Expert Group on Match Fixing. State of Play on the fight against match fixing

Transcription

1 EU Work Plan for Sport Expert Group on Match Fixing State of Play on the fight against match fixing Acknowledgements: The Expert Group work on match fixing was led by the Chair Harri Syvasalmi (FI), and supported by the European Commission (EAC/Sport)

2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction The International Dimension European Commission Council of Europe International organizations Member State and Stakeholder actions Prevention Detection Sanctions Cooperation What now, and what next, for the EU and MSs? Dissemination...24 Annex 1 International Initiatives related to Match-Fixing...25 Annex 2 European Commission projects in the field of match-fixing...26 Annex 3 The Expert Group composition...28 Annex 4 Council of Europe Convention state of play...30 Annex 5 Questionnaire to Member States; summary of results

3 1. Introduction Match-fixing is widely regarded as one of the major threats facing contemporary sport. Match-fixing undermines the values of sport such as integrity, fair play and respect for others. It risks alienating fans and supporters from organised sport. Moreover, match-fixing often involves organised criminal networks active on a global scale who see it as a low-risk high-profit activity. It is a problem that has now become a priority for public authorities, the sport movement and law enforcement agencies worldwide. There are numerous causes for match-fixing. The enormous technological changes, associated consumer demand and expectations of the availability of new products that have taken place over the past 10 to 20 years, have seen an exponential rise in sports betting opportunities (notably in jurisdictions where these activities are not well regulated). The ease and speed of global communication, coupled with deficiencies in the governance of sporting bodies (institutional corruption, late or non-payment of wages, absence of contract, training alone), have been the main drivers. A corrupt environment in certain sports clubs and federations is another risk factor, and in general weak governance standards will inhibit sports structures in becoming efficient partners in the fight against cheating and crime. Other factors such as gambling addiction among athletes could also be considered. Match-fixing is in fact a symptom of the problems and challenges now facing many sports, as well as betting regulators and law enforcement agencies. Work on match-fixing has expanded considerably over the past few years, in light of several high-profile cases and greater media exposure, and the greater awareness of the threats and challenges that match-fixing poses to the ethics and integrity of sport. To respond to these challenges, various steps have been taken to strengthen cooperation on a national, European and international level. At the EU level, match-fixing was recognized as a major threat to sports almost a decade ago within the framework of the White Paper on Sport (2007). From a legal perspective, the Lisbon Treaty provides the basis for the Union to support and frame action in the field of sport. Article 165 TFEU states that Union action shall be aimed at developing the European dimension in sport by, inter alia, promoting fairness and openness in sporting competitions and cooperation between bodies responsible for sports. In addition, Article 165 TFEU calls for the Union and the Member States to foster cooperation with international organisations in the field of sport, in particular the Council of Europe. 3

4 The first EU Work Plan for Sport ( ) identified match-fixing as one of the priority themes for EU level cooperation in sports. As part of the Expert Group on Good Governance, a report was submitted to the Council in August 2012 containing a series of recommendations and action points with regard to a number of areas such as prevention, legislation, detection, monitoring and follow-up. 1 The report of the Expert Group came between Council conclusions on combating match-fixing in November 2011, 2 and Presidency conclusions on establishing a strategy to combat the manipulation of sport results in November The second EU Work Plan for Sport ( ) gave priority to match-fixing, establishing this specific expert group, and identified additional actions for the MS and the Commission with regard to match-fixing. 4 It mandated the Expert Group on Match-Fixing (XG MF) to exchange best practises regarding the fight against matchfixing, in particular on a possible Commission Recommendation on best practises in the prevention and combatting of betting related match-fixing, followed by a report of the state of play. The first EU funding scheme for sport Erasmus+ programme was launched in 2014 for a seven year period. Erasmus+ activities in the field of sport aim to support actions that increase capacity and professionalism, improve management competence, and increase the quality of EU project implementation, as well as creating linkages between sport sector organisations. The fight against match-fixing is mentioned as a specific objective of the programme among other cross-border threats to the integrity of sport. The cross-sectoral nature for effectively combatting match-fixing has been acknowledged in the EU. Links between sport, justice and home affairs and the gambling sector have been developed in various ways. In addition to the Council and the Commission, the European Parliament has also followed the various challenges facing European sport with keen interest and has regularly dealt with sporting issues in recent years. The European Parliament Sport Intergroup was accepted in 2014, and covers Members of the European Parliament from various political groups and committees. The group will address various sport-related themes over the course of the current Parliamentary term. Further significant developments have taken place at the international level, notably the adoption by the Council of Europe of the Convention on the manipulation of

5 sports events in July Unesco s General Conference adopted the renewed International Charter of Physical Education, Physical Activity and Sport (Nov 2015), which also addresses the manipulation of sport competitions. The first meeting of the Expert Group was held in September A further 4 meetings were held March and September 2015, and January and June allowing EU Member State experts and Observers the opportunity to discuss a variety of issues of interest. 5 This report provides an overview on the state of play of the current situation in the fight against match-fixing at the national, European and international level. It also presents best practices on prevention, detection, sanctions and cooperation gathered during the work of the Expert Group: A questionnaire in this regard was sent to all members of the Expert Group; the results are attached in Annex 4. Chapter 2 describes the international / global nature of the problem, and summarises the state of play at the international level. Chapter 3 brings together some of the main issues which have come out of this Expert Group concerning the four main areas of prevention, detection, cooperation and sanctions. The report will also look to the future, with Chapter 4 considering the next steps for the EU to take. The report represents the outcome of the work of the Expert Group, and has been written in accordance with the input from members of the Expert Group, as mentioned in Annex The International Dimension The global nature of match-fixing is due to its close links to larger-scale crime, often organised by well-resourced international syndicates which are fixing matches on an industrial scale. This development has taken place since about the beginning of the millennium and became more evident to the general public with high-profile cases such as the 'Bochum' match-fixing scandal in 2009, with around 320 suspicious matches in 13 countries revealed,. 6 Organised crime groups (OCGs) involved in sports corruption may be poly-criminal and actively engaging in different crime areas (e.g. international drug trafficking, money laundering). Investigations carried out in recent years, at EU level, highlight the existence of international organised crime groups based in and operating from inside and outside the EU (e.g. South East Asia). In both scenarios, they may have a 5 Reports from the meetings can be seen here:

6 significant impact to the EU. Today, indigenous OCGs operate in Europe in addition to - and often in cooperation with - Asian and other international criminal syndicates. According to recent studies / criminal trials, it has been apparent that betting associated with the fixes is often facilitated through Asian betting operations. They allow the possibility to place high stakes (with few questions as to the source of money) and also offer higher pay-out ratios than European bookmakers, which undoubtedly attracts serious bettors as well as criminals. For criminals, there is the additional attraction that the betting can take place in an environment where flows of moneys are much harder to trace by investigators. However, whilst Asian bookmakers present a clear threat, recent evidence from football has shown that the vulnerability of betting companies within the EU are also exploited to place bets associated with fixed matches. The threat to European sport arises from two features of Asian markets: their high liquidity and the weakness of their regulatory framework. The volume of betting on European sports events in Asia is said to dwarf that in Europe itself. It has been estimated that bets of EUR 200,000 to 300,000 can be placed on a Belgian second division football match through agents without risk of attracting attention and without driving odds against the bettor. 7 This degree of liquidity enables criminals to win hundreds of thousands of euros for money laundering or other criminal purposes by manipulating, for example, a Belgian second division match where player wages are modest and the risk of corruption is present. The second attraction for fixers is that the betting market they use is unregulated in such way that money flows cannot be traced to source. In Asia this is due to fact that sports betting is unregulated in nearly all jurisdictions. However, it is well documented that participation in betting is high in the presence of prohibition. Thus the high liquidity of the Asian market together with the way in which it is organised lends itself to corruption, and this is the reason Asian betting markets are at the core of the crisis of integrity and credibility faced by European sport. The possibility to generate large and quick gains through betting leaves space to be exploited by organised crime groups for high-scale money laundering schemes. This prompts the need for law enforcement involved in tackling sport corruption to consider launching parallel financial investigations aimed at tracing assets illicitly obtained by organised crime groups, and to address effectively possible money laundering connected aspects. 7 Institut de relations Internationales et Stratégiques (IRIS); Sports betting and corruption: How to preserve the integrity of sport (2012). 6

7 The fight against match fixing by European regulators will always be tough as long as criminals use unregulated markets inside their home country or outside their jurisdictions. One solution in the long-run is for more countries to establish regimes which offer value for bettors in a legal, well-regulated and transparent environment, supplemented with concrete measures against poorly supervised or illegal betting. In those jurisdictions where sports' betting is prohibited, a more effective monitoring of compliance (or application of criminal justice measures) would help stem unregulated betting and associated corruption. When betting markets are global rather than national, a legal and attractive market is needed for recreational bettors where they live. That is mostly in Asia. Europe can play a role in opening up conversation to encourage the big betting countries on every continent to move towards properly managing the demand of their populations to engage in sports betting European Commission The 2011 Commission Communication on Sport noted that match-fixing is an issue for the integrity of sport, whether related to influencing sporting objectives or betting. Match-fixing is not necessarily linked to sports betting: Nevertheless, unregulated betting on sports represents a serious vulnerability to the sport events, largely due to the threat of exploitation by criminal networks. In the Call for Proposals implementing the 2012 Preparatory Action 'European Partnership on Sports', the Commission included projects focusing on the prevention of match-fixing through the education and information of relevant stakeholders, such as athletes, referees, match officials and sports administrators. Five projects were selected in this area, with final reports delivered in mid-2014 (see Annex 2) The Commission Communication on online gambling of October 2012 lists five priority areas for EU action in the field of online gambling; one of which is to safeguard the integrity of sport and to prevent match-fixing. In this field, the Commission announced the adoption of an initiative on best practices in the prevention and combating of betting-related match-fixing. In that context, the Commission launched in November 2013 two studies related to the prevention and fight against betting-related match-fixing to help gather evidence and contribute to the preparation of this initiative. The first study covers risk assessment and management and prevention of conflicts of interest in the prevention and fight against betting-related match-fixing in the EU 28. The second study covers 7

8 the sharing of information and reporting of suspicious sports betting activity in the EU 28. Both studies were published in September While the mandate for the work of the Expert Group explicitly makes reference to the Commission Recommendation (as it was described in the Action Plan), at the time work was then on-going at the Council of Europe on designing a new Convention which would represent a significant step forward in providing a framework of policy and practice for safeguarding the integrity of sport. With the Convention in mind, the Commission decided to postpone specific work on any match-fixing initiative until the effects of the new regulatory and political framework for match-fixing became clearer, while pursuing initiatives aimed at tackling broader challenges related to online betting. In the meantime, an administrative cooperation arrangement, signed by EEA gambling regulatory authorities in November 2015, will facilitate both exchange of best practice and sharing of information on specific matters between the regulators, including in the area of match-fixing. In order to further clarify where EU value added could be best directed, the European Commission organized a conference in February 2016 to help identify how any future initiative could be best designed to incorporate this new landscape. This event was organized under the auspices of the DG HOME pilot project on integrated mechanisms for cooperation between public and private actors to identify sports betting risks. The intensive two-day event offered the opportunity for experts from a variety of fields to share their knowledge and experience relating to match-fixing and exchange views. It was successful at presenting a wide range of perspectives: - International sports bodies and national federations, player associations and individual athletes, - Interpol and Europol, as well as police officers who work on relevant cases on a dayto-day basis, - European betting regulators, and also experts knowledgeable about the Asian betting markets and operators present in those markets, - The public and private sectors; academics, researchers and practitioners. The Commission is continuing to explore how best to move forward, but also being aware of the four projects which are on-going through this pilot project (summaries are presented in Annex 2). Discussions will be ongoing also within the Expert Group on Gambling Services which brings together the gambling regulators from all EEA countries

9 2.2. Council of Europe Pan-European sports co-operation is addressed through the Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS), established in One of the key areas of focus is on the corruption aspect in sport, in particular on the fight against the manipulation of sports competitions. With the involvement of public authorities, the betting regulatory authorities and with input from the sports movement and betting operators, a new international convention on this subject has been established. 9 The Convention was declared open for signature in September It aims to prevent, detect and sanction the manipulation of sports competitions under both criminal law and disciplinary provisions, as well as facilitate information exchange and national and international co-operation both between the public authorities concerned, and with sports organisations and sports betting operators. The Convention offers a solid basis for strengthening pan-european coordination and cooperation in the fight against match-fixing, and is the first legally-binding international tool to fight match-fixing for the parties that choose to ratify it. It focusses on key aspects of the fight against match-fixing; prevention, law enforcement, the exchange of information among the various actors and of course international cooperation. The aim is to bring the parties closer together in their efforts to tackle this problem. A total of 15 parties signed up at the Ministerial Conference on 18 September at the opening for signature event in Macolin, of which 8 EU Member States. At the time of writing (June 2016), a further 12 have signed, including another 7 EU Member States. 2 parties have also ratified the Convention (Portugal and Norway). The Convention will enter into force following the fifth ratification. Ratification and/or signing processes have been delayed in some Member States due to fact that the Council has not yet reached a consensus on the EU joining the Convention. While it is encouraging that some countries that have not ratified the convention yet have already implemented key recommendations from the convention, the fact that the convention can inspire even before it is in force should not weaken the determination of the signatories to ensure full ratification. The global nature of match-fixing is reflected in the Council of Europe Convention, in that it is open for signature to Parties outside the Council of Europe, such as Japan, New Zealand and Canada

10 2.3. International organizations Unesco s General Conference adopted the renewed International Charter of Physical Education, Physical Activity and Sport (Nov 2015), which includes protection and promotion of the integrity and ethical values of sport and states that effective measures must be taken to foster national and international co-operation against the manipulation of sport competitions, as well as a coordinated global response in line with the relevant international instruments. Preserving the Integrity of Sport was one of three themes of the 5th Unesco International Conference of Ministers and Senior Officials Responsible for Physical Education and Sport (MINEPS V) in The associated Declaration of Berlin is a key reference document in this area. 10 Work has begun to determine concrete followup activities that will lead into MINEPS VI, to be held in Russia in In June 2016, the IOC and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) launched the UNODC-IOC Booklet for Legislators: Model Criminal Law Provisions for the Prosecution of Competition Manipulation. This booklet proposes Model Criminal Law Provisions and additional guidelines for national legislators seeking to introduce legislative measures to combat competition manipulation. In conjunction with the International Centre for Sport Security (ICSS), the UNODC are finalizing a resource guide on "Good Practices in the Investigation of Match-Fixing". This is aimed at law-enforcement officials and also officials in sports organizations who may be asked to work in this area. It is scheduled to finish by mid-2016 with a view to conducting activities thereafter, such as training workshops. Following the UK anti-corruption summit on 12 May 2016, the International Forum for Sport Integrity organised by the IOC, bringing together the international sports bodies, governments and relevant international organisations in Lausanne on 15 February 2017, is expected to define the means for an International Sport Integrity Partnership. 10 During the second meeting of the Expert Group, Interpol and Europol gave an overview of their activities. Both organizations are key in the fight against matchfixing. Europol signed a memorandum of understanding with UEFA in 2014 to increase cooperation in the fight against match-fixing. Mutual support will be given in education programmes, and Europol and UEFA will also liaise on matters concerning individual relations with law enforcement bodies, as well as with UEFA 10

11 member associations. In the same context of public/private cooperation, Europol has signed two additional MoUs in 2015, with the Tennis Integrity Unit (TIU) and with the private monitoring company Sportradar. Moreover, Europol also cooperates with the Council of Europe on implementation of the Convention. 11 Best practice 1 - Making use of international police cooperation EUROPOL has created in 2014 a dedicated operational project under the name of Focal Point Sports Corruption to tackle Organised Crime Groups (OCGs) involved in sports corruption and associated crimes. This allows using a unique platform to collect, exchange, analyse and disseminate criminal intelligence received from law enforcement of Member States (MS) and third parties in regard to sports corruption related investigations. INTERPOL has two units dealing with match-fixing; the Integrity in Sport Unit, working on the capacity building and prevention, and the Match-fixing Unit in charge of the operational support to the member countries working on matchfixing investigation cases as well as illegal and irregular betting across the globe. This happens through the Match Fixing Task Force (IMFTF) that today counts 74 member countries from all continents and Europol. Interpol and the IOC have a Memorandum of Understanding since 2014 which establishes the provision of partnership development meetings tailored to the unique circumstances of governments, law enforcement agencies and betting operators around the world. Since its' launch in June 2015, the IOC-Interpol Global Capacity Building and Training programme has delivered tailored programmes for sports organisations, governments, law enforcement agencies and betting entities in Norway, Peru, Canada, Singapore, the Netherlands, Brazil and Belgium. Interpol also cooperates with the Council of Europe on implementation of the Convention. The IOC, major international sports federations and other stakeholders can play a constructive role in promoting the fight against match-fixing and international cooperation in this regard, as many countries recognize the need to maintain a good relationship with the sports movement for obvious reasons. 3. Member State and Stakeholder actions Throughout the course of the Expert Group, each of the main areas - prevention, detection, cooperation and sanctions have been examined in more detail, through a series of presentations and discussions in each of the meetings. The following 11 In February 2015, Europol agreed to support the (EU funded) Project Keep Crime Out of Sport of the Council of Europe; cooperation will be provided outside the frame of a formal partnership. 11

12 chapter aims to summarise the main points which have been highlighted, as well as identifying a few best practises of general relevance Prevention Effective prevention of match-fixing requires efforts from the sporting community, betting companies, the betting regulatory authorities and other public authorities. A first step in preventing match-fixing is to recognise the scale and gravity of the problem. This requires information which must be shared across sectors and between actors at all levels. It is especially important that athletes, trainers, managers and referees, including grassroots sport programmes, are not only aware of and informed about match-fixing, but also on how to react if they are approached. However, prevention also must entail the setting-up of good governance structures to avoid institutional corruption as well as promoting quality working conditions for athletes (i.e. fair and punctual payments, contractual stability). Such measures will reduce the vulnerability of officials and athletes to consider fixing a match. A questionnaire distributed to Member States showed considerable differences in the approaches adopted throughout the EU towards prevention. Some countries did have specific plans which set out priorities and actions to take, such as the UK National Anti-Corruption Plan (NACP) which identifies match fixing and corruption in sport and sports betting as a national priority. Poland has also developed a Governmental Programme (Action Plan) for the Prevention of Corruption for that identifies anti-corruption in sport as one of its key tasks. Prevention and awareness-raising plans will often be run either according to sport (often football) or through Player Associations (national or European). These can be part of a national strategy or run independently by the respective associations. In Spain, for example, the Spanish Football League (LFP) has a prevention programme which will be expanded to cover not only all the senior teams, but also ensure that the youth teams of those clubs are included. In cooperation with FIFA, UEFA and the German Football League (DFL), the German Football Association (DFB) initiated a project entitled Gemeinsam gegen Spielmanipulation (joining forces against matchfixing). 12 Professional football at the highest level has a number of programmes in place, including an umbrella programme through UEFA, which has seen Integrity Officers in all 54 member associations, along with monitoring by SportRadar, to help ensure

13 effective steps to tackle match-fixing in top-level football. The European Club Association (ECA) developed and presented a Charter to its 201 member clubs for signature, reminding clubs to their key commitments in the fight against match-fixing and in illegal betting. On the global level, the FIFA Integrity Initiative was first launched in 2012 in order to create capacity in the fight against match manipulation in football, delivered in close cooperation and in partnership with all of the regional football confederations and Member Associations. Best Practise 2 Making use of technology Although face-to-face training will likely have greater impact, the use of technology and e-learning systems can represent a practical way to reach out to the maximum number of people. Sweden rolled out an e-learning system in 2015 designed to educate and raise awareness of match-fixing to all people participating in sport. The IOC has recently launched an e-learning platform providing information to athletes on issues related to competition manipulation. INTERPOL has also developed an E-learning platform for football players, young players, referees, managers and coaches. To help ensure e-learning is successful, it should be mandatory. Part of the fourth meeting of the Expert Group was dedicated to prevention. Austria has a "Play Fair Code" since 2012, 13 where the priorities are crime prevention through education, monitoring and the institution of the ombudsman. The Play Fair Code applies a top-down education strategy, with professional athletes (including future professional athletes) constituting the first target group, followed by the interface between professional, semi-professional and amateur athletes, referees and sport representatives. Experience to date has confirmed that the one-to-one athlete and target group education approach is a sustainable and verifiable model of raising awareness and understanding. It also provides a means to speak directly about the consequences for involvement in match-fixing, such as criminal law prosecution, sports federations regulations, labour law implications and, last but not least, the loss of social reputation. The next priority is the expansion of training activities into amateur sport. In Poland, the Minister of Sport and Tourism adopted a programme titled Don t be a pawn in the game! entirely dedicated to the fight against corruption in sport and match-fixing through different activities. A network of coordinators has been created in all clubs in the top three football leagues whose primary task is to run educational workshops with the young players in their clubs

14 The EU Athletes PROtect Integrity project, together with private betting operators, aims to educate players on the risks of match-fixing. Moreover given the high turnover rate of European players, the need for continuous education is apparent. The project reaches directly into the locker room of thousands of professional athletes, based on face-to-face education, with mobile apps and social media support of the campaign. Education is often best received when it is delivered by people the players know and respect (normally ex-players or officials, player associations, etc.). Lotteries also occupy a special role in a number of Member States; in France and the Netherlands they are very active in the education of athletes. The presence of satisfactory sports regulations against match-fixing is vital to prevent athletes from manipulating matches. In recent years, both Denmark and Sweden sports confederations have created a new set of sports regulations against matchfixing. The regulations contain rules against match-fixing, betting and other unethical conduct, and are covering all of the confederations' different member federations. The Council of Europe Convention will require parties to promote preventative measures and co-ordinate the activities of relevant public authorities, sports organisations and betting operators. For example, prevention of conflicts of interests, including prohibition for competition stakeholders to bet on their competitions, is provided for by Articles 7 and 10 of the Council of Europe Convention. In order to support sports disciplinary actions in this field, the French regulation provides for a cross-filing mechanism enabling to compare data held by the betting regulator with those provided by the national sports federations, in compliance with applicable rules and regulations on data protection. Understanding the extent to which sport is under threat from match-fixing is a vital component. Risk assessment provisions helping sporting bodies to determine if their respective competitions are vulnerable to potential match fixing or other related betting market manipulations should be incorporated into prevention policies. A preventive risk-based approach could also be implemented by sports betting regulators whose dialogue about match-fixing related vulnerabilities of sports betting offers could be one-added value action to be taken on supranational level. 14

15 Best Practise 3 Building a nation risk assessment methodology Australia developed a Sports Integrity Threat Assessment Methodology (SITAM). Adapted from an Australian law enforcement methodology to prioritize investigations against organized crime groups, it allows for the examination and assessment of: - the threat to the individual sports from match fixing, organized criminal infiltration, illicit drugs and doping - the vulnerability of the sport to criminal infiltration and organized criminal exploitation Doing so allows Australia to develop a comprehensive baseline understanding of threats to, and vulnerabilities of individual sports Detection The monitoring of global sports betting markets for irregularity in odds movements or betting behaviour is currently the main detection method used. There are now a variety of betting monitoring and fraud detection systems on the market, covering many sports at all levels, and both regulated and unregulated gambling sites. Betting operators often use their own surveillance systems as part of their internal risk management although only in some EU Member States in which online betting is legally offered are operators obliged to report suspicious betting activity to the gambling regulator. The third meeting of the Expert Group was dedicated to the subject of early warning systems / fraud detection systems. The Expert Group heard from the ESSA (Sports Betting Integrity) monitoring system, SportRadar Fraud Detection System, the Global Lotteries Monitoring System (GLMS), the FIFA Early Warning System GmbH (EWS), and the IOC Integrity Betting Intelligence System (IBIS). ESSA provides an early warning system with the aim of detecting and deterring the corruption of ESSA members betting markets through the manipulation of sporting events, by using real time information within ESSA members own internal systems to alert any suspicious betting transactions. Sportradar monitor odds movements and patterns worldwide to identify suspicious activities through their Fraud Detection System (FDS) which uses algorithms and a constantly maintained database of both odds and personal fraud scores, in order to detect possible match-fixing. GLMS is the state lotteries mutualised monitoring system on sports betting. It aims to detect and analyse suspicious betting activities that could question the integrity of a sport 15

16 competition. GMLS has full time operators to collect and distribute information to members and partners. FIFA s subsidiary company Early Warning System (EWS) monitors and analyses the global betting markets through its Integrated Warning and Analysing System IWAS, and works closely with betting operators and regulators to exchange information about specific matches via its secured communication platform. The IOC IBIS is a unique system for all Olympic (and some non-olympic) International Federations, regulated betting operators and betting regulatory authorities which allows for exchange information and intelligence related to all sports betting to be collected and distributed for use by all stakeholders of the Olympic Movement. In order for the various systems and mechanisms to complement each other, a higher level of cooperation may be necessary. All activities related to detection must however comply with national and European laws on data protection. New data protection rules were adopted by the EU in April In general, all processing of personal data must be based on a legal ground, such as that the processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest. Where the processing of personal data is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest, the public interest must be determined by Union or national law. With regard to criteria for the recognition of suspicious betting, while the regulated betting industry have in general a common understanding of the concept (even if the alerts raised were not necessarily the same), the vast majority of suspicious bets are placed outside regulated markets. It is important to ensure careful scrutiny of suspicious behaviour, and avoid making false allegations. It is also important that there is more data collated and shared on suspected matchfixing when detected by stakeholders. This will help to identify the focus of corrupters and to develop mitigating policy actions by all stakeholders. This information needs to be shared between all interested stakeholders as part of a move towards more effective cross-sector cooperation. It is also important that, as part of a partnership approach with a mutual aim of combating match-fixing, the parties providing important information are kept appraised of developments where corruption is identified and sanctions sought. Whistle-blowing is also key to detection one of the most effective detection methods is a whistle blower report that a match-fixer has made an approach and attempted to corrupt the course or outcome of a match. It is important that whistleblowers are protected and can come forward without concerns for suffering from

17 reputation or other personal damage. It was not always clear who to report to; the national platforms (see below) could also help in that respect. Best Practise 4 Ombudsman system In Germany, the ombudsman is an appointed, independent lawyer, whom any stakeholder of German football can reach out to in confidence - to seek guidance or to report a potential case of match-fixing. The ombudsman can be approached by phone or by . The ones reporting a potential case of match-fixing can decide to do so anonymously or by disclosing their identity. Thus, players, coaches and referees can obtain advice even in cases where there is only an initial suspicion, and can help fight manipulation in football. The Ombudsman system has proved to be successful in Germany, and is being operated in other countries. Austria has an ombudsman office for all sports since 2014 FIFA provides different methods of reporting: telephone, and online reporting mechanisms are in place either on a confidential basis or a fully anonymous basis through a third party reporting provider. In particular, the FIFA/ EWS confidential 24/7 integrity hotline and are available. A confidential reporting mechanism for potential infringements of the FIFA Code of Ethics and the relevant FIFA regulations is also in place. 15 These reporting mechanisms are available for use across all Member Associations (MA); however, each MA is encouraged to provide national reporting mechanisms for confidential reporting of suspicious approaches or activities related to match manipulation. FIFA considers that a range of national, regional and international mechanisms can assist anyone wishing to report to identify a mechanism that they trust. Sport governing bodies and sports clubs have an important role to play in terms of gathering information, undertaking investigations into breaches of any rules, and exchanging and receiving such information from the emergent national platforms. For sport, investigating allegations of match-fixing is vital to maintaining participant and stakeholder confidence, and the need to invest in developing capabilities is important to consider. Law enforcement, however, has a different mandate, namely to protect the public at large and maintaining the accepted values of society. As most cases of match-fixing involve cheating in a sporting event to enable illegitimate financial gain to be made from the betting markets, it will therefore normally follow that law enforcement in that country will take the lead on the investigation, possibly with assistance from the sport. 16 It is possible in some circumstances that sports and See UNODC Resource Guide for Investigating match-fixing 17

18 law enforcement investigations may be undertaken at the same time, if communication between respective investigators is possible at the early stages. Best Practise 5 Key evidence for successful investigations Successful investigations, by law enforcement and sport organizations, rely on gathering a combination of direct and indirect (circumstantial) evidence to prove the allegations of match-fixing. Key types of evidence (in accordance with national legislation) include: The forensic analysis of call data, betting and banking records of all of those involved; Evidence of a conspiracy or joint-action between those planning the fix and those carrying out the fix through forensic analysis of computers and communication devices; Evidence of a conspiracy between those planning the fix and those carrying out the fix obtained through technical and other forms of surveillance; Video-recorded interviews of all suspects during which all the allegations are put to them; Evidence from betting operators identifying those placing the suspicious bets; Analysis of suspicious movements in the betting markets; Evidence from watching the video footage of the allegedly fixed event; Assistance from witnesses, including whistle-blowers, and co-conspirators; Contact between suspects on social media platforms Sanctions Sanctions play a key role in the fight against match-fixing. Through effective sanctions it is possible to indicate the seriousness and injustice of the acts or omissions that lead to manipulation of sport competitions, act as an effective deterrent against match fixing and also punish the culprits. Competence in issuing sanctions in manipulation of sport competition is shared between the sport organizations and states. The form of sanction is dependent on the nature of the act or omission. It is also possible that one act or omission leads to both disciplinary and criminal or administrative sanctions. Sanctions must be imposed with due regard to avoid breaching the double jeopardy principle (ne bis in idem). However, the ne bis in idem principle does not exclude that an act is punishable in both disciplinary and criminal courts Sanctions issued by states can be of administrative or civil nature or based on criminalization in national legislation. These sanctions can be addressed either to natural persons or legal persons. Sanctions issued by sport organizations may be 18

19 based on statutory provisions or regulations adopted by sports organizations or competition organizers, or through collective bargaining agreements. The Council of Europe Convention contains multiple provisions regarding sanctions. With regard to the various aspects of law enforcement, the convention seeks, inter alia, to identify those acts which should be prosecuted without, however, imposing the creation in each Party s domestic law of a harmonized special criminal offence in the field. The purpose of clarifying which types of conduct are to be considered offences is to facilitate judicial and police co-operation between Parties. Specific references are also made to money laundering and to the liability of legal persons, which depending on the Parties applicable law can be criminal, civil or administrative. With a view to ensuring an efficient enforcement system, the convention considers a broad range of criminal, administrative and disciplinary sanctions. It also requires the Parties to ensure that sanctions are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. International and national sports organizations are recognized as having a role to play as key partners of public authorities in combating the manipulation of sports competitions, in particular where disciplinary sanctions and exchanges of information are concerned. Sport governing bodies can prosecute and sanction athletes and officials who breach the rules. While internal investigations by sport governing bodies are in general less resourceful than police investigations, they are an important tool to sanction athletes and officials in cases of minor offences. Sports betting operators are also recognized as key partners on prevention and exchange of information of betting related manipulations. It is of course important that any sport sanctions are fair and proportionate, and that the sports disciplinary processes are compliant with European fundamental rights including a fair trial and independent appeals process. In providing for international co-operation in investigating and prosecuting offences, the convention does not prejudice instruments which already exist in the field of mutual assistance in criminal matters and extradition and which can facilitate investigations and prosecutions. Therefore, for the international exchange of law enforcement information, well-established information channels via Interpol or Europol should be maintained. The Parties task to encourage the principle of mutual recognition of disciplinary sanctions adopted by national sports organizations is also envisaged, in order to avoid an athlete sanctioned by a national organization managing to evade punishment by participating in competitions outside of the jurisdiction or the risk of disciplinary sanctions being imposed twice for the same offence (ne bis in idem). 19

20 The fifth meeting of the Expert Group examined the aspect of sanctions. The Expert Group heard from Germany, France and Italy on their national solutions to sanction manipulation of sport competitions as well as UEFA on disciplinary sanctions in football. Germany are introducing two new criminal provisions covering sports betting fraud and the manipulation of sports competitions, partly motivated by the Bochum case. Legal sanctions are a way of covering all people including those beyond the federation in question, which was the limitation of disciplinary sanctions. France has a legal framework in place since 2012, with 2 new articles introduced in the Criminal Code to include specific reference to the manipulation of sport events on which bets have been placed. Prior to this, it was only possible to take action if there was a proven link with private corruption. To date, no sentences have been passed, also highlighting the difficulties with proving that an athlete has not performed to the best of his or her ability. Italy is one of a group of countries with specific sport offences. Legislation has evolved significantly over the past years: New provisions since 2015 expand the legislation to include the confiscation of goods and properties connected to fixers. From the disciplinary sanction point of view, UEFA has a zero-tolerance policy. The relevant legal framework is set out in the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, in particular with Article 12 which covers not only match-fixing, but also any attempts to fix matches. Best Practise 6 The Triage System developed by the UK Sports Betting Integrity Forum brings together the police, sports regulators and the gambling commission to better manage incidents of sports betting corruption where criminality is suspected, and decide how best to investigate and try match fixing cases Cooperation Cooperation is often said to be the one single word which defines best the challenges, and solutions, with regard to tackling match-fixing. In practice, cooperation can take various forms among stakeholders. For example, awareness raising, education and training as well as coordination of actions can benefit from cooperation. 17 However, the main field for cooperation is exchange of information between competent public 17 The Protect our Game! code of conduct is the result of discussions jointly held by the European Football Stakeholders (UEFA, EPFL, ECA and FIFPro Division Europe), and serves as a reference for code of conducts at national level. It illustrates the positive results that strong cooperation between stakeholders can provide. It sets out the guiding principles for all players, referees, clubs and other officials on issues surrounding the integrity of football. The four organisations are now working together to ensure efficient implementation. 20

21 authorities, sport organizations and sport betting operators. In the area of law enforcement for example the feasibility of Joint Investigation Teams should be considered when applicable. In its work, the Expert Group concentrated mainly on structures and methods to enable and improve cooperation to provide necessary information available to relevant actors to effectively prevent, detect and sanction manipulation of sport competitions. The Council of Europe convention recognizes the need for exchange of information both at national and international level. According to article 12, each Party shall facilitate in accordance with its national law exchanges of information between the relevant public authorities, sports organizations, competition organizers, sports betting operators and national platforms. The convention introduces national platforms as a basis for national cooperation in the fight against match-fixing. According to the article 13 of the convention, each Party shall identify a national platform addressing manipulation of sports competitions. The identification of the body fulfilling the function of national platform can be made in accordance with national law, and at the Parties discretion, taking into account existing structures and the distribution of national administrative functions. According to the Explanatory report a public authority would provide a neutral framework for co-operation between private stakeholders from different sectors and a suitable framework for the exchange of information. Therefore, national platforms are also implicitly covered by the generic references made to competent public authorities. However, this feature is not explicitly specified in the provisions of the convention, so as to give the Parties a margin of discretion in identifying their platform. The fourth meeting of the Expert Group was dedicated to the national platforms. Presentations were heard from the UK, the Netherlands and Finland. In addition several Member States informed the Expert Group on the planned or already existing national structures, including France, Malta and Denmark. In the UK, the Gambling Commission (Sports Betting Intelligence Unit) was established as the country's NP, supported by the Sports Betting Integrity Forum (SBIF). The SBIF is responsible for setting day-to-day and long-term strategy and for ensuring accountability. The NP is organized in three different areas (Information Sharing, Intelligence Capability and Operational Coordination) which provide the framework for actions to prevent and tackle sport betting related crimes. The shared nature of the competences, and the close cooperation with the law enforcement agencies, are important aspects of the UK approach. 21

22 In the Netherlands, the law enforcement body of the Platform consists of the representatives of the police and the prosecution office and it holds its meeting every two weeks. The broader subgroup of the Platform involves all relevant stakeholders which are provided with non-confidential information by the law enforcement body. Alongside information sharing, the body has the goal of fostering cooperation and building trust among involved stakeholders (e.g. sport organisations and ministries) and identifying best measures. Meetings are organized in every two months. In Norway, the platform is being run by the Norwegian Ministry of Culture and it is hosted by the national betting regulatory authority (Norwegian Gambling Authority). Regarding its scope, it provides opportunities for information sharing between stakeholders, conducts risk assessment and creates proposals to enhance prevention in the field of betting related crimes. Although it also has the role of detecting concrete cases, it does not have investigatory powers. Therefore, its main role consists of collecting, analysing and disseminating information. On the grounds of presentations and updates from several countries it is clear that platforms can be established in multiple ways. There is no one size fits all, and each platform will be adapted to suit the country in question. A key prerequisite for a functioning system seems to be that the stakeholders are committed to its work, there is mutual trust, the platform has clearly defined tasks and it operates in cooperation with public authorities, gambling sector and sport movement. Best Practise 7 Regional Cooperation Since 2014, the sports confederations in the Nordic countries have met once a year to exchange different experiences, knowledge, best practices and other information that can be useful for their neighbouring countries in the fight against match-fixing. Meetings like these are relatively easy to arrange, and is a very effective way to start up an international cooperation against match-fixing. Platforms should include the active involvement of all stakeholders, including athletes and their representative associations from a variety of sports. This diversity is important since different sports are exposed to different types of risks of match fixing. Setting up national platforms can be done regardless of the Convention, and it would provide a framework for cross border cooperation of national platforms. 4. What now, and what next, for the EU and MSs? The Council of Europe, EU Member States and the European Commission must continue to try to seek a suitable solution to resolve the current deadlock of the 22