Proving Match Fixing: Lessons from the Stephen Lee case

The career-ending 12 year ban imposed on World No.8 snooker player Stephen Lee in September this year shook the snooker world. But the Decision of the sports disciplinary tribunal holds an important lesson for the fight against sport-fixing more generally.

The tribunal (Adam Lewis QC SR/0000540006 16/109/13) found that in advance of seven matches at the Malta Cup 2008, the UK Championships 2008, the China Open 2009 and the World Championships 2009, Mr Lee gave inside information to various associates, who then bet on the basis of it.

It was not necessary for the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association’s (“WPBSA”) to establish that Mr Lee deliberately lost a match when he could and should have won it. It was enough for the WPBSA to prove that Mr Lee identified a match that he thought he was going to lose and then agreed to and did lose it, or that he agreed to and did lose a first frame when he was confident that he could nevertheless win the whole match, or that he identified a match that he thought he was going to lose and then agreed to and did lose it by a particular score. For this reason, and as the tribunal held, there was really nothing in Mr Lee’s first line of defence to the charge, which was that he would not have fixed matches because the relatively slight financial rewards would have been far outweighed by the prize money that he could have expected to have won.

The tribunal accepted that the matches had been fixed in the manner contended for by the WPBSA and that Mr Lee had communicated his plan beforehand to three groups of bettors who had made money betting with the illicit information.

What sports lawyers should take away from the decision is the fact that tribunals are prepared to find match fixing charges established even on the basis of circumstantial evidence, if it is sufficiently probative. In the Lee case there was not, for example, any evidence from any individual who said that they had received from Mr Lee inside information. Nor was there any covertly recorded illicit conversations or copies of text messages or emails.  Whilst telephone records were relied upon by the WPBSA the evidence related to the timing and duration of calls. The content of what had been said was inferred from the timing and circumstances.

It is also notable that in reaching its conclusions the tribunal did not rely on oddities in the performance of Mr Lee and indeed Mr Lee forcefully made the point that no player or referee had every identified anything untoward in any of his suspect performances.

How then did Mr Lee come to be found guilty?

Analysis of the Tribunal Decision

The tribunal began by citing the case of Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35 in which the House of Lords made clear that where the balance of probabilities test falls to be applied this should not be adjusted to require a higher threshold of proof just because the charges are serious. Their Lordships made clear that the inherent improbability of a person committing a very serious misdemeanor such as fraud means that it is “less likely … that the event occurred, and hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability”. However “there is only one civil standard of proof and that is proof that the fact in issue more probably occurred than not.” (at 13 (Lord Hoffmann)).

In the Lee case, the tribunal indicated that whilst match-fixing “is a growing concern, indeed a cancer, in many major sports” this did not justify the tribunal in being any less vigilant in ensuring that the evidence was sufficient to meet the standard of proof.

The tribunal did however note that match fixing is invariably concealed. It follows—although the tribunal did not make this explicit—that unless it can be proved without direct evidence, it will usually go unpunished.

The evidence that the tribunal found to be sufficient in Stephen Lee’s case can be summarised as follows.

(1) “Extraordinary betting”: First, there was evidence of highly unusual betting patterns by three different groups of bettors, who placed unusually high bets on Mr Lee’s performances in the matches in question, significantly out of line with the market and their own betting patterns. Furthermore the bets were placed on multiple betting platforms. The WPBSA submitted, and the tribunal accepted, that the probability was that such bets had been placed on the basis of inside information.

Furthermore, the bets were substantially successful, and where they were not they still suggested impropriety. So, for example, the WPBSA submitted that where there were unsuccessful bets on the matches in question by the groups of associated bettors, it could be explained as a consequence of the bettor hedging against the player’s inability (despite best efforts) to deliver the exact score-line. So if the player had said he would lose 10-4, it would be prudent to hedge with a bet on 10-5 or 10-3, because the odds were long enough to deliver a good profit even with the additional stake, and the prospects of success were very significantly enhanced.

(2) Evidence of pre-planning: The second strand in the case against Mr Lee was that in several cases accounts had been opened shortly before the Malta Cup and UK Championship matches, suggesting pre-planning by each of the groups.

(3) Evidence of concealment: The third strand in the case against Mr Lee was evidence that the groups of bettors had made attempts to conceal the betting activity, such as by opening accounts in different names and using proxy accounts.

(4) Association with betting groups: The fourth strand of the case against Mr Lee was the fact that he could be linked to each of the three groups and that he placed telephone calls to persons in each of the groups shortly before the suspect betting. Although the content of the telephone communications was not available, the WPBSA placed reliance on the timing of the calls and onward communications in comparison to the opening of betting accounts and the timing of suspect bets being placed. Perhaps most damning of all, Mr Lee had received payments from the betting groups, which he sought to characterise as legitimate repayments of loans and win bonuses under a sponsorship agreement.

(5) Suspect management of financial affairs: it was pointed out that Mr Lee managed his financial affairs in a suspicious manner: he did not have a bank account but used that of his wife’s. Payments were made to his babysitter to be passed to him in cash.

(6) Credibility of testimony: Sixthly, the tribunal also found Mr Lee to be an unsatisfactory witness and did not believe his explanation for the payments that he received. The tribunal referred to the unconvincing nature of answers to questions. It also referred to the fact that he had admitted inaccuracies in in statements previously given to the police and the fact that the nature of these inaccuracies—which related to the extent of his acquaintances with some of the bettors—suggested attempts at concealment of evidence. Interestingly, the tribunal also referred to Mr Lee’s failure to provide disclosure including, for instance, disclosure of his wife’s bank account records.

This sixth factor is worthy of particular emphasis. It makes clear that although the burden of proof remains on the prosecuting body, there are real risks for defendants in not providing full and candid responses to charges, including disclosure, in match fixing cases. It can lead to adverse inferences and adverse credibility findings being made, which may ultimately be determinative.

Conclusions

Overall, then, the Stephen Lee decision demonstrates that even in the absence of direct evidence of match fixing or of any obviously suspicious performances, match fixing charges can be proved in disciplinary proceedings, with potentially career-ending consequences.

This is of undoubted importance to the fight against match fixing given the difficulties in uncovering evidence that it has taken place. It stands as a clear warning to those persons who engage in or may be tempted to engage in such practices.

But even so, a very detailed and carefully constructed case was presented to the tribunal by the WPBSA. This case benefitted substantially from the fact that there had been a police investigation into Stephen Lee in 2012. In October 2012 the police had decided that there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges but the evidence the police had compiled was crucial to the WPBSA in the subsequent disciplinary proceedings and, as we have seen, it was sufficient for the WPBSA to meet the civil standard of proof.