Abstract
Against a background of several serious local and international match-fixing scandals, this paper considers the efficacy of the ‘Cheating at Gambling’ provisions introduced recently within Australian jurisdictions for the purpose of combating corruption in sport, and compares the usefulness of these provisions with the general offence of fraud, the ‘traditional’ means by which the criminal law dealt with sports corruption. While the ‘Cheating at Gambling’ provisions are an arguable advance on previous statutory approaches in prosecuting and deterring sports corruption, this paper suggests that shortfalls remain, in particular whether the new provisions are able to deal adequately with the use of ‘inside knowledge’ and the ‘soft’ corruption of ‘tanking’, practices that have, over a considerable period of time, been tolerated if not accepted by some sports.
Highlights
I: INTRODUCTIONIn 2011 all Australian governments agreed to ‘pursue nationally consistent legislative arrangements to address the issue of match-fixing’.1
In 2011 all Australian governments agreed to ‘pursue nationally consistent legislative arrangements to address the issue of match-fixing’.1 The Foreword to the agreement states: ‘[t]his national policy on Match-Fixing in Sport represents a commitment by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments to work together to address the issue of inappropriate and fraudulent sports betting and match-fixing activities with the aim of protecting the integrity of sport.’[2]The objective is: to protect the public interest and to secure the wider economic benefits that sports supplies
Against a background of several serious local and international match-fixing scandals, this paper considers the efficacy of the 'Cheating at Gambling' provisions introduced recently within Australian jurisdictions for the purpose of combating corruption in sport, and compares the usefulness of these provisions with the general offence of fraud, the 'traditional' means by which the criminal law dealt with sports corruption
Summary
In 2011 all Australian governments agreed to ‘pursue nationally consistent legislative arrangements to address the issue of match-fixing’.1. The objective is: to protect the public interest and to secure the wider economic benefits that sports supplies. These objects were expressed in the second reading speech to the Crimes Amendment (Integrity in Sports) Bill by the Attorney General of Victoria in 2013.3. A number of examples of match fixing and other forms of sports corruption are included to illustrate and to give context to the likely functionality of the ‘Cheating at Gambling’ provisions. Over a considerable period of time, been tolerated if not accepted within some sports their eradication may face a level of resistance
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
