Appendix 'B'

HISTORY OF INVESTIGATIONS AND INQUIRIES

In this Appendix to the report I have summarised the chronology and outcome of investigations into match fixing and related issues.

England 1994 - Don Topley Between 23rd and 26th August 1991 a match between Essex and Lancashire resulted in a victory for Essex who subsequently won the County Championship. On 25th August 1991 the match was interrupted when the same teams met in the Sunday league contest, which resulted in Lancashire winning and advancing within the competition.

In 1994 Don Topley, who played for Essex in both the above matches, alleged in a British newspaper that the outcome of both matches had been pre-determined by the teams to ensure that both benefited from the outcome. An Inquiry at the time by Lancashire, Essex and the Test and County Cricket Board resulted in no action being taken against any person or team.

In 2000 the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) passed the Topley papers to the Greater Manchester Police. They concluded that no police action was warranted. Subsequently the ECB announced that there was insufficient evidence against any individual falling under the Boards jurisdiction to bring a case before a discipline panel.

Sri Lanka 1994 – Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka Early in 1994, following a tour in India, the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka ordered an Inquiry into the national team's poor performance. The tour had resulted in all three Tests being lost by an innings. The report concluded, "There is evidence that a bookmaker of Indian origin has attempted to make his presence felt in the national cricket scene".

Australia 1995 – Australian Cricket Board In September 1994, during the Singer Cup in Sri Lanka, Mark Waugh and Shane Warne accepted $4,000 and $5,000 respectively from 'John', an Indian bookmaker, to provide him with weather and pitch information in games involving Australia.

Waugh declined to provide details concerning team tactics or selection of players but provided information to 'John' on approximately ten occasions over a five month period. This included games in Pakistan, Australia during the 1994/95 Ashes tour, in New Zealand in February 1995 and finally in the West Indies during the tour in 1995. the full scope of Waugh's telephone calls were not fully appreciated until further examination during the O'Regan Inquiry.

John gave Warne, who had been introduced to Waugh, an envelope containing $5,000 as a token of his appreciation for meeting him. Warne was subsequently phoned by John on three occasions during the Ashes series in Australia 1994/95 and he responded in quite general terms to queries about the composition of the team and the likely state of the pitch for certain matches.

These arrangements came to an end when a journalist contacted Ian McDonald, the Australian Team Manager. Waugh and Warne provided McDonald with handwritten, but unsigned statements (dated 20 February 1995) concerning the acceptance of money from 'John'. After a further interview with ACB officials, when both men again made admissions, Waugh was fined $AUS 10,000 and Warne $AUS 8,000.

Other than a reference to the incident in the Minutes of the ACB meeting of 28 February 1995, no mention of this incident was made public until 1998. This would accord with the then feelings of the ICC that, in the best interests of cricket, such matters should not be released into the public domain. This incident is referred to in the O'Regan Report.

Pakistan 1995 – Justice (Retd) Fakhruddin G Ibrahim In 1995 the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) initiated an Inquiry, under the chairmanship of Justice Fakhruddin G Ibrahim, a former judge of the Pakistan Supreme Court, to look into allegations made by Australian players surrounding the First Test between Pakistan and Australia in Karachi in 1994 and the ODI in Rawalpindi

Some months after the game a newspaper carried an article alleging that Salim Malik had offered three Australian players (Shane Warne, Mark Waugh and Tim May) $200,000 to manipulate the result during the last day of the fixture. Waugh also alleged that Malik offered him $200,000 for four or five Australian players to under- perform in the next days ODI in Rawalpindi.

The Inquiry was frustrated as the Australian players did not travel to Pakistan to give evidence, and thus the Inquiry had to rely on their statements together with the cross examination of Malik.

In February 1995 the International Cricket Council urged the Pakistan Cricket Board to be discreet "always bearing in mind the damage to the image of cricket if allegations were made public in any way".

In October 1995 Judge Ibrahim concluded the proceedings by saying "The allegations against Saleem (sic) Malik are not worthy of any credence and must be rejected as unfounded".

These allegations were re-examined during the O'Regan and Qayyum Inquiries.

India 1997 – Chandrachund Inquiry In 1997, following revelations in 'Outlook' magazine, the Honourable Shri Justice Y. V. Chandrachud was appointed as a One Man Committee (Chandrachud Committee) by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to hold an Inquiry into the alleged charges of betting and match fixing by Indian cricketers and/or by the management.

The article alleged that Manoj Prabhakar had been offered Rs. 25 lakhs (approx $53,000 at current Indian Rupee/US dollar rate) by an Indian team member to under- perform during the 1994 Singer Cup match between India and Pakistan so as to favour Pakistan.

In November 1997 Justice Chandrachud, concluded his investigation. Whilst he accepted that large scale betting occurred in India he was unwilling to accept, upon the information provided to him, that there was proof that any Indian player, official or journalist had ever involved themselves in such a form of activity. This internal Inquiry was not to become public for some two and a half years.

Australia 1998 – O'Regan Inquiry In 1998 after the 1994/95 Waugh and Warne allegations were revealed by the media, the Australian Cricket Board (ACB) faced criticism of the handling of the affair. It responded by appointing Rob O'Regan AM QC to conduct a full investigation covering the period January 1992 to December 1998. His brief was to:

Investigate whether any of its contracted players had engaged in certain conduct relating to betting, bribery, match-fixing, the unauthorised receipt of moneys or other benefits and related matters, and to investigate also disciplinary processes available for consideration of such conduct. As his was a private ACB Inquiry, O'Regan did not have the powers conferred by statute to compel witnesses to give evidence on oath or affirmation, nor could he even require them to give evidence at all. The Inquiry did not enjoy the protection of absolute privilege, such as would provide a complete defence against an action in defamation.

O'Regan concentrated his examination on the events surrounding Australian players in respect of:

Alleged approach to Dean Jones during 1992 in Sri Lanka. Allegation that the second match of the 1992 World XI v Indian XI was fixed. Allegations that Allan Border was approached to fix the final Test of the 1993 Australian tour of England. The acceptance of $4,000 and $5,000 by Mark Waugh and Shane Warne during the 1994 Sri Lanka/Pakistan Tour Alleged approach to Ricky Ponting for match information during 1997 Alleged approach to Mark Taylor regarding weather and pitch information during the 1998 Pakistan tour. After a thorough investigation O'Regan formed the opinion that there was no basis for recommending disciplinary action against any Australian player, Waugh and Warne having previously been fined in 1995. However he did criticise the ACB for its handling of the Waugh/Warne case believing that they should have been suspended.

He recommended that the ACB review the way in which it dealt with serious disciplinary proceedings, publicity of such proceedings, penalties to be imposed and player counselling in relation to untoward contact with those with gambling interests.

Some of the events mentioned in the O'Regan report were later to be corroborated by the Indian bookmaker MK Gupta, when he was interviewed by the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation in 2000 during the Hansie Cronjé affair. However the evidence of Gupta made a new allegation of corruption against one Australian player. This allegation is currently the subject of an investigation by the Special Investigator appointed by the ACB, with assistance from the ICC ACU.

Pakistan 1998 – Qayyum Inquiry In 1998, under the terms of the Commission of Inquiry Act 1956, Pakistan set up a one man Judicial Commission to probe allegations that members of the National team had been involved in betting and match fixing. Mr. Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum was appointed to the Commission.

This was to follow the Inquiry undertaken by Justice (Retd.) Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim and a Probe Committee Inquiry chaired by Justice Ejaz Yousef (Yousef Inquiry). The Yousef Inquiry, which did not have the powers of a Judge to compel witnesses to give evidence, was undertaken ex-parte and no opportunity was given to the accused to be represented or cross-examine witnesses. Whilst the Yousef Inquiry was abandoned, as it was felt that the process was flawed, it had tentatively suggested that certain players be suspended from playing cricket.

Justice Qayyum decided that rules of natural justice such as hearing and right of cross-examination must be applied.

The Commission's mandate was:
To probe into the allegations regarding betting and match fixing against the members of the Pakistan Cricket Team. To determine and identify the persons including members of the team responsible for betting and match fixing. To recommend such actions as may be appropriate; and To suggest measures to avoid any future incidence. The term 'match-fixing' was defined as:

Deciding the outcome of a match before it is played and then playing oneself or having others play below one's/their ability to influence the outcome to be in accordance with the pre-decided outcome. Match fixing was undertaken primarily for pecuniary gain. As Justice Qayyum considered that the appropriate punishments for match-fixing was a ban he required the burden of proof to lie between that applied to the criminal and normal civil standard, i.e. a higher standard of proof than the balance of probabilities.

Two offences were considered:
Match-fixing Bringing the name of the team into disrepute (match-fixing related) The Commission examined cricketers from Pakistan and Australia, Sports Journalists and miscellaneous other witnesses, and heard evidence containing fact and conjecture relating to incidents of alleged betting and match fixing. Whilst many events were related, it soon became apparent that Salim Malik was the focal point of many of the allegations.

Amongst those who appeared to give evidence were Mark Waugh and Mark Taylor. They gave evidence of an approach by Malik shortly before the Wills Triangular Series ODI in Rawalpindi on 22 October 1994 when Malik sought out Waugh to enquire if he could influence the Australian team in throwing the match.

However, whilst not specifically asked about it, they did not mention the undisclosed ACB 1995 finding that Waugh and Warne had accepted money from an Indian bookmaker, a fact to which Taylor had also been privy. This was revealed in December 1998, after they had given evidence before Justice Qayyum. As a direct result of this disclosure the Qayyum Inquiry travelled to Australia, where a special hearing having been convened under Pakistan law, they heard from Waugh and Warne.

Although completed many months earlier, and submitted to the PCB, Justice Qayyums report was not published until after the publicity surrounding the revelations about Cronjè.

In the report he concluded "The allegation that the Pakistan team as a whole is involved in match-fixing is just based on allegation, conjectures and surmises without there being positive proof. As a whole, the players of the Pakistan Cricket team are innocent".

However he found that the evidence in the case of Salim Malik was such that he should be banned from cricket for life and that there should be an inquiry into his assets. He further recommended that Ata-ur-Rehman should be similarly banned for life. Additionally Wasim Akram, Mushtaq Ahmed, Waqar Younis, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Akram Raza, Basit Ali and Saeed Anwar were subject of various penalties including being warned, censured, further investigated or kept under observation. He also recommended that the captaincy of the Pakistan Cricket team be removed from Wasim Akram.

He also imposed fines of varying amounts as follows: Salim Malik Rs. 10 lac Wasim Akram Rs. 3 lac Mushtaq Ahmad Rs. 3 lac Ata-ur-Rehman Rs. 1 lac Waqar Younis Rs. 1 lac Inzamam-ul-Haq Rs. 1 lac Akram Raza Rs. 1 lac Saeed Anwar Rs. 1 lac

At the current Rupee/US Dollar exchange rate, one 1 Lac (100,000 Pakistan Rupees) equates to approximately $ 1,640.

Justice Qayyum considered that the PCB should enforce declarations of assets by all its players and, if necessary, initiate a probe into their accounts. A watchdog Review Committee should be formed to deal with any future allegations.

A series of recommendations were made to prevent match fixing in the future. They can be summarised as covering areas surrounding,

The character of the team Manager and Captain Independent team ombudsman of foreign tours A new code of conduct Increase in players pay and conditions Education of players concerning entrapment by bookmakers Enforcement of strict discipline with a zero tolerance approach Review of match venues Players' relations with the press and match day restrictions England 1999 – Metropolitan Police investigation In late July 1999 Stephen Fleming, the New Zealand Captain, was approached in his hotel in Leicester, UK by two Indian nationals who allegedly propositioned him to 'fix' the 3rd Test between England and New Zealand due to take place at Old Trafford, Manchester on 5th August. He rejected the proposition and reported the matter to his Team Manager.

A day or so later Chris Lewis, the former England international, was similarly approached by two Indian nationals with a view to him arranging to 'fix' the 3rd Test or alternatively future matches involving the England team. He rejected the offer and the incident was reported to the England and Wales Cricket Board and the Metropolitan Police, London. A criminal investigation was initiated and police interviewed various people alleged to be involved in the corrupt approach. During the course of enquiries the Metropolitan Police have liaised with the New Delhi Police, CBI and the King Commission in developing links between the various allegations of corruption.

The result of the investigation has been passed to the UK judicial authorities for consideration.

India 2000 – New Delhi Police investigation In April 2000, whilst investigating an unrelated matter, New Delhi Police were monitoring the telephone calls of an Indian national. They overheard a telephone conversation in which Hansie Cronjé was mentioned, and subsequently listened to him discussing match fixing.

The New Delhi Police launched an investigation centred on the association between Cronjé (and South African players), London based businessman Sanjay Chawla and two Indian bookmakers. In May 2000 the New Delhi Police charged Cronjé, Strydom, Gibbs and Bojé, in their absence, with cheating, fraud and criminal conspiracy.

India 2000 – CBI Report Following the investigation by the New Delhi Police, which revealed that Cronjé had taken money from Indian bookmakers the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) instigated an inquiry.

Unlike previous inquiries, the CBI (whose investigations commenced in May 2000) actively sought out evidence, in contrast to hearing witnesses in a formal enquiry. They also utilised itemised telephone billing to prove associations. The CBI decided that first of all a broad enquiry was to be made to ascertain whether match fixing and other malpractices connected with the game of cricket existed. Accordingly, the following were fixed as focal points: The CBI focused on the following:

Identification of the betting syndicates operating in India and examine their activities. Unraveling of the linkages of cricket players or their intermediaries with these syndicates and their roles in the alleged malpractices; and Examination of the role and functions of Board of Control for Cricket in India so as to evaluate whether it could have prevented the alleged malpractices. The CBI, like Qayyum, provided a definition of match fixing, which they interpreted as:

Instances where an individual player or group of players received money individually/collectively to under-perform; Instances where a player placed bets in matches in which he played that would naturally undermine his performance; Instances where players passed on information to a betting syndicate about team composition, probable result, pitch condition, weather, etc., Instances where grounds men were given money to prepare a pitch in a way which suited the betting syndicate; and Instances of current and ex-players being used by bookies to gain access to Indian and foreign players to influence their performance for a monetary consideration.

The revelations about Cronjé, which will be referred to within the section relating to the King Commission, ultimately led to Mukesh Kumar Gupta (also known as MK and John), an Indian bookmaker. Gupta, who was one of many bookmakers and gamblers interviewed by the CBI, was the only one to admit to corrupting cricket players of various countries. He alleged he had paid players significant amounts of money for under-performing and match information

The investigation found that MK Gupta had become involved in illegal betting in the 1980's and in 1988 paid Ajay Sharma 2,000 rupees, having watched him play, as a token of his appreciation. Subsequently through Sharma, and later Manoj Prabhakar, Gupta alleged that he met many Indian and foreign international players. He gave evidence of large-scale corruption involving, amongst others, Azharuddin and Cronjé. He also named several non Indian players and alleged that they had been involved in cricket malpractice. The CBI did not have the jurisdiction to investigate the non- Indian players and although they named them in their report they did not carry out any investigation into these allegations.

After collecting evidence from players, officials, bookmakers, gamblers and others, the CBI commented that " At the very outset that the cricketing fraternity, generally speaking, maintained a 'conspiracy of silence' and were rarely forthcoming with any specific information relevant to the enquiry. Not a single player/ex-player/official etc., other than those who had made vague and general allegations in the media, volunteered any information to the CBI".

The CBI Report, published in November 2000, implicated Indian players, and officials, and non-Indian players. It also criticised the BCCI. The Solicitor General of India was in broad agreement with the findings of the CBI that no criminal charges could be filed against anyone.

The CBI criticised the Board of Control for Cricket in India for being negligent in response to allegations of match fixing and also criticised its structure and accountability. The Board has challenged these criticisms.

Following publication of the CBI Report the BCCI appointed Mr K. Madhaven to review the finding of the report and conduct inquiries on behalf of the BCCI with regard to Indian players and officials. On 5 December 2000, after Mr Madhaven had submitted his findings, the BCCI banned Mohammad Azharuddin and Ajay Sharma for life from playing any cricket matches conducted or authorised by the ICC/BCCI or affiliated association. Manoj Prabhakar, Ajay Jadeja and Dr Ali Irani were banned for 5 years in similar terms.

The CBI Report concluded that whilst small scale betting on cricket matches had been taking place in India for a long time, the advent of live television broadcasts led to an upswing in large scale betting. This coincided with India's victory in the 1983 World Cup. The CBI linked the current sophisticated nature and monetary scale of betting in India to organised crime with clear signals of 'Mafia' underworld involvement.

South Africa 2000 – King Commission Following the Cronjé revelations, and his subsequent confession to officials of the United Cricket Board of South Africa (UCB), the authorities set up an Inquiry chaired by Judge Edwin King.

The Commission was established by the President of South Africa in terms of Section 84(2)(f) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, (Act No 108 of 1996) as a Commission of Inquiry into Cricket Match Fixing and Related Matters (commonly referred to as the King Commission).

The Terms of Reference for the preliminary investigation were:

A.1. The disclosures made by the former South African cricket captain, Hansie Cronjé, that during the Triangular Tournament between South Africa, England and Zimbabwe in January and February 2000, he received payment of approximately $10,000-00 from a bookmaker.

A.2. Whether during the period 1 November 1999 – 17 April 2000, and excluding the matters referred to in paragraph 1, any member of the South African cricket team or team official received or was promised payment of any amount of money or other benefit (excluding salary, emoluments, sponsorship and other payments or benefits lawfully connected therewith) in relation to his or her functions as a member of the South African cricket team or as a team official.

A.3. Whether a proposal was made to the South African cricket team during its tour to India in 1996 that it forfeit or otherwise influence the result of a cricket match.

The Commission heard that on 7th April 2000 the UCB first became aware of allegations that Hansie Cronjé had been involved in match fixing, although it did not define its interpretation of match fixing. After initial denials to the UCB, Cronjé confessed to accepting money from bookmaker Sanjay Chawla for involvement in cricket malpractice involving the South African Team. Cronjè had been introduced to Chawla by South African based bookmaker Hamid Cassim.

The evidence revealed that Cronjé had approached several South African players in an apparently light hearted and jocular manner suggesting that money could be made by fixing the results of games. This was his way of sounding out his colleagues. In the main this was laughed off, but Herschelle Gibbs and Henry Williams were later to be embroiled in Cronjé's corruption.

During the CBI investigation Azharuddin had admitted that in December 1996 he had introduced Cronjé to the bookmaker M K Gupta during the South African tour to India. Gupta immediately propositioned Cronjé, who accepted $30,000 to ensure that South Africa lost the Third Test commencing the following day. Cronjé stated that he had subsequently done nothing to influence the outcome of this match, which India won.

About the same time Gupta made an offer to Cronjé for South Africa to lose a One Day International, initially being played for the benefit of Mohinder Amarnath, but subsequently converted into an official international match.

Cronjé approached several members of the South African Team and mentioned that he had received the offer that was dependant on the team playing badly in the ODI. The offer was reportedly in the region of $200,000 – $250,000 and Cronjé was later to indicate that the offer had been raised by $100,000. Following meetings, involving senior members and the team as a whole, the offer was rejected.

Their relationship ended in November 1997 after Cronjé rejected Gupta's corrupt proposals during the quadrangular series.

With Gupta off the scene it is alleged that in January 2000 Cronjé influenced the result of the 5th Test against England at Centurion Park. After the first days play, when South Africa was 155 for 6 at the close of play, days two, three and four had been affected by the weather. On the evening of the penultimate day's play Cronjé spoke to Marlon Aronstam, who was well versed in sports betting, who urged him to 'make a game of it'. On the last day it was agreed that South Africa would declare and leave England with a 'run race', a feat that they achieved. Aronstam had reportedly agreed to make a donation of R200,000 to a charity of Cronjé's choice (although Cronjé recalls the figure to be R500,000) if he could ensure a positive result for the fixture. At the current Rand/US Dollar exchange rate, R200,000 equates to approximately $24,000 and R500,000 to approximately $ 60,000.

Aronstam also testified that he had paid Cronjé R50,000 as an advance for future cooperation in relation to pitch reports.

The UCB subsequently banned Cronjé for life. On 28 August 2000 Gibbs and Williams were banned from international cricket for six months (ending 1 January 2001) and fined R60,000 and R10,000 respectively for accepting a $15,000 bribe offered by Cronjé to under-perform in an ODI at Nagpur earlier that year. However Gibbs and Williams were permitted to continue playing domestic cricket.

The First Interim Report of the Commission detailing the evidence of Cronjé was published in August 2000.

One of the Commission's duties was to make recommendations concerning the various matters falling within its mandate.

On 14 December 2000, although his work continued, Judge King completed his second Interim Report with his recommendations. These fell under the broad headings of:

Education and Training
Control and Supervision Financial Security Governance Punishment and Sanctions

Back | Next

Page: Intro | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Mail Cricket Editor