Spot Fixing?

What's buzzing in the world of cricket....

Re: Pakistan Spot Fixing?

Postby Borges » Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:21 pm

> If the ICC or its corruption outfit had carried out that investigation the way the NOTW had,
> they would be guilty of entrapment and those responsible would have walked free.

Entrapment takes place when a person is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents ....
The anti-corruption unit of the ICC is not a law enforcement agency. If they discover something criminal, they cannot prosecute - they can hand over the evidence to the law enforcement agency for criminal action.

to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit. There is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.
Even if the police had carried out this sting operation, there would have been no entrapment in this case - not even in the USA, where entrapment laws are the most stringent,

So its not really a very good point, its very naive.
Borges
 
Posts: 3166
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:54 am

Re: Pakistan Spot Fixing?

Postby sussexpob » Sun Aug 29, 2010 7:14 pm

Borges wrote:> If the ICC or its corruption outfit had carried out that investigation the way the NOTW had,
> they would be guilty of entrapment and those responsible would have walked free.

Entrapment takes place when a person is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents ....
The anti-corruption unit of the ICC is not a law enforcement agency. If they discover something criminal, they cannot prosecute - they can hand over the evidence to the law enforcement agency for criminal action.

to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit. There is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.
Even if the police had carried out this sting operation, there would have been no entrapment in this case - not even in the USA, where entrapment laws are the most stringent,

So its not really a very good point, its very naive.



As you point out, the first thing is usually to decide whether or not the person was already willing to commit said crime. There are also many questions as to the nature of the inducement, the most pivotal of tests is whether or not the accused recieves an offer that is manifested in a way that is normal for said practice.

One could argue, and have successfully in the past with regards to similar illegal activities, that an illegal bookmaker being induced into fixing matches with mountains of cash is entrapment, because you are suitably creating the crime on the knowledge that such people are susceptable to similar crimes, but may not have prior knowledge to such a deal.

A bookmaker's main money spin is his betters, all of which he would isolate by illegally fudging results to maximise his income. It is therefore, in the long road, not in his best interests to fix matches very often, because he may make money in the short term, but in the long term his punters are going to get suspicious. Remember in most of the countries these people are dealing, betting is an illegal activity, so there is also massive duress on those involved from potential gangster like levels of influence and threats.

All this means is that an approach to fudge a game for a large sum of money can create and entrap an individual who will be lured into a short term cash guaranteed cash amount, along with the benefits on the odds he offers, but it may not be the kind of activity that he would have considered before such an offer was made by an undercover agent.

This is very very common, and a lot of guilty criminals walk away on the technicality that the specific crime of which they were asked to undertake(match fixing) is highly unlikely to be independantly sought by the accused.

To suggest the ICC Anti Corruption Unit start to wave money and induce those suspected of illegal bookmaking activities to fudge matches may uncover a few middlemen who make the deals, and a few players involved, but you simply will never pin down a conviction on anyone worthwhile doing it that way.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

Re: Pakistan Spot Fixing?

Postby captaincolly » Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:50 pm

If these allegations are proven correct-and the evidence is damning even if it has been provided by the News Of The World, I will find it hard to believe that the youngster Amir was a willing participant. Perhaps I'm naive or sentimental but it seems almost impossible that the young lad who enchanted everyone with his superb bowling and exuberance is a cynical cheat. Ordinarily I'd say anyone guilty of spot fixing or match fixing should be banned for life but surely there must be more to this than just blatant cheating? Or am I just being hopelessly naive?
captaincolly
 
Posts: 36269
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:47 pm
Team(s) Supported: Durham CCC, England

Re: Pakistan Spot Fixing?

Postby SaintPowelly » Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:55 pm

captaincolly wrote:If these allegations are proven correct-and the evidence is damning even if it has been provided by the News Of The World, I will find it hard to believe that the youngster Amir was a willing participant. Perhaps I'm naive or sentimental but it seems almost impossible that the young lad who enchanted everyone with his superb bowling and exuberance is a cynical cheat. Ordinarily I'd say anyone guilty of spot fixing or match fixing should be banned for life but surely there must be more to this than just blatant cheating? Or am I just being hopelessly naive?


I dont want to believe that he is guilty..but the evidence speaks for itself.. he could of made a statement by reporting these guys..or not bowling the no-balls and costing the bookies money.. but he didnt.. he knew what he was doing
Bang-NZ ODI prediction guru
India vs Oz ODI fantasy league 2013
SA-WI Tests fantasy league 2015
Sheffield Shield fantasy league 2014-2015
SaintPowelly
 
Posts: 18527
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:54 pm
Team(s) Supported: Hampshire Cricket, Southampton Football

Re: Pakistan Spot Fixing?

Postby Red Devil » Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:02 pm

SaintPowelly wrote:
captaincolly wrote:If these allegations are proven correct-and the evidence is damning even if it has been provided by the News Of The World, I will find it hard to believe that the youngster Amir was a willing participant. Perhaps I'm naive or sentimental but it seems almost impossible that the young lad who enchanted everyone with his superb bowling and exuberance is a cynical cheat. Ordinarily I'd say anyone guilty of spot fixing or match fixing should be banned for life but surely there must be more to this than just blatant cheating? Or am I just being hopelessly naive?


I dont want to believe that he is guilty..but the evidence speaks for itself.. he could of made a statement by reporting these guys..or not bowling the no-balls and costing the bookies money.. but he didnt.. he knew what he was doing


seems incredible really that he would throw his carreer away like this. However, if his seniors in the side were doing it and put him under pressure to do what they were doing, then it is more understandable.

Makes you wonder what the issue with Younis might have been ... could it be that he was just unwilling to be involved in such thing?
FL Titles
2008 Ban v NZ ODIs India v Aus Tests India v Eng ODIs
2009 NZ v WI Tests NZ v India ODIs SA v Aust ODIs Aus v WI Tests '08/09 Premier League Football
2010 SA v Eng Tests County Championship Div 1 County Championship Div 2 India v NZ Tests SL v WI Tests
2011 CMS Cricinfo World Cup County Championship Div 2
2012 Pak v Eng Tests SL v Ind ODIs County Championship Div 2 Champs League T20
2013 Ind v Aus Tests NZ v Eng T20/ODI NZ v Eng Tests County Fantasy Manager County Championship Div 1 NZ v WI Tests '13/14 Aus v Eng Tests
2014 NZ v Ind ODIs CMS Cricinfo T20 World Cup County Fantasy Manager County Championship Div 1 Aus MB One Day Cup SL v Eng ODIs
2015 CMS Cricinfo ODI World Cup Eng v NZ combined Natwest T20
2016 Big Bash T20 Sheffield Shield Kia Womens T20 Natwest T20 Blast County Fantasy Manager WI v Pak T20/ODI combined Rio Olympics
2017 Womens Big Bash T20 Womens ODI World Cup Eng v WI Tests County Championship Div 1 Eng v WI ODIs Aus JLT One Day Cup Ind v SL Tests NZ v WI Tests Ind v SL T20s
2018 Aus v Eng ODIs Womens Big Bash T20 Trans Tasman T20s Sheffield Shield Pak v WI T20s NZ v Eng Tests Eng v Aus ODIs Royal London County One Day WI v Ban Test/ODI Combined Women's Super League T20 Natwest T20 Blast Caribbean Premier League T20 County Championship Div 1 Women's T20 World Cup '17/18 Premier League Fantasy Football
2019 NZ v SL Test/ODI Combined WI v Eng Tests Big Bash T20 NZ v Ban Tests ICC World Cup Single Wicket Women's Big Bash T20 All Year Fant Comp
2020 Big Bash T20 (Joint) SL v WI T20/ODI Bob Willis Trophy Natwest T20 Blast Aus v Ind ODI/T20 Combined
2021 Ind v Eng ODIs
Red Junior's Titles
2016 Eng v Pak ODIs (aged 6)
2017 Eng v SA Tests Ind v NZ ODIs
2018 Aus JLT One Day Cup
2019 NZ v Eng T20s Aus Marsh One Day Cup
2020 (Joint) SL v WI T20/ODI IPL T20
Red Twins Titles
2021 Aus v Ind Tests (aged 7) Ind v Eng T20s
User avatar
Red Devil
 
Posts: 16505
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:04 pm
Location: London
Team(s) Supported: India, Manchester United

Re: Pakistan Spot Fixing?

Postby Dimi » Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:44 pm

Red Devil wrote:Makes you wonder what the issue with Younis might have been ... could it be that he was just unwilling to be involved in such thing?


I seriously hope so. Younis getting treated like he did clearly suggested there was more to it than not seeing eye to eye with MoYo.
User avatar
Dimi
 
Posts: 8399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Pakistan Spot Fixing?

Postby Kim » Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:52 pm

BTW re all the above written on entrapment, entrapment isnt a defence in UK law as far as I know (unlike the US).
The Kookaburra Man
User avatar
Kim
 
Posts: 3897
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:06 pm

Re: Pakistan Spot Fixing?

Postby Dimi » Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:58 pm

Kim wrote:BTW re all the above written on entrapment, entrapment isnt a defence in UK law as far as I know (unlike the US).


The US have stupid laws that come under the Constitution. Entrapment shouldn't be a law in the UK, though I guess you would have a better idea Kim.
User avatar
Dimi
 
Posts: 8399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Pakistan Spot Fixing?

Postby Mr Popodopolous » Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:01 am

Wiki says the following about entrapment and the UK:

Entrapment arises when a person is encouraged by someone in some official capacity to commit a crime. If entrapment occurred, then some prosecution evidence may be excluded as being unfair, or the proceedings may be discontinued altogether.

Some examples of entrapment are as follows:-

1. A police officer encourages a person to commit a crime so that the officer can have him prosecuted for that crime.
2. The greater the degree of entrapment by the police officer, the more likely the court will see it as entrapment. See the case R v Bryne [2003]. That is, entrapment is not a substantive defence (R v Sang); i.e. it does not automatically negate the prosecution case.
3. Customs Officers who aid and abet fraud in order to prosecute the fraud. A notorious example of this occurred in 2003. The 'Stockade' prosecution ended in failure when the Court of Appeal quashed convictions against seven people accused in connection with the alleged diversion of £105 million in excise duty (VAT). The conduct of such Excise diversion cases resulted in the loss of up to £2 billion in public revenue.[13]

If a person has committed an offence because of entrapment, the Court may stay the proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuses of process (which prevents the case going ahead) or exclude evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The grant of a stay is normally the most appropriate response.

The main authority on entrapment in the United Kingdom is the decision of the House of Lords in R. v. Loosely; Attorney-General's Reference (n.3 of 2000). A grant of a stay is awarded if the conduct of the state was so seriously improper that the administration of justice was brought into disrepute. In deciding whether to grant a stay, the Court will consider, as a useful guide, whether the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime.

In Loosely, Lords Hoffman and Hutton indicated certain factors that should be considered in deciding whether proceedings against a defendant should be stayed. These include:

* whether the police acted in good faith;
* whether the police had good reason to suspect the accused of criminal activities;
* whether the police suspected that crime was particularly prevalent in the area in which the investigation took place (Williams v. DPP);
* whether pro-active investigatory techniques were necessary because of the secrecy and difficulty of detection of the criminal activity in question;
* the defendant's circumstances and vulnerability; and
* the nature of the offence.

It has been held that it is generally acceptable for the police to conduct test purchases (DPP v. Marshall) or pose as passengers to catch unlicensed taxi drivers (Nottingham City Council v. Amin).
Mr Popodopolous
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:58 pm

Re: Pakistan Spot Fixing?

Postby SaintPowelly » Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:14 am

I don't understand that ( I must be stupid ) :slap

does that mean that there is a loophole or are they banged to rights ??
Bang-NZ ODI prediction guru
India vs Oz ODI fantasy league 2013
SA-WI Tests fantasy league 2015
Sheffield Shield fantasy league 2014-2015
SaintPowelly
 
Posts: 18527
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:54 pm
Team(s) Supported: Hampshire Cricket, Southampton Football

Re: Pakistan Spot Fixing?

Postby flyinginabluedream » Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:55 am

After seeing the press conference at Lord's, I would say that Salman Butt will be extremely fortunate if he gets anything less than a life ban. His behaviour was not that of an angry man, he was trying to dodge questions and defer answers. Yawar Saaed cleary felt uncomfortable with Salman saying anything. When asked about the Sydney test, Cricinfo describes it thus:

"1.20pm Andrew Miller is currently at the Pakistan press conference and here is the latest: Salman Butt has been asked straight up, did Pakistan deliberately lose the Sydney Test. He did not answer, while Yawar Saeed changed the subject. Are you going to resign Butt is asked? "Why?" Salman replies."
http://www.cricinfo.com/england-v-pakis ... commentary

That is pretty horrible and the implication is that this stretches beyond the Lord's test, and indeed the series. Not only does it tarnish the achievements of Pakistan and England in this series, but also of Australia in the series down under. If I were Salman and considered myself innocent, then I would be extremely angry- instead he was defensive and argumentative. It does not bode well for him, Pakistan, or indeed Cricket as a whole.
flyinginabluedream
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 9:56 pm
Team(s) Supported: Lancashire and England

Re: Pakistan Spot Fixing?

Postby sussexpob » Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:34 am

Kim wrote:BTW re all the above written on entrapment, entrapment isnt a defence in UK law as far as I know (unlike the US).


Traditionally you would be correct, but since the turn of the millenium the House of Lords have recognised the need for entrapment law in the UK, using the rights of a fair trial under the ECHR article 6, and s78 of PACE 84 as the guiding point for fair trials. While technically not a substantive defence, the effect of entrapment will suspend(technically called a "stay of proceedings") a trial, or will consider disregarding parts of evidence that show there was sufficient inducement in manufacturing the crime.

In that way you could say the end game is that it is a defence, even better than a defence, because some defences in the common law will reduce tariff, but not get a case thrown out!


Dimi wrote: The US have stupid laws that come under the Constitution. Entrapment shouldn't be a law in the UK, though I guess you would have a better idea Kim.



Entrapment is an excellent addition to the common law. In the old days, a policeman could go to any man who had bought a joint before in his life, and threaten them to buy a kilo of cocaine from their local dealer, then they would bang you up for 15 years on possession with intent to sell! Its not hard to see why this situation is a bad one, because it makes our justice system unequitable! This is the reason why Judges have been so keen to find a statutory link to the ideas of Entrapment, in order to create a solid precident for future cases.

SaintPowelly wrote:I don't understand that ( I must be stupid ) :slap does that mean that there is a loophole or are they banged to rights ??



Well, as Borges point out, the first step is to ask whether or not the the person was willing to commit the crime... and the outside interference merely facilititated the making of a deal. In this situation for isntance, is the bookmaker fixing a match and looking for buyers to fund it, and then both make money on the betting odds once it is done?

If that is the case then the evidence gained by the investigative journalist can be used. This is because the agent used in uncovering the crime is simply a vessel for the crime to take place. He could have been anyone! To use another example, it is like a dealer asking an undercover policeman if he wants to buy drugs, then post transaction the dealer is arrested. Its clear the crime would have been committed with out the entrapment, even though the policeman will break the law in order to make an arrest.

However the position becomes more cloudy if the agent himself makes the first move. If you go to an illegal bookmaker and ask for him to throw a match knowing that he is a gangster with the contacts, money and influence to do it, you have to break it down furthur.

Again you have to ask, was the person willing to break the law, or was the approach by the agent merely a convienent approach that allowed them to do it more easily?

Firstly you have to look at predisposition. If a person already had criminal intent before inducement by an agent.....( crimes are made up of Actus Reus, the guilty act, and Mens Rea, the guilty mind...intention is a common mens rea element in crime, and the actus reus will be the same in entrapment, as the crime has still been committed regardless of how it is constructed)..... then it is not entrapment. In the US, most entrapment cases revolve on the sole argument of whether or not the police implanted intent, so actually you could argue the UK is actually a wider gambit, contrary to what has been posted above. (You want the proof, Hampton vs US 1976 425 US 484, 489 - 490 per Rehnquist CJ... for a explanation of the difference between USA vs UK, R v Mack (1988) 44 CCC (3d) 513, 551).

Here predisposition is not so important, as its full accepted that it is also the conduct taken by an agent that is important. The techniques someone uses to bring out a predetermined willingness to commit the crime in other words. In assessing that, the key test will be the following....

Nature of the offence...... Was there contrary evidence to suggest match fixing was such a problem, that inducing it to catch those involved was necessary in reference to the way it is carried out? One could argue that, with the ICC having its own Anti Corruption Unit with 5 highly paid proffessional investigative agents, the need for the NOTW to also get involved would equate to an unjust inducement. You could argue that it is so bad, it was needed to be uncovered, but then again that would only serve to strength the counter argument... that the nature of the crime was obvious, and so didnt need to be uncovered.... Id say 1 up on entrapment here.

Reason for particular operation.... Why did the NOTW try to carry out the operation. As a newspaper, one could argue it was to sell copies of their product, and not for the integrity of the game. It is more likely then that entrapment was unjust in this case.

The nature and extent of agent participation in the crime.... again, if the NOTW simply went to a known bookmaker and facilitated, through a middleman, a match fix then it is more likely that this is unjust. This is obviously down to the fact it is less likely to prove that they were willing to commit the crime without inducement. Things like the amount of money fronted would be relavent, as they are more of a carrot to create duress in the accused.

Past criminal records... dont necessarily allow the agent carte blanche to induce. They have to be generally relevant to the specific type of enducement, and again running an illegal bookmakers with no prior evidence of match fixing is going to see that unjust.

So without known who made the first move and all the details, its hard to predict, but Ive tried to outline above why the Police might find it hard to make the evidence stick. It all depends on the judge and the quality of your lawyer at the end of the day, and what precedents are deemed relevent.

It would be hard to pin a conviction on the players in question but Salman Butt and Asif are more culpable. As Captain one could argue he has a fiduciary relationship with his players, and his increased leadership status would deem him more culpable, Asif and Amir would be found to act in duress.... whether that will save their careers if found guilty is another thing, but will no doubt get them a better case with the police. If evidence comes out of team management intereference, usually the harshes punishment will go to the highest man, and also the court would take into account the duress of a potentially threatening situation making them act.

I doubt the punishment will be harsh for the players involved... not from a legal sense. The bookmaker is a different and much more complex story, as above!
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

Re: Pakistan Spot Fixing?

Postby DeltaAlpha » Mon Aug 30, 2010 7:23 am

Unless I were a lawyer specialising in the field, sussex, I would hesitate to delve to such depth into the law regarding entrapment...
2011-12 CMS winter chess champion
2011 CMS spring chess champion
DeltaAlpha
 
Posts: 6277
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:49 pm
Location: Lancashire
Team(s) Supported: England

Re: Pakistan Spot Fixing?

Postby Kim » Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:17 am

Basic reason why entrapment is not a defence is the obvious one: the person entrapped has still done the dirty deed whatever the reason for doing it. They still have criminal intent.

If, god knows why, anyone wants to know more this is a directly relevant simple summary - mentions the NOW as well..

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice ... entrapment
The Kookaburra Man
User avatar
Kim
 
Posts: 3897
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:06 pm

Re: Pakistan Spot Fixing?

Postby mikesiva » Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:44 am

sussexpob wrote:
mikesiva wrote:I think Salman's position is untenable - he has to step down as captain, and IMHO, Pakistan should be looking for three replacements for their ODI side.


All three deserve to be treated as innocent, until the full investigation and its findings have been carried out.

While that is true that they haven't been charged yet, the hands of three players - Salman, Amir and Asif - seem to have been practically caught in the till, and it seems likely that they will be charged with something in the near future....

The wisest course of action that the PCB could take is to suspend them pending an investigation. A lot of employers would've done that. For them to continue in their current roles can't be good for the morale of the ODI side.

Mazhar Majeeb is on bail, but we haven't received any official info on those three players....

http://www.cricinfo.com/england-v-pakis ... 75042.html

"Majeed had been arrested on Saturday, following the expose that claimed he was paid £150,000 to arrange a fix with the Pakistan team. He was caught on camera by the News of the World claiming to have bribed Pakistan's bowlers to bowl no-balls at previously agreed moments during the Lord's Test. He claimed to the paper to have up to seven players from the side working for him, though so far only four - Butt, Asif, Amir and Kamran Akmal - have been named."
Nobody has a stance quite like the mighty Shivnarine....

Australia-New Zealand ODI's Prediction Guru
2009 spring chess league guru
Pakistan vs Australia ODI's Prediction Guru
World 20/20 Prediction Guru
2010-2011 final places Premiership footy prediction guru
2011 French Open tennis prediction guru
2011 Bang vs WI combined fantasy guru
2012 Caribbean T20 fantasy guru
2012 Euros prediction guru
2012-2013 final places Premiership footy prediction guru
2013 Champions League prediction guru
2013 chess mini-tournament guru
2014 Eng-SL combined fantasy guru
2014 chess mini-tournament guru
2017 Australian Open tennis guru
User avatar
mikesiva
 
Posts: 38752
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:41 pm
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Team(s) Supported: First - West Indies
Joint Second - England, Sri Lanka

PreviousNext

Return to International Cricket

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests