The Mudgal report has found ICC chairman and sidelined BCCI president N Srinivasan not guilty of either betting or fixing, or of having tried to prevent the investigation into the IPL 2013 corruption scandal
ESPNcricinfo staff17-Nov-20146:09
Ugra: Srinivasan not in the clear yet
What the Mudgal report says
On N Srinivasan, ICC chairman and sidelined BCCI president
Not involved in any fixing activity, did not obstruct the investigation into corruption in the IPL, but knew about a player violating the code of conduct but didn’t do anything about it.
On Sundar Raman, IPL COO
Knew “a contact of a bookie and contacted him eight times in one season”, but claimed to be “unaware of his connection with betting activities”. Also, received information about Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra betting, but did not act on it.
Gurunath Meiyappan, CSK official
Confirmed to be a franchise official and not a mere “enthusiast” who hung around Chennai Super Kings, he did indulge in illegal betting, but no evidence found to suggest he was involved in match-fixing.
Raj Kundra, Rajasthan Royals co-owner
Was “in touch with bookies”. The investigation into his activities was “abruptly and without reason stopped by the Rajasthan Police upon receiving case papers from Delhi Police”.
The Mudgal report has found ICC chairman and sidelined BCCI president N Srinivasan not guilty of either betting or fixing, or of having tried to prevent the investigation into the IPL 2013 corruption scandal. However, the report does state that Srinivasan, along with four other BCCI officials, knew about an IPL player violating the code of conduct, but took no action. The name of the player and the details of the IPL code of conduct violation are not yet specified.The Mudgal committee report on the IPL 2013 corruption scandal, which was presented to the Supreme Court of India earlier this month, lays out the misdemeanours of the “non-playing individuals” who were issued notices on Friday. The report says that IPL chief operating officer Sundar Raman knew a contact of a bookie and had contacted him eight times in a season. Of the other two individuals served Supreme Court notices, it has been established that Gurunath Meiyappan, who is Srinivasan’s son-in-law, was an official of the Chennai Super Kings franchise – and not just “an enthusiast”, as he was made out to be – and had indulged in illegal betting.The report also says: “The fourth individual Raj Kundra, a co-owner of the Rajasthan Royals, has been accused and charged with being in touch with bookies about betting. By not reporting contact with the bookie he had violated BCCI/IPL anti-corruption code and, according to information available, he had also been placing bets.”Interim BCCI president Shivlal Yadav said “action will be taken”. “In the case of Meiyappan and Raj Kundra, action will be taken against them,” he told . “If there is evidence against Mr Sundar Raman, [about speaking] to a bookie then action will be taken. The BCCI will not spare anybody.”Along with presenting an interim report in May, the committee had handed over a sealed envelope containing allegations against 13 individuals which called for further investigations. The Mudgal committee was then greater investigative powers by the court to look into the allegations against the 13, and submitted its report after four months. The court was also handed over a detailed report of the investigation as an annexure, along with a “summary” of the findings over 25 pages, which was made available to the media. According to the Supreme Court’s order dated November 14, “Certain findings recorded by the Mudgal Committee apparently indict some of the individuals [on] whom the Committee was asked to conduct a probe.”The index of the report, 25 pages long, refers to four individuals in which Gurunath is individual No. 1, Raj Kundra No. 11, Sundar Raman No. 12 and N Srinivasan No. 13.The report says Individual 13, that is, Srinivasan, is “not involved with match fixing activity” and “not found to be involved in scuttling the investigations into match fixing”. It goes on to specify “the individual along with four other BCCI officials was aware of the violation of the Players Code of Conduct by Individual 3, but no action was taken against Individual 3 by any of the aforesaid officials who were aware of this infraction”. Individual 3 refers to a player whose name is contained in the Mudgal committee report on the role of players in the IPL 2013 corruption scandal, but whose name has been omitted in the report on the officials.Individual 12, that is, Sundar Raman, the report says, “knew a contact of a bookie and had contacted him eight times in one season”. When questioned Raman “admitted” that “knew” a contact of the bookie, but claimed to be “unaware of his connection with betting activities”. The report says Raman “also accepted” that he had received information about “individual 1 and individual 11 [that is, Gurunath and Kundra] taking part in betting.” He said he was “informed” by the ICC-ACSU chief that this was not actionable information. Raman “accepted” that this information that he received about two team officials being reportedly involved in betting “was not conveyed to any other individual” by him. Incidentally, Raman is a member of the ICC’s Integrity Working Party, which is reviewing cricket’s collective approach to the threat of corruption, the functioning of the ICC’s and member-boards’ domestic anti-corruption units, and their inter-relationships.In referring to Individual No. 1, that is, Gurunath, the report said that a forensic voice sample confirmed that Gurunath was in conversation with an individual “acting as a go-between” with bookies. The investigators were also “unanimous about the betting activity of the individual”. It goes on to say that “no individual is available on record to show that this individual is involved in match fixing”. Due to the matching of voice samples and “testimony of security personnel recorded by the investigating team, the finding about the betting activities of Individual 1 and the finding that he was a team official stand confirmed”.The earlier Mudgal committee report, dated February 2014, said, “When Mr Raj Kundra appeared before us, he was questioned as to whether he had indulged in any betting activity in the IPL, to which he categorically answered in the negative.” Following more detailed investigations, it has been found that, Individual 11, that is, Kundra, “was in touch with the bookies” and that “the investigation against this individual was abruptly and without reason stopped by the Rajasthan Police upon receiving case papers from Delhi Police”.