1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NRL match fixing case: Trio cleared by magistrate

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by WESTIE, Jun 20, 2013.

  1. WESTIE

    WESTIE Well-Known Member

    562
    137
    Ratings:
    +333 / 9
    http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-match-fixing-case-trio-cleared-by-magistrate-20130620-2okgf.html

    NRL match fixing case: Trio cleared by magistrate

    The case against three men accused of being key players in an NRL betting scandal has been thrown out, with a magistrate finding there is not enough evidence to prove allegations they acted deceptively in placing bets.
    Rugby league identity John Elias, former Parramatta player Brad Murray, and Jai Ayoub – the son of Murray's manager Sam Ayoub – were accused of being involved in a betting plunge on North Queensland to open the scoring by a penalty kick in their match against the Canterbury Bulldogs in August 2010.
    All three were charged with attempting to dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception.
    In the Downing Centre Local Court on Thursday, magistrate Greg Grogin granted the men a permanent stay of proceedings.
    "Based on the evidence before me ... I find that the prosecution would not be in the position to prove the matter of deception beyond reasonable doubt."
    The prosecution case against Mr Elias was that he dishonestly structured a series of cash bets with TAB betting agencies at Rozelle and Haberfield in the total amount of $5100 in the expectation of securing winnings in the amount of $98,455.
    Mr Murray was accused of attempting to dishonestly obtain $16,820 by deception from Tabcorp, while Mr Ayoub was accused of attempting to dishonesty obtain thousands of dollars by deception from Luxbet.
    The prosecution case was that Bulldogs player Ryan Tandy manipulated the game by giving away a penalty to the Cowboys early in the game.
    Tandy is the only person in Australian history to be convicted of match fixing. He avoided prison but was fined $4000 for attempting to gain financial advantage by deception.
    The betting plunge failed when Cowboys player Anthony Watts decided to take a tap rather than attempt a penalty goal, the court was told.
    Legal counsel for the men had argued that for deception to be found, the prosecution must prove they also participated in fixing the match.
    "There is a lack of proximity or causal link between the on-field activity and the placing of the exotic bet," Mr Grogin said.
    A charge against Sam Ayoub was dropped on similar grounds last year, and a charge against eastern suburbs real estate agent Greg Tait was also dismissed.
    The matter will return to court on September 20 for a costs hearing.


    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-match-fixing-case-trio-cleared-by-magistrate-20130620-2okgf.html#ixzz2WjUwF6wC
     
  2. The Who

    The Who Well-Known Member

    7,293
    2,227
    Mona Vale
    Ratings:
    +4,842 / 103
    Wonder what odds Tom Waterhouse was giving for that outcome?
     
  3. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    11,596
    843
    Ratings:
    +971 / 7
    A letdown for the DPP. I know what I believe.
     
  4. panash

    panash Well-Known Member

    870
    288
    Ratings:
    +296 / 0
    you would have to be living under a rock .... to believe that outcome
     
  5. voicefromthehill

    voicefromthehill Well-Known Member Premium Member

    2,750
    774
    Ratings:
    +1,235 / 9
    Apparent logic and evidentiary standards are unfortunately not always perfect bed partners
     
  6. globaleagle

    globaleagle Où est mon chapeau Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    11,786
    4,708
    Ratings:
    +7,800 / 58
    Well I may not be some big city lawyer.......

    But that's b/s!
     
  7. SeaEagleRock8

    SeaEagleRock8 Sea Eagle Lach Staff Member Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    12,598
    3,523
    Ratings:
    +6,802 / 122
    At a glance, the issue appears to be ... what exactly was their deception?
    'Deception' is an element of the charge that needed to be proved.

    Maybe there is some other charge that might have been laid instead...
     

Share This Page