before the honourable high court of godam

4th

AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GODAM

In the matter of,

Section 107, 120A, 204, 302, 415 of the Godam Penal Code, 1860

Section 7, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226, CONSTITUTION OF GODAM

WRIT PETITION NO. ________/2014

Hank Jefferson & Liam Jackson v. International Federation of Cricket & Others

ALONG WITH

PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226, CONSTITUTION OF GODAM

WRIT PETITION NO. ________/2014

Mandeva Kites v. International Federation of Cricket & Others

ALONG WITH

APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF GODAM, 1973

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ________/ 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

Xerxese, B.C.CGo & Others v. Central Authority of Investigation

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO

THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GODAM

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

AIM 036

4TH

AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – (AIM-036)

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... II

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................................................... IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................................................................. VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................................................................ VII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES.............................................................................................................................................. VIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................................................................ IX

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................................................................. 1

I: WHETHER THE APPLICANTS WERE RIGHTLY SUSPENDED ON THE CHARGES OF MATCH -FIXING AND

SPOT- FIXING. .................................................................................................................................................................. 1

A. The Applicants are bound by the Cricket Regulations .......................................................................................... 1

B. The conduct of the players violated the B.C.C.Go Anti-Corruption Code ......................................................... 2

B.1 Corruption and Betting ................................................................................................................................. 2

B.2 Non-disclosure of the betting approach ........................................................................................................ 2

C. Media Evidence can be taken as reliable evidence ............................................................................................... 3

II: WHETHER APPELLANTS CAN BE LIABLE FOR MURDER OF PETER WOODFORD........................................ 4

A. There was a common intention between the parties .............................................................................................. 4

B. B.C.C.Go, as a legal entity, can be held liable for murder ................................................................................... 5

C. Xerxese and Sweat Equity Owners are liable under the Alter Ego & Attribution Theory ..................................... 5

III: WHETHER APPELLANTS WERE RIGHTLY CONVICTED BY CENTRAL AUTHORITY OF

INVESTIGATION. ............................................................................................................................................................ 6

A. Appellants can be criminally implicated ............................................................................................................... 6

B. Liability under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .............................................................................................. 7

C. Liability under the Godam Penal Code ................................................................................................................. 8

C.1 Cheating u/s 415 .................................................................................................................................................. 8

C.2 Liability under criminal conspiracy and abetment. ............................................................................................. 8

C.3 Liability for destruction of documents u/s 204 .................................................................................................... 9

D. Liability for Facilitating Corruption and irregularities during GPL .................................................................... 9

D.1 Liability u/s 3 of PMLA,2002 ............................................................................................................................. 9

D.2 GPL Commissioners cannot have commercial interest ..................................................................................... 10

E. Xerxese is liable under Cricket regulations. ........................................................................................................ 10

IV: WHETHER MANDEVA KITES WAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF

CRICKET ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11

A. MK as a whole was liable for match- fixing and spot-fixing ............................................................................... 12

A.1 Liability of MK during GPL ............................................................................................................................. 12

A.2 Liability of MK after 6th

edition of GPL ended ................................................................................................ 13

B. B.C.C.Go lacked in taking adequate measures in combating the anti-sport activities ........................................ 13

B.1 Non adherence to IFC’s order ........................................................................................................................... 13

B.2 B.C.C.Go did not impose proper sanctions on the guilty team. ........................................................................ 14

C. It is the duty of IFC to protect the integrity of cricket as the governing body ..................................................... 15

PRAYER .............................................................................................................................................................................. XI

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Paragraph

SCC Supreme Court Cases

GPL Godam Premier League

IFC International Federation of Cricket

B.C.CGo Board of cricket control of Godam

AIR All Indian Reporter

CAS Court of Arbitration of Sports

KER Kerala

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

SC Supreme Court

EWHC England & Wales High Court

ILR Indian Law Reporter

SLT Scots Law Times

KAR Karnataka

CompCas Company Cases

ER English Reporter

KB King’s Bench

ICR Industrial Cases Reporter

N.Y.S New York State

N.W North Western

N.C North Carolina

ICC International Cricket Council

B.C.C.I Board of Cricket Council of India

IPL Indian Premier League

MAD Madras

Cal.Rptr California Reporter

QB Queens bench

U.S.L.W United States Law Week

S.W South Western Reporter

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

International Cases

Chris Lance Cairns v. Lalit Modi, [2012]EWHC 756(QB) .................................................................... 7

DPP v. Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd (1944) KB 146 ....................................................................... 5

El-Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings Plc.; [1994] 2 All E.R. ........................................................................ 5

H.L. Bolton Co. Ltd. v. T.J. Graham & Sons (1956) 3 All ER 624 ......................................................... 5

In Re: Indian Woman says gang-raped on orders of Village Court published in Business & Financial

News dated 23.01.2014, (2014) 4 SCC 786 ......................................................................................... 3

JK Industriesv. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers, (1996) 6 SCC 665 ........................................ 5

Kordas v. ITF ltd (1999) Times, [1999] ALL ER (D 84) ...................................................................... 14

Lennard's Carrying Company, Ltd. v. Asiatic Petroleum Company, Ltd., [1915] A.C. 705 ................... 5

Mohammed Asif v. International Cricket Council CAS 2011/A/2362 .................................................... 2

Moore v. I Bresler Ltd., (1944) 2 All ER 515.......................................................................................... 5

Oleg Oriekhov v. UEFA CAS 2010/A/2172 ............................................................................................ 2

R v. Amir and Butt [2011] EWCA Crim 2914 ......................................................................................... 2

State of Indiana v. Ford Motor Co., 47 U.S.L.W. 2514, 2515 (Ind. Super. Ct. 1979) ............................ 5

State v. Gupton 30 N.C. 271 .................................................................................................................. 12

Tesco Supermarkets v. Nattrass (1972) AC 153 ..................................................................................... 5

Indian Cases

P. Chellammal v. R. Karuppiah, 2000 102 CompCas 76 Mad ................................................................ 9

A. Subair v. State of Kerala, 2009 6 SCC 587 ......................................................................................... 7

A.C Muthaya v. Board of Cricket Control India (2011) 6 SCC 617 ..................................................... 10

Dhaneswar Narain Saxena v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 195 ................................................. 7

Dr. KR Laksmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 2 SCC 226 ............................................................. 11

Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh and another, AIR 2012 SC 1185 ............................ 7

Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors v. State Of Kerala, 2001 7 SCC 596 ................................................... 8

Gautam Kundu v. Manoj Kumar Assistant Director, AIR 2016 SC 106 ................................................ 9

High Court Of Karnataka v. Syed Mohammed Ibrahim, ILR 2015 Kar 1118 ........................................ 8

Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar, 1967 SCR (1) 469 ................................................................................ 8

K Balaji Iyengar v. State of Kerala 2010 SCC Ker 4969 ........................................................................ 6

K. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala &Anr JT 2000 (3) SC 532 ............................................................... 7

Kanwarjit Singh Kakkar v. State Of Punjab And Anr. [2011] 6 S.C.R. 895 .......................................... 7

Lallan Rai and Others v. State of Bihar (2003) 1 SCC 268 ................................................................... 4

Madras Port Trust v. A.M. Safiulla & Co., AIR 1965 Mad. 133 ............................................................ 5

Mahadeo Prasad v. State of Bengal AIR 1954 SC 724 ........................................................................... 8

Pratapbhaihamir Solanke v. State of Gujarat, 2012 (8) SLT 392........................................................... 8

Ram Raj v. Hirdaya Narain, 1982 All. L.J. 1435 .................................................................................... 4

S.C.Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420 ...................................................................................... 8

Tilak Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2016) SCR 179 ...................................................................... 8

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS v

Regulations

BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants .......................................................................... 1, 2, 11, 12

BCCI Memorandum and Rules and Regulation .................................................................................... 10

BCCI’s Code of Conduct For Players and Player Support Personnel ................................................... 10

ICC Anti-Corruption Code for Participants ........................................................................................... 12

ICC Code Of Conduct For Players and Player Support Personnel ........................................................ 13

Operational Rules for the 2013 Indian Premier League ...................................................................... 1, 2

The Laws of Cricket, 2000 Code ........................................................................................................... 12

Books

LAW & SPORTS IN INDIA- Justice Mukul Mudgal pg 180 (Lexis Nexis-2011 edition) ................... 12

Nelson’s INDIAN PENAL CODE, 7th

edn., ( Law Book Co.1981) Vol. 1............................................ 9

SPORT: LAW AND PRACTICE by Adam Lewis& Jonathan Taylor ................................................. 14

SPORTS LAW (Third edition) by Simon Gardine ................................................................................ 12

Statutory Legislations

General Clauses Act, 1897 ....................................................................................................................... 7

Godam Penal Code, 1860 ........................................................................................................................ 6

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ......................................................................................................... 7

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ........................................................................................... 6

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS vi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Applicants Hank Jefferson, Liam Jackson and Mandeva Kites have approached the Hon’ble High

Court of Godam under Article 226 of the Constitution of Godam.

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs and appeal provisions under CRPC

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the

territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in

appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs

in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them,

for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose

(2)…

(3)…

(4)…

The Appellants Xerxese, B.C.CGo, Zia Kuriet, Kaifi Shaik and Gogo Morrenio have approached the

Hon’ble High Court of Godam under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Godam, 1973.

374. Appeals from convictions:

(1)…

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a

trial held any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment more than seven years has been against

him or against any other person convicted at the same trial may appeal to the High Court.

(3)…

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS vii

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. BACKGROUND: GODAM PREMIER LEAGUE

Godam Premier League (GPL) is a form of cricket tournament launched in 2009 by Board of Cricket

Control of Godam (B.C.C.Go). In its 5th

edition, one team Kondra Ranges (KR) was found guilty of

match-fixing. Another team was constituted under the franchise Mandeva Kites (MK) for the 6th

edition of GPL.

II. DESCRIPTION OF CONCERNED PARTIES

B.C.C.Go: B.C.C.Go is the body responsible for all the activities related to cricket in Godam.

Xerxese: Xerxese was the commissioner of GPL and the business development manager of B.C.CGo.

Mandeva Kites: MK had entered GPL in its 6th

edition. The major shareholders of KR were the sweat

equity shareholders of the new ‘ Mandeva Kites’ i.e Zia Kuriet, Kaifi Shaik and Gogo Morennio. Two

of its players Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson, were found guilty of match fixing and spot fixing in

the 6th

edition of GPL.

III. PETER WOODFORD FOUND DEAD

When KR was dissolved after the 5th

edition, its coach Peter Woodford was found dead in his hotel

room with his belongings. He had made several calls before his death, including those to Zia Kuriet

and Xerxese.

IV. ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION IN 6TH

EDITION OF GPL

MK lost in the semi-finals in the 6th

edition of GPL. There were allegations of match fixing and spot

fixing made on MK and its two players, Liam Jackson and Hank Jefferson. Subsequently, players

were given suspended by MK. Also MK was restricted by IFC to take part in any world event. These

orders were confirmed by the Anti-Corruption Unit Tribunal of International Federation of Cricket

(IFC). MK was suspended by B.C.C.Go

IV. EPILOUGE

Altaf Aslam filed a PIL in Supreme Court, which ordered B.C.CGo to look into the matter and to

submit detailed reports. Committee Reports were rejected by the Supreme Court and an order was

passed directing CIA Special court to look into the matter. CIA Court found Xerxese, B.C.C.Go and

three sweat equity owners as guilty of corruption, match fixing, spot fixing murder and other offences.

The parties went in appeal to the High Court of Godam.

The two suspended players and Mandeva Kites have also approached the High Court challenging the

orders imposed on them. The matters have been consolidated by the High Court of Godam.

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS viii

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I:

Hank Jefferson & Liam Jackson v. B.C.CGo & Others

WHETHER THE APPLICANTS WERE RIGHTLY SUSPENDED ON THE CHARGES OF

MATCH FIXING AND SPOT FIXING.

ISSUE II:

Xerxese, B.C.CGo and Others v. Central Agency of Investigation

WHETHER APPELLANTS CAN BE LIABLE FOR MURDER OF PETER WOODFORD.

ISSUE III:

Xerxese & B.C.CGo v. Central Authority of Investigation

WHETHER XERXESE AND B.C.CGO SHOULD BE ACQUITTED FOR CORRUPTION,

MATCH-FIXING AND SPOT FIXING.

ISSUE IV

Mandeva Kites v. International Federation of Cricket

WHETHER MANDEVA KITES WERE RIGHTLY RESTRICTED BY THE

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF CRICKET.

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS ix

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I:

Hank Jefferson & Liam Jackson v. B.C.CGo & Others


MATCH FIXING AND SPOT FIXING

It is humbly contended that the applicants, Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were rightly suspended

for match-fixing and spot-fixing as they are bound by the Anti-Corruption Code of the B.C.C.Go and

the GPL Operational Rules, the conduct of these players were in violation of these Codes and the

media evidence can be taken as reliable evidence.

ISSUE II:


WHETHER APPELLANTS CAN BE LIABLE FOR MURDER OF PETER WOODFORD

It is humbly contended that the Appellants can be held liable for the murder of Peter Woodford

on the ground of common intention between the parties, B.C.C.Go, as a legal entity, can be held

liable for murder and that Xerxese and Sweat equity owners are liable under the alter ego &

attribution theory.

ISSUE III:

Xerxese & B.C.CGo v. Central Authority of Investigation

WHETHER XERXESE AND B.C.CGO SHOULD BE ACQUITTED FOR CORRUPTION,

MATCH-FIXING AND SPOT FIXING

It is humbly contended that the applicants are liable under Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 as they have abused their position to favour a franchise; under Sections 415,

120A, 204 and 107 of the Penal code of Godam as they are guilty of deceiving the stakeholders of

Godam, criminally conspiring and abetting the crime. B.C.CGo is also held guilty for destruction

of documents. Also, they are held guilty for laundering money u/s 3 of Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002. It is noted that Xerxese is held guilty for violating the Codes of Conduct

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS x

and It is therefore, humbly submitted that the appellants are liable for match fixing, corruption and

spot fixing.

ISSUE IV


WHETHER MANDEVA KITES WERE RIGHTLY RESTRICTED BY THE

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF CRICKET.

It is humbly contended that the restriction imposed on Mandeva Kites by the International

Federation of Cricket was valid as, Mandeva Kites as a team was liable for spot-fixing and match-

fixing. B.C.C.Go did not take sufficient measures in combatting the corruption and that it is the

duty and obligation of the IFC to protect the integrity of cricket globally.

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I

Hank Jefferson & Liam Jackson v. B.C.C.Go & Others


MATCH FIXING AND SPOT FIXING.

1. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble High Court of Godam that the Applicants were rightly

suspended from the Godam Premier League (herein after referred to as ‘GPL) on the charges of

match fixing and spot fixing. The Applicants were expelled by the management of their team after

their performance in the 6th

edition of GPL. The order was approved by B.C.C.Go and IFC. The

contention in this regard is three-fold: firstly, that the Applicants are bound by the Cricket

Regulations [A]; secondly, that the conduct of the Applicants violated this Code [B] and thirdly,

media evidence can be taken as reliable evidence [C].

A. The Applicants are bound by the Cricket Regulations

2. B.C.C.Go Anti-Corruption Code states that participation by any player in a ‘domestic match’ is

considered as his implied acceptance to the Code which binds and requires the players to comply with

the provisions of the Code.1 Herein, ‘domestic matches’ include all matches that form part of the

Godam Premier League.2

3. Additionally, according to the GPL Operational Rules, participation in the Godam Premier League by

any player is deemed to be his approval to be subjected to the Operational Rules of GPL.3

4. In the instant matter, the Applicants participated in the 6th

edition of GPL from the team of Mandeva

Kites.4 Their participation thus constitutes their acceptance to be bound by the provisions of the

B.C.C.Go Anti-Corruption Code and the GPL Operational Rules, including the liability in case of

violation of the conduct prescribed therein.

1Article 1.3, BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants

2Annexure 1, Definitions, “Domestic Match”, BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants

3 Article 2.1, Operational Rules for the 2013 Indian Premier League

4 Refer to Paragraph 12, Page 5, Moot Proposition.

4TH



B. The conduct of the players violated the B.C.C.Go Anti-Corruption Code

5. B.C.C.Go has the authority to impose sanctions on the players if they commit any offence within the

meaning of the Code.5 Such sanctions include suspension of a player from playing for a specified

period.6 It is contended that the Applicants committed following offences in the 6

th edition of GPL,

firstly, corruption and betting [B.1] and secondly, non-disclosure of betting approach [B.2]

B.1 Corruption and Betting

6. It is contended that the conduct of the Applicants constitute betting and corruption within the meaning

of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code. Under the Code, corruption is defined as fixing the result or

conduct of any match,7 including failing to perform one’s ability for reward in a match.

8 Betting is

defined as ensuring the happening of an event, which is known to the player’s knowledge and for

which he expects to receive a reward.9

7. In the match fixing and spot fixing case of Amir and Butt, the International Cricket Council banned

the players and sentenced them to imprisonment for deliberately bowling no balls in an over in a test

match under the directions of a bookmaker.10

8. In the present matter, the Applicants were bowling no balls in a particular over of the match in the 6th

edition of GPL.11

A sting operation revealed that the Applicants were playing under the directions of

the bookie, Abu Zawahar.12

9. It is contended that deliberately putting no balls in the directions of someone, amounts to an

unauthorised act, constituting the offence of and betting under the B.C.C.Go Anti-Corruption Code.

B.2 Non-disclosure of the betting approach

10. B.C.C.Go Anti-Corruption Code places the onus on the players to make full disclosure to the Anti-

Corruption Unit of B.C.C.Go of any approaches or invitations received by them to indulge in any act

which can breach the conduct prescribed by the Code.13

11. Several sports have similar provisions/laws which find a player guilty for not disclosing illicit betting

approaches. In Oleg Oriekhov v. UEFA,14 the accused, a football player was found guilty for violating

5 Rule 6.4, Operational Rules for the 2013 Indian Premier League

6 Rule 6.4.2(a), Operational Rules for the 2013 Indian Premier League

7 Article 2.1.1, BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants


9 Article 2.2.3, ICC Anti-Corruption Code for Participants

10 R v. Amir and Butt [2011] EWCA Crim 2914; Mohammed Asif v. International Cricket Council CAS 2011/A/2362

11 Refer to Paragraph 12, Page 5, Moot Proposition.

12 Ibid.


14 Oleg Oriekhov v. UEFA CAS 2010/A/2172

4TH



his duty under the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations to report immediately to Union of European

Football Associations (UEFA) that he had received offers to take an active part in their match-fixing.

In John Higgins case, 15 a lifetime ban was imposed on a snooker player who was found guilty on

similar grounds of non-disclosure, as prescribed in the World Snooker Associations’ Rules on Betting.

12. In the instant matter, when the Applicants were approached by the bookmaker for illicit betting

invitations to underperform in the GPL,16 it was their duty to report the same to Anti-Corruption Unit

of B.C.C.Go.

13. Thus, it is contended that the Applicants have violated the B.C.C.Go Anti-Corruption Code by failing

to disclose the betting approach to B.C.C.Go.

C. Media Evidence can be taken as reliable evidence

14. In the interest of public welfare the Supreme Court of a nation may take action by placing reliance on

a newspaper report when circumstances warrant the same.17

It is contended that Courts should take

into consideration the sting operation video and the confession of the players in the newspaper.

15. Firstly, the sting operation by the news channel showed the players conversing with a bookie.18

To

warrant this, it is also provided the players were found bowling no ball on the directions of the

bookie.19

Also there was a pattern observed in the way their team lost their matches in GPL.20

16. Secondly¸ the newspaper article by Altaf Aslam stated the players admitting to their guilt to him.21

According to the article, the players had disclosed that their management, B.C.C.Go and Xerxese were

involved in the corruption activities.22

It was later discovered by CAI after their investigation that

these were also involved23

and were convicted for the same by CIA Court.24

17. In light of the above contentions that the Applicants are bound by the Cricket Regulations, which

they violated and that the media evidence can be taken as reliable evidence, it is humbly submitted

that the Applicants have been rightly suspended and the High Court should uphold the suspension

order.

15

The World Professional Billiards & Snooker Association Board Limited v. John Higgins & Pat Mooney 16

Refer to Paragraph 12, Page 5, Moot Proposition. 17

In Re: Indian Woman says gang-raped on orders of Village Court published in Business & Financial News dated

23.01.2014, (2014) 4 SCC 786; In Re: Gang-Rape Ordered by Village Kangaroo Court in West Bengal, 2014 (2) RCR

(Criminal) 123 18







Refer to Paragraph 28, Page 10, Moot Proposition.

4TH



ISSUE II:


WHETHER APPELLANTS CAN BE LIABLE FOR MURDER OF PETER WOODFORD.

18. In the instant matter, the Central Authority of Investigation (CIA) Court convicted Xerxese, B.C.C.Go

and three sweat equity owners for the offence of murder of the Peter Woordford. It is contended that

the appeal filed for the setting aside the conviction order should be rejected and the conviction order

should be upheld. The arguments in this regard are:

a) There was a common intention between the parties

b) B.C.C.Go, as a legal entity, can be held liable for murder

c) Xerxese and Sweat Equity Owners are liable under the Alter Ego & Attribution Theory

A. There was a common intention between the parties

19. Being at stage of appeal, it is contended that the matter be looked at from the question of law and not

facts.25

One such question is whether there could be any common intention between the parties. The

sharing of the common intention and not the individual acts of the persons constitute the crime.26

20. With respect to the parties, B.C.C.Go was primarily responsible for governing cricket in Godam.27

Xerxese was the business developer manager of B.C.C.Go and also the commissioner of GPL.28 The

three sweat equity owners of MK were initially the major shareholders of KR, wherein one of the

owners was the cousin of Xerxese.29

21. Peter Woodford was appointed before the 5th

edition of GPL30

and it was only in after this edition that

the corruption speculations against KR were confirmed.31

It is also to be considered that he had died

after the KR was banned by IFC.32

A common intention can be reasonably inferred as the corruption

in 5th

edition led to dissolution of KR and would have raised questions on Xerxese, being the

commissioner of GPL and B.C.C.Go being the parent body responsible for maintaining the spirit of

cricket.

25

Ram Raj v. Hirdaya Narain, 1982 All. L.J. 1435 26

Lallan Rai and Others v. State of Bihar (2003) 1 SCC 268 27

Refer to Paragraph 2, Page 2, Moot Proposition 28





Refer to Paragraph 11, Page 5, Moot Proposition

4TH



B. B.C.C.Go, as a legal entity, can be held liable for murder

22. Corporations can be held liable for offences requiring mens rea33 as they considered in the same

position as a natural person in relation to criminal liability.34 The Supreme Court in the Iridium case

made the ‘identification principle’ of common law an established law on the subject of corporate

criminal liability.35 According to the ‘identification principle’, a company is identified with those

officers who are its ‘directing mind and will’.36

23. In the Ford Motor Company case, the company was prosecuted for reckless homicide after three

young women died because their faulty Ford Pinto.37 In several other cases, corporate entities were

indicted for murder in their own capacities.38

24. In the present case, B.C.C.Go, being a cooperative society is a legal entity which is charged with

murder of Peter Woodford. Thus, it is contended that applying the ‘identification principle’, B.C.C.Go

can be made liable for an offence such as murder.

C. Xerxese and Sweat Equity Owners are liable under the Alter Ego & Attribution

Theory

25. The alter ego or identification theory laid down by Viscount Haldane identifies that person as the ego

of the company, who may be under the direction of the shareholders or the board of directors itself.39

It would be those who control and determine the management of the company, who would have to be

held vicariously liable for commission of the offence.40

Such persons that have day to day control over

the affairs of the company are said to have the ultimate control of the company.41

26. In the instant matter, Appellant 1 was the Commissioner of GPL42

and was always involved in the

GPL teams.43

Appellants 3 were the major share owners of KR.44

In such capacities, both the

Appellants 1 and 3 were in the capacity to have direct control over GPL and B.C.C.Go respectively.

33

Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Incorporated & Ors AIR 2011 SC 20 ¶ 44 34

Madras Port Trust v. A.M. Safiulla & Co., AIR 1965 Mad. 133 35

Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Incorporated & Ors AIR 2011 SC 20 ¶ 38 36

H.L. Bolton Co. Ltd. v. T.J. Graham & Sons (1956) 3 All ER 624; Tesco Supermarkets v. Nattrass (1972) AC 153; DPP

v. Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd (1944) KB 146; Moore v. I Bresler Ltd., (1944) 2 All ER 515 37

State of Indiana v. Ford Motor Co., 47 U.S.L.W. 2514, 2515 (Ind. Super. Ct. 1979) 38

Granite Constr. Co. v. Superior Court, 197 Cal. Rptr. 3, 4 (Ct. App. 1983); Commonwealth v. Fortner LP Gas Co., 610

S.W.2d 941, 943 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980); People v. Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc., 438 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Mich. Ct. App.

1989); State v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co., 103 A. 685, 687 (N.J. 1917); People v. Ebasco Servs. Inc., 354 N.Y.S.2d 807, 811–

12 (Sup. Ct. 1974). 39

Lennard's Carrying Company, Ltd. v. Asiatic Petroleum Company, Ltd., [1915] A.C. 705; El-Ajou v Dollar Land

Holdings Plc.; [1994] 2 All E.R.; Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kent & Sussex Contractors, Ltd.; [1944] K.B. 146 40

JK Industriesv. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers, (1996) 6 SCC 665; P.C. Agarwala v. Payment of Wages

Inspector & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 3576 41

JK Industriesv. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers, (1996) 6 SCC 665 42

Refer to Paragraph 5, Page 1, Moot Proposition

4TH



27. Thus it is contended that both Xerxese and the sweat equity owners can be made liable under the alter-

ego and attribution theories.

28. On the basis of the above contentions that there was a common intention between the parties,

B.C.C.Go, as a legal entity, can be held liable for murder and that Xerxese and sweat equity owners

are liable under the alter ego & attribution theory, it is humbly submitted that the appeal against

conviction for the offence of murder be rejected and that the conviction order be upheld by the

Hon’ble High Court.

ISSUE II

Xerxese, B.C.C.Go and Others v. Central Authority of Investigation

WHETHER APPELLANTS WERE RIGHTLY CONVICTED BY CENTRAL AUTHORITY

OF INVESTIGATION.

29. It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that Xerxese, B.C.CGo and three sweat equity

owners were rightly convicted by the Central Authority of Investigation (hereafter referred to as CAI).

The contention put forth is three fold: firstly, Appellants can be criminally implicated [A]; secondly,

Appellants are liable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as POCA) [B];

thirdly, Appellants are liable under the Godam Penal Code, 1860 [C]; fourthly, the offence of

laundering money against Appellants is correct under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

(herein after referred to as PMLA) [D] and fifthly, legal entity can be charged with murder [E].

A. Appellants can be criminally implicated

30. In the case of BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that BCCI discharges

such functions, which are akin to public functions and state duty.45 In accordance with this, the

officials of BCCI are also said to perform public functions.46

31. In the present case, B.C.C.Go is a cooperative society and the parent body responsible for all the

activities related to cricket.47 Xerxese was the Commissioner of GPL, a brainchild of B.C.C.Go.48

The

other Appellants were the sweat equity owners of MK.49

43



2015 AIR(SCW) 2258 46

K Balaji Iyengar v. State of Kerala 2010 SCC Ker 4969 47

Refer to Para 2, Page 2, Moot proposition. 48


Refer to Para 25, Page 10, Moot proposition.

4TH



32. It is contended that B.C.C.Go being a legal entity, performs public functions, is a public body.

Xerxese and the three sweat equity owners in the capacity of holding offices in GPL and its franchise

respectively, have public duties. And thus, the Appellants can be criminally implicated for criminal

offences such as cheating, fraudulent conduct, corruption, match-fixing and spot-fixing.

B. Liability under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

33. Corruption is defined as a fraudulent and vicious intention to evade the prohibitions of law; it is the

illegal act of the public servant who abuses his position to procure benefit for himself.50 The essential

ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of POCA, 1988 are a) He should be a public servant.51

b) He abused his

position to obtain any valuable thing for himself or anyone else. 52

c) He did so while discharging of his

official duty.53

.

34. Section 7 of the POCA, 1988 states that if any public servant shows favour or disfavor to anyone, as a

motive for doing or forbearing to do any official act is held liable.

35. B.C.CGo: In the present case, B.C.CGo is a person, according to the General Clauses Act, 1897.54

It

performs a public function and is therefore, a public servant under Section 13 of POCA. B.C.CGo in a

lot of instances had abused its position to show favour to a franchise. This is evident as the allegations

of corruption against KR were not acknowledged by B.C.CGo until Niladris was dethroned.55

Therefore, they abused their position as the governing body, to gain benefits for themselves and can be

held liable under Section 13(1)(d) of POCA.

36. Xerxese:The officials of BCCI expressly perform public functions and hence come under the purview

of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.56

Xerxese Morrenio, being the Commissioner of GPL,

occupied an important administrative role. He always had a say in selecting the support staff of GPL

teams.57

He was in close acquaintance with the owner of Kondra Ranges. Also, he had relations with

MK as its sweat equity owner Gogo Morrenio was his cousin.58

It can be reasonably inferred that

since he was in a position of power, as an administrator, he was aware about the on-going scams, and

maybe even involved.

37. Therefore, B.C.CGo and Xerxese Morrenio can be held liable under the various provisions of POCA.

50

Black Law’s Dictionary, 9th

Ed. 51

A. Subair v. State of Kerala, 2009 6 SCC 587; 52

Kanwarjit Singh Kakkar v. State Of Punjab And Anr. [2011] 6 S.C.R. 895 53

Dhaneswar Narain Saxena v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 195; A. Subair v. State of Kerala, 2009 6 SCC 587;

Kanwarjit Singh Kakkar v. State Of Punjab And Anr. [2011] 6 S.C.R. 895, Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan

Singh and another, AIR 2012 SC 1185, K. Karunakaran v. State of Kerala &Anr JT 2000 (3) SC 532 54

Section 10, General Clauses Act, 1897 55

Refer to Para 7. Page 3, Moot proposition. 56

Sections 2(b) and 2(c) (viii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 57


Refer to Para 9. Page 4,Moot proposition.

4TH



C. Liability under the Godam Penal Code

38. It is contended that Appellants are liable for offences under Godam Penal Code, namely cheating u/s

415 [B.1]; abetment u/s 107 [B.2] and criminal conspiracy u/s 120A [B.3].

C.1 Cheating u/s 415

39. Match fixing in the strict sense is ensuring a particular outcome of the match and is understood as

cheating under the eyes of law.59 According to Section 415 cheating refers to deceiving any person to

do or omit to do anything to cause some damage, which he would not do or omit otherwise.60 Cheating

also includes, ‘dishonest concealment of facts’.61

40. B.C.CGo: B.C.CGo being the governing body, did not look into the merits of any allegation during the

GPL scam and without any scrutiny absolved MK and Xerxese Morennio.62 It is therefore, not wrong

to infer that B.C.C.Go has not taken every step to prevent the corrupt betting activity undermining the

spirit of the game and has also dishonestly concealed facts about corruption, match fixing and

episodes during the event.63

Therefore, can be liable for cheating u/s 415 of GPC.

41. Xerxese: By entering into a multi-million deal between Meghe sports and FSL regarding T.V rights on

GPL worth 600 crore in 2010, he committed cheating.64

Moreover, it is not wrong to assume that

Xerxese Morrenio, has cheated the franchise owners into thinking that this was a fair game of cricket,

when it was all corrupt as established by the above issues. Further, he also cheated all the other

interested shareholders, including the public, and corrupted the spirit of cricket. Therefore, he is liable

u/s 415.

C.2 Liability under criminal conspiracy and abetment.

42. Section 120A of Penal Code says that when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to do an illegal

act with a common design, intention and purpose are liable for participating in a criminal conspiracy.65

It has been held in numerous cases that circumstantial evidence is enough to convict the accused. 66

Additionally, Section 107 of the Penal Code says that when a person engages with one or more person

in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if any act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of

59

Chris Lance Cairns v. Lalit Modi, [2012]EWHC 756(QB) 60

Mahadeo Prasad v. State of Bengal AIR 1954 SC 724. 61

Tilak Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2016) SCR 179 62

Refer to Para 15, Page 7, Moot Proposition. 63



High Court Of Karnataka v. Syed Mohammed Ibrahim, ILR 2015 Kar 1118 66

S.C.Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420, Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors v. State Of Kerala, 2001 7 SCC 596

4TH



that conspiracy, and in order to doing of that thing, that person shall be held liable for abetment of

crime.67

43. BCCGo, Xerxese and the players worked hand in hand to fix the matches. The circumstances of the

situation also proves the same, the players had made a confession that there are other bigger players

out there while referring to BCCGo upon which investigation also proved the same.68 If the

circumstances, during and after the occurrence are considered69, it can be seen that B.C.CGo being the

parent body and having appointed the administrators was aware of the situation of the GPL.

Therefore, can be liable for criminal conspiracy and abetment along with Xerxese.

C.3 Liability for destruction of documents u/s 204

44. Section 204 of the Penal Code, 1860 says that whoever destroys any document or electronic record

which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a Court of Justice, or in any other

proceeding lawfully held with the intention of preventing the same from being produced or used as

evidence before such court or public servant is liable under Section 204.70

45. Hon’ble Supreme Court directed B.C.CGo to look into the matter of the GPL scam and submit a

detailed report within specified time.71

Furthermore, it was concluded by both the committees after the

detailed inquiry and report that the B.C.C.Go was solely responsible for many important documents

and testimonies of people relating to the case went missing.72 Therefore B.C.CGo is liable for

destruction of documents u/s 204 of GPC.

D. Liability for Facilitating Corruption and irregularities during GPL

46. It is contended that Appellants are liable for facilitating corruption and financial irregularities during

Godam Premier League on the basis of following contentions.

D.1 Liability u/s 3 of PMLA,2002

47. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) defines ‘person’ to include any association of

persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. The essentials of Section 3 of the

PMLA, 2002 is a) he directly or indirectly, attempts to indulge, knowingly is a party or is actually

67

Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar, 1967 SCR (1) 469. 68


Pratapbhaihamir Solanke v. State of Gujarat, 2012 (8) SLT 392. 70

Nelson’s Indian Penal Code, 7th

edn., ( Law Book Co.1981) Vol. 1, pp. 653-655, P. Chellammal v. R. Karuppiah, 2000

102 CompCas 76 Mad 71


Refer to Para 27, Page 10, Moot proposition.

4TH



involved, connected in any process73 with the b) proceeds of crime including its concealment,

possession or use and claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.

A person shall be held liable under this section if he has committed any offence listed under the

schedule offence, which is prescribed under Section 2(1)(y) of PMLA, 2002

48. B.C.CGo: B.C.CGO is a body of individuals representing their respective state to form the Cricket

association and Section 3 of the PMLA is applicable to the same. As a governing body B.C.CGo

played a substantial role in hindering justice and allowing corruption to breed within the grounds of

cricket, it indirectly played a major role in indulging in corrupt practices such as making incompetent

report during the formation of COM1, while investigating the scam.74

It is also pertinent to note that

CAI made inferences that certain important documents were missing and it was no one’s fault but

B.C.CGo’s.75 Therefore, it the conditions laid down in PMLA, 2002.

49. Xerxese: Xerxese Morrenio has always had an important role to play as an administrator/ business

development manager for B.C.CGo.76

Occupying an important position in the management of the

event and the programmes he could enter into contracts on behalf of B.C.CGo in furtherance of GPL.

In one such instance, while entering into a contract with Meghe sports, in relation to TV rights,

Xerxese Morrenio was found to be in contravention of Section 3 of PMLA for about 600 crores and

therefore, is liable for financial and administrative irregularities.

D.2 GPL Commissioners cannot have commercial interest

50. Under BCCI regulations, cricket administrators can have no direct or indirect “commercial interests”

in board events or matches.77. In the case of A.C Muthayya78, the High Court of Bombay ruled that,

the rule of equity and fairness provides that no one who stands in a position of trust towards another

can in matters affected by that position advance his own interests. Xerxese Morrenio was in clear

violation of Regulation 32 of the Memorandum and Rules and Regulations of B.C.CGo, as he had a

commercial interest in GPL, since its inception. Xerxese, corrupted the system by favouring one team

over the other, and entering into major contract with Meghe sports for his benefit. Therefore, due to

these financial irregularities, which are detrimental to the interest of the sport of cricket and that of

B.C.CGo, Xerxese should be expelled from holding any position in B.C.CGo.

E. Xerxese is liable under Cricket regulations.

73

Gautam Kundu v. Manoj Kumar Assistant Director, AIR 2016 SC 106 74

Refer to Para 23, 25, Page 9, Moot Proposition. 75



Clause 32(ii) of BCCI Memorandum and Rules and Regulation 78

A.C Muthaya v. Board of Cricket Control India (2011) 6 SCC 617

4TH



51. The codes provided by B.C.CGo restricts the acts of match fixing, misuse of inside information,

betting and Corruption.79 Xerxese Morennio is liable for contravening B.C.CGo’s Code of Conduct

and Anti-Corruption Code on the following grounds:

52. Firstly, Xerxese Morennio fulfills the definition of ‘player support personnel’ as a manager, selector

of teams who represent the association of GPL, 80 which is the brain child of B.C.CGo.81 He shall also

be deemed to have agreed that it is his personal responsibility to be familiar with the code.82 He has

been charged with acting contrary to the spirit of the game and bringing the game into disrepute,83 as

he has not acted as an able administrator, has indulged in acts of corruption as already established

from the earlier issues.

53. Secondly, it is pertinent to note that all participants are automatically bound by the Anti Corruption

Code.84 Xerxese Morennio during the investigation by COM-2, it is seen that he was extremely

uncooperative and did not respond to the investigation authorities.85 Additionally, he is also liable for

violation of Article 2.1 and 2.3.1 as he is liable for fixing, and improperly influencing the match by

showing favour to one team over another as already established and by abusing his office to leak the

inside information during the match to facilitate betting.

54. It is humbly submitted that the appeal against conviction for the offence of corruption, match-fixing

,spot-fixing and other related offences be rejected and that the conviction order be upheld by the

Hon’ble High Court.

ISSUE IV


WHETHER MANDEVA KITES WAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED BY THE

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF CRICKET

55. It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the restriction imposed to participate in any

world event on Mandeva Kites (hereinafter referred to as MK) by International Federation of Cricket

(hereinafter referred to as IFC) was valid. The contentions raised in this regard are three-fold: firstly,

MK as a whole was liable for match fixing and spot fixing [A] Secondly, B.C.C.Go lacked in taking

79

Articles 2.1-2.4 of BCCI’s Code of Conduct 80



Article 1.1.1 of BCCI’s Code of Conduct. 83

Article 2.1.8 of BCCI’s Code of Conduct, Article 2.5 of BCCI’s Code of Conduct. 84

Article 1.3 of BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants. 85

Article 1.1.4 of BCCI’s Anti Corruption Code.

4TH



adequate measures in combating the anti-sport activities in Godam Premier League [B] and thirdly, it

is the duty of IFC to protect the integrity of cricket as the governing body[C]

A. MK as a whole was liable for match- fixing and spot-fixing

56. It is contended that MK as a franchise was liable for the anti-sport activities. The liability can be

enumerated during the 6th

edition of GPL [A.1] and after the GPL got over [A.2].

A.1 Liability of MK during GPL

57. Any sport or athletic game falls under the purview of ‘game of skill’.86

A game of skill is one wherein

skill of a player is more predominant.87

An athletic game is not a game of chance, but a game of

skill.88

Cricket being a game of skill should not be pre-determined, but has to be determined by the

skill of the players.89

The outcome of a cricket match should be uncertain until the end of the match.90

58. Every Franchisee, who is subject to the rules of the Operational rules is obligated to play in

accordance with the laws of cricket 91

and is subject to its regulations of the B.C.C.Go.92

It should

ensure that the team competes in good faith in each match of the league.93

The Operational Rules also

states that every franchise has to ensure that all participants follow the Regulation and laws of cricket

and that they act in accordance with the spirit of cricket,94

wherein the spirit of cricket involves

respect for opponents, captain, team, role of umpires and games traditional values.95

59. During the 6th

edition of GPL, MK lost semi-finals by 95 runs by scoring 65 runs after fall of 10

wickets, wherein 8 wickets fell due to run out.96

Similar pattern was observed twice in the season’s

play offs, where MK had lost matched due to low run after fall of all the wickets, which were mostly

run out.97

In addition to this, certain players of MK were found bowling no bowls on the direction of a

bookie.98

Committee reports that were prepared by the B.C.CGo also submitted that the players were

guilty of match-fixing and spot-fixing.99

86

Dr. KR Laksmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 2 SCC 226 87

Ibid 88

State v. Gupton 30 N.C. 271 89

Law & Sports in India- Justice Mukul Mudgal pg 180 (Lexis Nexis-2011 edition) 90

Article 1.1.1 of the ICC Anti-Corruption Code for Participants; Article 1.1.1 of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for

Participants 91

The Laws of Cricket, 2000 Code- ‘The Preamble, and the Spirit of Cricket’ 92

Section 2.1 of The IPL Operational Rules 93

Section 2.2.1 of The IPL Operational Rules 94

Section 3 A.1 of The IPL Operational Rules 95

The Laws of Cricket, 2000 Code- ‘The Preamble, and the Spirit of Cricket’; Sports Law (Third edition) by Simon

Gardine 96

Refer to Para 10, Page 4, Moot Proposition 97



Refer to Para 22, Page 9, Moot Proposition

4TH



60. It is contended that it was the duty of MK to ensure that all its players adhered to the laws and spirit of

cricket and thus not indulge in any anti-sport activities. However, it is evident that the matches in the

6th

edition of GPL were pre-determined and not based on the skills of the players.

61. It is also pertinent to note that, the corruption charges on the sweat equity shareholders should be

upheld by applying the alter ago and the attribution theory.

62. Thus, MK was guilty of indulging in anti-sport activities during GPL, such as spot-fixing and match-

fixing.

A.2 Liability of MK after 6th

edition of GPL ended

63. Any person subject to the GPL Operational Rules can be required by the B.C.C.Go’s Commission to

provide any information or evidence on matters that are needed for investigation on any matter

concerning GPL.100

Failure to comply with any request made in the course of investigation constitutes

misconduct.101

64. Subsequent to the players being found guilty, MK was asked by the B.C.CGo, upon directions of the

IFC, to show cause as to why its players were involved in match-fixing and spot-fixing during GPL.102

In response, MK submitted the resignation of the two guilty players without a show cause.103

65. It is contended that even after the request was made by the B.C.CGo to MK to show cause of

corruption during GPL, MK did not provide the adequate information. Thus, it constitutes misconduct

on the part of MK and accordingly, it should be held liable.

B. B.C.C.Go lacked in taking adequate measures in combating the anti-sport activities

66. It is contended that B.C.CGo lacked in taking proper and adequate measures in combating the anti-

sport activities in the 6th

edition of GPL as firstly, it did not adhere to IFC’s order and secondly, it did

not impose the necessary sanctions on the guilty team.

B.1 Non adherence to IFC’s order

67. The International Federation of cricket has a duty and obligation to protect the integrity of cricket as a

sport,104

to protect its essence and instill public confidence in the game.105

As stated in the IFC Code

of Conduct, the IFC bears the responsibility of governing the sport of cricket globally and to maintain

100

Article 2.4 of The IPL Operational Rules 101

Article 2.4 of The IPL Operational Rules 102



ICC v. Jayananda Warnaweera (19th

January, 2016) http://www.icc-cricket.com/ 105

Article 1.1.2 of the ICC Anti-Corruption Code For Participants

4TH



the popularity, integrity and public image of the game.106

Therefore, it was the duty of M.K to ensure

that none of its players tarnish the image and reputation of the game and act contrary to the spirit of

cricket.

68. In the light of this, whenever IFC imposes any sanction or any makes any decisions, it has to be

recognized, respected and enforced by the B.C.C.Go in its jurisdiction without any formality.107

69. When the speculations of match fixing and spot fixing arose in the 6th

edition of GPL, IFC had asked

B.C.CGo to take legal action against the people involved.108

Further, it asked for a detailed report

from the B.C.CGo, over which legal sanctions could be imposed.109

B.C.C.Go asked M.K to show

cause as to why its players had indulged in anti-sport activities. M.K responded by submitting the

resignation of the players.

70. The action of MK with regard to the show cause was accepted and appreciated by B.C.C.Go.110

Furthermore, B.C.CGo gave a clean chit to Mandeva Kites.111

It is contended that B.C.CGo neither

imposed any legal action against the involved player, nor did it submit a detailed report to IFC over

the present matter. Thus, B.C.C.Go failed to adhere to the IFC’s order and hence, is in conflict with

the Anti-Corruption Code.

B.2 B.C.C.Go did not impose proper sanctions on the guilty team.

71. The B.C.C.Go Disciplinary Commission has the authority to suspend a team or franchisee from the

league in relation to any offence.112

The participants subject to the GPL Operational Rules are

obligated to conform to all the regulations and laws of cricket at all times.113

72. As proved above, MK did not obey the regulations of cricket,114

even though as a franchise, it had a

responsibility to adhere to the rules of the IFC, B.C.C.Go and the regulations laid down by GPL.

73. Since MK breached these rules, B.C.CGo had an obligation to take adequate measures against the

corrupt persons or teams in combating such anti-sport activities. But B.C.C.Go did not initiate any

disciplinary proceedings even after MK did not adhere to the show cause notice. Further, B.C.C.Go

did not look into the matter of corruption after MK submitted the resignation of two players. Thus it is

contended that B.C.C.Go failed to take any strict and lawful steps and accordingly should be held

liable.

106

Introduction to the Code, ICC Code Of Conduct For Players and player Support Personnel 107

Article 7.1 of B.C.C.I Anti-Corruption Code For Participants 108





Article 6.4.2(c) of The IPL Operational Rules 113

Article 1.7 of B.C.C.I Anti-Corruption Code For Participants 114

As stated in Issue A

4TH



C. It is the duty of IFC to protect the integrity of cricket as the governing body

74. IFC, being the parent body of cricket, is obligated to take efforts to prevent any participant from

acting contrary to the spirit of the came and in any case of improper conduct aroses, it is dealt with in

a fair and certain manner.115

In addition to this, it is an accepted principle that the international sports

federation can retain an overriding jurisdiction over its member federations.116

An international

governing body can exercise direct jurisdiction over national clubs when it is dissatisfied by the

determination of the national governing body on any issue in favour of that club.117

75. As proved above, MK was liable for match-fixing and spot-fixing as the players were found guilty

and the team had an obligation to ensure that all the participants adhere to the regulations of the

IFC.118

76. B.C.CGo had failed to take proper action against the players and team as proved above by not taking

adequate action against them.119

77. In the light of this, IFC exercised direct jurisdiction over MK and restricted it to take part in any world

event in the future as the players, Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were found guilty of spot- fixing

and match-fixing were players for MK.

78. It is contended that the action taken by IFC is valid under its jurisdiction as it is take to protect the

integrity of sports .Hence, the restriction imposed by IFC should be upheld by the High Court.

79. Since it is the duty of IFC to ensure this, it took necessary action against the accused players and team

in order to protect the integrity of the game.

80. Therefore, it is submitted that MK was rightly suspended by the IFC as B.C.CGo did not take

adequate measures in combating the fraud committed by the players and thus, it is the duty of IFC to

protect the integrity of cricket as a sport.

115

Introduction to the Code, ICC Code Of Conduct For Players and player Support Personnel 116

Sport: Law and Practice by Adam Lewis& Jonathan Taylor 117

Walker v. UKA & IAAF (3rd

July 2000), unreported” Kordas v. ITF ltd (1999) Times, [1999] ALL ER (D 84) Pg 87 118

As stated in Issue A 119

As stated in Issue B

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS xi

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble Court be

pleased:

TO UPHOLD

1. The suspension order imposed on Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson

2. The restriction order imposed on Mandeva Kites

3. The order convicting Xerxese, B.C.C.Go, Zia Kuriet, Kaifi Shaik and Gogo Morrenio of

corruption, match-fixing, spot-fixing, murder and other offences

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

And for this, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

Sd/-

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

before the honourable high court of godam

Documents