Even as Mohammad Amir’s lawyers contemplate an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport against the judgment of the ICC Anti-Corruption Tribunal, a quick review of the CAS Code and a very recent precedent in a corruption case (involving a Ukranian referee involved in match-fixing in a UEFA Europa League match) does not offer much hope for Amir. Interestingly, the President of the Panel in that case also was Michael Beloff!
CAS Decision in Oleg Oriekhov v. UEFA- Brief Facts
(See http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4509/5048/0/Press%20release%20EN%202011.01.18.pdf, from where the summary below has been reproduced)
On 5 November 2009, the referee Oleg Oriekhov officiated a match between FC Basel and CSKA Sofia in group E of the 2009-2010 UEFA Europa League. FC Basel won the match with a score of 3-1. Following investigations conducted by the public prosecutor of Bochum (Germany), it appeared that Oleg Oriekhov was in contact with a criminal group involved in betting fraud and that he was offered an amount of approximately EUR 50’000 to manipulate the match between FC Basel and CSKA Sofia. At the end of an internal procedure at UEFA, the UEFA Appeals Body considered that Mr Oriekhov had violated the principles of conduct and his duty to disclose illicit approaches, set out in the UEFA regulations, in failing to immediately
report to UEFA that he had received offers from certain individuals to take an active part in their match-fixing scheme. The UEFA Appeals Body concluded that a life ban on exercising any football-related activity was the appropriate sanction to be imposed upon Oleg Oriekhov in view of the seriousness of the situation.
On 17 July 2010, Oleg Oriekhov filed an appeal with the CAS to request the annulment of the UEFA decision. The case was referred to a Panel of CAS arbitrators composed of Mr Michael Beloff, QC, United Kingdom (President), Mr Denis Oswald, Switzerland and Mr José Juan Pintó, Spain. A hearing was held in Lausanne on 15 December 2010, during which the parties, their legal representatives and their witnesses were heard.
The CAS Panel confirmed the UEFA Decision and concluded that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that there were repeated contacts between Oleg Oriekhov and the members of a criminal group involved in match-fixing and betting fraud.
The CAS Panel considered that Oleg Oriekhov deliberately violated the principles of conduct provided by the
UEFA Disciplinary Regulations as he did not inform UEFA immediately of the existence of such contacts. The Panel rejected the arguments of Mr Oriekhov by which he explained that he did not report the contacts because of his inadequate command of English and because he was not aware of to whom he should make such a report. The CAS Panel concluded that, in such circumstances, a life ban from any football-related activity was a proportionate sanction.
Specific Statements in the Oriekhov Award diminish Amir’s Chances
Firstly, in its discussion on the Applicable Law, on the basis of which the Oriekhov appeal was to be determined, the CAS Panel very clearly recognizes the primacy of applicable UEFA Regulations, and confines itself to assessing the UEFA General Terms and Conditions for Referees, Edition 2003, in force since 1 August 2003 and the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, Edition 2008, in force since 1 July 2008. Therefore, in Amir’s case, assuming the CAS were to admit his appeal, the appeal will be confined to assessing the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Code (and not adding to or reading down the provisions of the Code).
Secondly, in Oriekhov’s case (as in Amir’s case), Oriekhov had sought to rely on his past untarnished record to plead that a life ban was far too severe. In response the CAS Panel made the following remarks (See paras 77, 78 and 80 of the Award, which to me, sets a very firm precedent in dealing with similar corruption cases (such as Amir’s case):
“77. The Panel accepts that, until the recent events under scrutiny in this appeal, the Appellant’s reputation was untarnished, his refereeing skills were well recognized and that he did not instigate the match manipulation. It also accepts that it should proceed on the basis that he did not actually manipulate the match or receive moneys to affect its outcome.
78. However, the Panel has to remind itself that match-fixing, money-laundering, kickbacks, extortion, bribery and the like are a growing concern, indeed a cancer, in many major sports, football included, and must be eradicated. The very essence of sport is that competition is fair; its attraction to spectators is the unpredictability of its outcome.
80. It is therefore essential in the Panel’s view for sporting regulators to demonstrate zero tolerance against all kinds of corruption and to impose sanctions sufficient to serve as an effective deterrent to people who might otherwise be tempted through greed or fear to consider involvement in such criminal activities. Match officials are an obvious target for those who wish to make illicit profit through gambling on match results (or indeed on the occurrence of incidents within matches). They must be reinforced in their resistance to such criminal approaches. CAS must, applying naturally to considerations of legality and of proportionality, respect in its awards the approaches of such regulators devoted to such virtuous ends.“
These are very strong statements (and justifiably so). Hence, I have my doubts as to whether the CAS would deviate from its approach in the Oriekhov case and reduce the penalties imposed by the Anti-Corruption Tribunal in Amir’s case. The chances of it happening are all the more less as the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Code do not allow for a ban of any term less than 5 years for corruption-related offences.
About the Author:
Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.
Posted by Amrut Joshi 
