. Mr Hayat is a Pakistani national who has been residing in the UAE. He was born on 28 August 1982 and thus is 38 years old. Between January 2018 and February 2019, Mr Hayat represented the UAE in 9 One Day Internationals and 4 Twenty20 Internationals. 6. Mr Ahmed and Mr Hayat played together on the UAE team and previously shared accommodation. 7. In their respective international careers, Mr Ahmed attended at least four ICC anti-corruption education sessions and Mr Hayat attended at least three ICC anti-corruption education sessions, which contain reminders of the obligations of Participants under the Code. Neither Player has claimed ignorance of those obligations. III Jurisdiction 8. Code Article 1.4.1 provides that the following persons will constitute ‘Players’ and thus ‘Participants’ bound by the Code: “any cricketer who: 1.4.1.1 is selected (or who has been selected in the preceding twenty-four (24) months) to participate in an International Match and/or a Domestic Match for any playing or touring club, team or squad that is a member of, affiliated to, or otherwise falls within the jurisdiction of, a National Cricket Federation.” 9. It is not in issue that at the time of the events underlying the Charges, both Mr Ahmed and Mr Hayat fell within the definition of a Player, since both had represented the UAE in International Matches within the previous 24 months. Mr Ahmed last represented the UAE in a T20 in October 2019. Mr Hayat last represented the UAE in an T20 in February 2019. 10. Code Article 1.5 stipulates that each Participant is bound by the Code and, among other things, is deemed to have agreed: “1.5.1 not to engage in Corrupt Conduct in respect of any International Match, wherever it is held and whether or not he/she is personally participating or involved in any way in it; 1.5.2 that it is his/her personal responsibility to familiarize him/herself with all of the requirements of the Anti-Corruption Code, and to comply with those requirements (where applicable); 1.5.3 to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC to investigate apparent or suspected Corrupt Conduct that would amount to a violation of the Anti-Corruption Code; 1.5.4 to submit to the jurisdiction of any Anti-Corruption tribunal convened under the Anti- Corruption Code to hear and determine (a) any allegation by the ICC that the Participant has committed Corrupt Conduct under the Anti-Corruption Code; and (b) any related issue (e.g. any challenge to the validity of the charges or to the jurisdiction of the ICC or the Anti-Corruption Tribunal, as applicable)…” 11. The jurisdiction of the ICC over Mr Ahmed and Mr Hayat and of the Tribunal over the charges brought against them is not disputed. IV The Charges 12. The charges against Mr Ahmed were the following A breach of Code Article 2.1.3 (“Seeking, accepting, offering or agreeing to accept any bribe or other reward to: (a) fix or to contrive in any way or otherwise to influence improperly the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any International Match; or (b) ensure for Betting or other corrupt purposes the occurrence of a particular incident in an International Match”) on the basis of his acceptance of a payment of AED 15,000 (a Reward) from a known corrupter on the understanding that further instructions would be provided to him (and Mr Hayat) with regards what they would be expected to do in upcoming matches in the ICC World T20 Qualifiers 2019 in exchange for the payment. A breach of Code Article 2.4.2 (“Failing to disclose to the ACU (without unnecessary delay) the receipt of any gift, payment, hospitality or other benefit, (a) that the Participant knew or should have known was given to him/her to procure (directly or indirectly) any breach of the Anti-Corruption Code, or (b) that was made or given in circumstances that could bring the Participant or the sport of cricket into disrepute”) on the basis of his failure to disclose to the ACU (without unnecessary delay) the receipt of the payment of AED 15,000 from [Mr Y] that he knew, or should have known, was given to him to procure a breach of the Code, and/or which was also given in circumstances that could bring him or the sport of cricket into disrepute (i.e. where he accepted payment from a known corrupter/bookie). As an alternative to charge no. 2, a breach of Code Article 2.4.3 (“Failing to disclose to the ACU (without unnecessary delay) all gifts (whether monetary or otherwise), hospitality and/or other non- contractual benefits offered to a Participant that have a value of US$750 or more, whether or not the circumstances set out in Article 2.4.2 are present, save that there shall be no obligation to disclose any (i) personal gifts, hospitality and/or other non-contractual benefits offered by or on behalf of any close friend or relative of the Participant, (ii) any food or beverage gifts or (iii) cricket hospitality gifts in connection with Matches the Participant is participating in”) on the basis that Mr Ahmed failed to disclose to the ACU (without unnecessary delay) the receipt of a payment of AED 15,000 from [Mr Y], which amounted to a gift with a value of more than US$ 750. A breach of Code Article 2.4.4 (“Failing to disclose to the ACU (without unnecessary delay) full details of any approaches or invitations received by the Participant to engage in Corrupt Conduct under the Anti-Corruption Code”) on the basis that he failed to disclose to the ACU (without unnecessary delay) full details of the approach he received from [Mr Y], which included the payment of AED 15,000, to engage in Corrupt Conduct at the Qualifiers. A breach of Code Article 2.4.5 (“Failing to disclose to the ACU (without unnecessary delay) full details of any incident, fact, or matter that comes to the attention of a Participant that may evidence Corrupt Conduct under the Anti-Corruption Code by another Participant, including (without limitation) approaches or invitations that have been received by another Participant to engage in Corrupt Conduct under the Anti-Corruption Code”) on the basis that he failed to disclose to the ACU (without unnecessary delay) details of the receipt by Mr Hayat of the AED 15,000 from [Mr Y], which was paid to him in the expectation that he would engage in Corrupt Conduct in the upcoming Qualifiers. 13. The Charges against Mr Hayat were the following A breach of Code Article 2.1.3 (“Seeking, accepting, offering or agreeing to accept any bribe or other Reward to: (a) fix or to contrive in any way or otherwise to influence improperly the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any International Match; or (b) ensure for Betting or other corrupt purposes the occurrence of a particular incident in an International Match”) on the basis of his acceptance of a payment of AED 15,000 (a Reward) from a known corrupter on the understanding that further instructions would be provided to him and Mr Ahmed with regards what they would be expected to do in upcoming matches in the ICC World T20 Qualifiers 2019 in exchange for the payment. A breach of Code Article 2.4.2 (“Failing to disclose to the ACU (without unnecessary delay) the receipt of any gift, payment, hospitality or other benefit, (a) that the Participant knew or should have known was given to him/her to procure (directly or indirectly) any breach of the Anti-Corruption Code, or (b) that was made or given in circumstances that could bring the Participant or the sport of cricket into disrepute”) on the basis of his failure to disclose to the ACU (without unnecessary delay) the receipt of the payment AED 15,000 from [Mr Y] that he knew, or should have known, was given to him to procure a breach of the Code, and/or which was also given in circumstances that could bring him or the sport of cricket into disrepute (i.e.

Load more

  47

Copy Link