This offence will deal with actions that corrupt a betting outcome, such as deliberate underperformance or ‘tanking’. It is also intended to capture someone who pays another person to engage in conduct that corrupts a betting outcome or puts pressure on the person in some other way. In creating this offence, it is recognised that there may be other reasons a participant, or some other person, may engage in conduct that could influence an event or event contingency. The NSWLRC noted some of these reasons, including a desire to maintain a pre-eminent position in a sporting competition, patriotism to secure a win for a national team, or desire to secure a favoured position in a sporting competition. The aim of the provision is not to criminalise the making of tactical decisions for reasons other than affecting a betting outcome, or an act or omission that led to an honest mistake by a competitor or an official, or breaking the rules of a sport. It is to prevent deliberate cheating aimed at affecting betting outcomes for a financial advantage or disadvantage.
These first two offences deal with corrupt conduct information. Corrupt conduct information is defined as information about conduct that corrupts a betting outcome for the event, or proposed conduct that would corrupt a betting outcome for an event. To prove this offence, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that a bet was actually placed by the first person or another person. However, the person needs to engage in conduct, and the person needs to possess information and be reckless as to whether it is corrupt conduct information.
The New South Wales Law Reform Commission report titled Cheating at Gambling , notes that inside information relating to sports, can be of considerable importance to certain criminal syndicates that employ sports betting in support of money laundering activities. Additionally, a person who abuses inside information may not be amendable to the disciplinary powers of sports controlling bodies. Accordingly, it is important that an offence of betting on an event with information not generally available is enacted to respond to the real opportunity for the misuse of such information. This offence will prohibit a person who possesses inside information about an event to: bet on that event, or encourage another person to bet on the event in a particular way, or communicate the inside information to another person who they know – or it is reasonable to know – that it is likely to bet on that event. This offence addresses concerns about the use of inside information about an event to manipulate the betting market. However, not all information about an event will be sufficient to prove this offence. The definition of inside information is limited to instances involving information that is not generally available and if the information had been available, it would have affected betting decisions. Information that is generally available is defined as information that consists of matters readily observable by the public, or information that has been made available in a way that would, or would be likely to, bring it to the attention of the public. Additionally, a deduction, conclusion or an inference drawn from this information is considered to be information generally available. A person will not commit an offence if, for example, they place a bet based on a media report that a player will not be fielded due to an injury. However, if this information is not reported publically and the information is not available to the public through other means, and a person with this information bets on an even, it is intended that this person would be captured by the inside information offence. New South Wales and South Australia have taken the same approach to limiting the scope of this offence.
ACT integrity in sport workshop presentation
Integrity in Sport- current status
and what it means for you
Facilitated by Sport and recreation
• The presentations will include the role of the
National Integrity in Sport Unit, information
around national policy and legislation on
match fixing and the role of local
organisations in protecting the integrity of
Why is match-fixing a problem for sport?
• Series of well publicised match-fixing incidents – both domestic
• National sporting organisations were asking for assistance on
perceived match-fixing risks
• State and Territory Governments indicated support for a
national action plan
• Increasing international resolve to tackle match-fixing
Increasing risk of match-fixing in sport
• The pre-conditions for illegal gambling activity are already well
• Evidence of criminal organisations are grooming players, officials
• The money being wagered on sports is vast – last year alone
$3.3 billion was gambled on sport
• Gambling on sport is the fastest growing form of gambling –
growing at 14% last year
Establishment and functions of the NISU
• Establishment of the National Integrity of Sport Unit (NISU) was
a Commonwealth commitment under the National Policy on
Match-Fixing in Sport.
• The NISU was formally established on 9 October 2012.
• The initial work program of the NISU was to:
•oversee implementation of the National Policy including
introduction of criminal offences for match-fixing and Sports
Betting Model across all jurisdictions
•develop a Code of Conduct and National Policy for use by national
sporting organisations, and
•establish a website with access to education and integrity tools.
Expanded Role for the NISU
• Following release of the ACC’s Project Aperio, the
Commonwealth provided further funding to expand the
capability of the NISU.
• Funding provides for an expansion in capability of the NISU to
include more proactive integrity threat identification, and
• The expanded NISU will deliver advisory services on integrity
issues for sport and government.
• The NISU has also established the Australian Sports Integrity
Network to facilitate information exchange between sports.
Proposed functions of an expanded NISU
• Work with sports to establish integrity units
• Network integrity units and ASADA
• Develop protocols around sports science
• Develop resources (education programs, codes of conduct)
• Undertake proactive integrity threat identification
• Ensure greater international liaison
Creating and maintaining a culture of integrity
Lifecycle of Sport Integrity
•education for athletes/officials
•building NSO integrity units
•protocols for prevention
• national leadership
• consistency across governments
• networked sport integrity units
• liaise with law enforcement
• international liaison
•triage / pre-investigation work
•gather, hold, share information
•referral to relevant agencies
• Match-fixing and betting in sport
• Illicit drugs, substance abuse
• Unethical behaviour
• Links between sports and criminal
Scope of NISU
Impact on ACT sport & recreation sector
• Need to be aware of implications on your organisations as the
ACT government gives effect to the National Match-fixing Policy
• Need to be aware of initiatives and policies being put in place by
national sporting organisations.
• Need to be aware of flow on effects of any new requirements on
state and local sporting associations.
• Need to liaise with national sporting organisations and the NISU
on any sport integrity issues on an ongoing basis.
Criminal Code (Cheating at
Gambling) Amendment Bill 2013
ACT Match-Fixing laws
National Policy on Match-Fixing in
• In June 2011, all Sports Ministers committed
to the National Policy on Match-Fixing in
Sport, and agreed that all Australian
governments would pursue a consistent
approach to criminal offences and penalties
for match-fixing activities.
SCLJ Match-Fixing Working Group
• The Standing Council on Law and Justice
subsequently established a Match-Fixing
Working Group on 21 July 2011.
• This Working Group developed a list of six
Match-Fixing Behaviours to assist jurisdictions
in determining whether their legislation was
appropriate to deal with the risk of match-
• The New South Wales Law Reform
Commission Report Cheating at Gambling was
published in August 2011.
• This report highlighted the gaps in New South
Wales law in relation to match-fixing, and
provided draft laws to address these gaps.
• In February 2013, the Australian Crime
Commission released a report titled,
Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport.
• This report further highlighted the concern
that organised crime groups were targeting
elite and sub-elite athletes with an aim of
having the athletes participate in match-fixing
• A scan of ACT legislation has shown that a
number of aspects of the agreed Match-Fixing
Behaviours are currently addressed.
• The scan also revealed potential gaps in
existing criminal laws.
• The Criminal Code (Cheating at Gambling)
Amendment Bill was introduced by Attorney-
General Simon Corbell into the Legislative
Assembly 6 June 2013.
• The offences in the Bill align the ACT with match-
fixing offences that have been introduced in New
South Wales and South Australia and most
recently, in Victoria.
• The object of this Bill is to amend the Criminal
Code 2002 (the Code) to prohibit certain
conduct that can corrupt the betting
outcomes of events on which it is lawful to
• The offences in the Bill are intended to apply
to events that occur in the ACT or elsewhere.
The New Offences
• This Bill inserts three new offences into the
Criminal Code 2002 to criminalise certain
match-fixing behaviours and cheating at
The New Offences
• The new offences will prohibit the following:
– Intentionally corrupting the outcome of a sporting
event for the purpose of receiving a benefit (10
– Betting on an event reckless about whether the
outcome has been corrupted (10 years
– Betting on an event with inside information about
the event (2 years imprisonment).
The New Offences
• The first offence will criminalise a person
engaging in conduct that results in a corrupt
betting outcome for an event, and obtaining a
financial advantage or causing a financial
disadvantage in connection with betting on
the event. The maximum penalty for this
offence is 10 years imprisonment.
The New Offences
• The second offence aims to deal with a person
betting with information about a corrupt betting
outcome. The purpose of this provision is to prohibit
a person who possesses corrupt conduct information
from engaging in conduct that results in a bet on an
event, or encourages another person to bet on an
event in a particular way, or communicates
information to another person who the first person
knows, or it is reasonable for them to know, is likely
to bet on the event. The maximum penalty for this
offence is 10 years imprisonment.
The New Offences
• The final offence in the Bill relates to betting
with inside information and carries a
maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.
• Date for debate of the Bill has not yet been set.
• The Scrutiny of Bills Committee will scrutinise the
Bill and report to the Legislative Assembly.
• The Bill and the Explanatory Statement is on the
ACT Legislation Register at:
• ACT Justice and Community Safety
The ACT Gambling and Racing Commission is a statutory
authority established under the Gambling and Racing Control
Act 1999 to:
•promote consumer protection in relation to gambling;
•minimise the possibility of criminal or unethical behaviour; and
•assist in reducing the risks and costs to the community and
individuals associated with problem gambling.
Functions of the Commission
• administer gaming laws, perform functions and exercise powers
given by the relevant legislation;
• regulate gaming in relation to the casino, gaming machines,
lotteries, racing, wagering, ACTTAB and interactive gambling;
• approve gaming and racing activities;
• monitor/research the social effects of gambling/problem
• provide education and counselling services;
• undertake gaming related legislative and policy review;
• investigate gaming related issues; and
• collect taxes and fees imposed by gaming legislation.
Sports Bookmaking Activity
• national market regulated at a state level, state consistency
important but at the moment is not there.
ACT Regulatory Scheme
• licensing of operators based on probity, suitability, finances and
• rules of operations are specified, including types of activities that
can be wagered on:
ACT only allows activities that are sanctioned by a recognised
national or peak controlling body, such as the NRL, AFL, FIFA, IOC;
ACT does not allow junior sports or entertainment activities such as
reality TV shows.
Impact of Inter-state Bookmakers
• Northern Territory (NT) is the main Australian jurisdiction providing
sports bookmaking – wagering turnover last year of $57 billion;
• NT provides a light regulatory touch and has different approved
activities and events, such as TV shows including Big Brother,
Survivor and various cooking shows involving elimination of
• ACT Gambling and Racing Commission has no direct control or
influence over inter-state bookmaking activity, including what they
are permitted to wager on and what type of wagers are permitted;
• If issues are identified, there may be some room for negotiation
through the Commission or the National Integrity in Sport Unit.
Overall Implications for ACT Sporting Bodies
Threats and Risks
• could involve players, coaches, club officials, referees;
• games and results could be manipulated;
• fraud or other unwelcome payments could occur;
• drug use could be encouraged;
• the sport’s reputation could be at risk – implications for
attracting players, spectators, sponsorship.
Mitigation of risks
•develop appropriate policies and procedures to deal with any
issues relating to suspected match-fixing:
control access to sensitive (inside) information;
monitor on-field performance in key situations;
deal with any complaints seriously and thoroughly;
•be aware and vigilant in monitoring your sport’s activities.
Possible Actions open to ACT Sporting Bodies
• follow your procedures;
• if there has been a breach (or possible breach) of the
legislation, advise the police;
• advise the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission – we may
not have jurisdiction but we can provide advice;
• approach the National Integrity in Sport Unit;
Possible Actions (con’t)
• approach the relevant national controlling or peak body:
more emphasis is being placed on controlling bodies taking
a more active and professional role in the integrity of their
• approach the regulator in the relevant jurisdiction;
• issues with international wagering on Australian sport is
very difficult, if not impossible, to control or influence.