‘Marlon Samuels didn’t disclose receiving gifts, sponsored boat ride and nightclub visit’

It’s to be noted that Samuels pulled out of that tournament, without playing a game.

What were the main charges?

Prior to the tournament, Samuels visited Dubai with his expenses paid by a team owner and took part in a radio interview, a boat trip, a restaurant meal, a visit to a nightclub, but didn’t disclose the details to ICC’s Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU). The charges lay out that a person named Rehan Ali, whose real name according to ACU is Mehar Chhayakar, was known as someone involved in corruption.

The ACU stress that the radio interview that Samuels participated in Dubai was arranged by Chhayakar (aka Rehan Ali), the individual known to be “involved in corrupting cricket”. But Samuels avers that the interview, as was the trip itself, was arranged by the team through the team’s assistant manager.

In the course of his replies to the official investigators, Samuels admitted his Dubai trip was paid by a team owner but denied it was a part of any attempt from him to be involved in any corruption in the tournament. As part of the investigation, Samuels was asked to hand over his phones but he gave only three and withheld one device. He didn’t allow the ACU officials to enter his home (he allowed them entry to the property but not inside his home), only allowing a ‘witness’ in, to hand over the three phones. Later, at the premises of a hotel during the interview with ACU, he brought his lawyer, who was disallowed by ACU as the person was deemed a ‘person of interest’ in the case. Two days later, Samuels came with another counsel.

Did Samuels play that T20 tournament and indulge in any spot-fixing?

No, he didn’t play that tournament, pulling out prior to the start. However, by his own admission, he went on an all-paid trip to Dubai before the tournament which he noted as promotion for his cologne brand. He had posted pictures from the trip on Instagram as well. “It is not the case that Mr Samuels was ever guilty of spot or match-fixing, given that he did not play in the T10 tournament,” states the ICC’s report.

What does ACU say about Rehan Ali and the team owner?

The ACU’s investigation suggested that Ali had interests in two teams in the T10 and was offering players the possibility of playing for one of them, in exchange for which he would take 10 percent of the player’s fee. The ACU also noted that Ali also told players that they would have the “opportunity to earn ‘extra money’ during the event, considered to be a euphemism for corruption. They also mention a team owner (whose name is redacted from the final report of the tribunal) was under investigation for “potential corrupt conduct at a domestic tournament”.

The ACU stated that the owner was pushing for a team to pick Samuels in the T20 draft. “… to pick you in the T10 draft (including mentioning that there was a US$ 200,000 sponsorship linked with your name), despite other members of team staff not favouring your pick as you had not played professionally for some time”.

What does the three-member tribunal note in its report?

They repeatedly note that Samuels has been cagey and not properly participated in the ACU’s investigation.

At one point, the report notes: “If Mr Samuels was not consciously involved in that proposed corrupt enterprise, it was his singular misfortune that coincidentally two of those who were, [Mr X] (the team owner) and Mr Chhayakar crossed his path. The Majority does not accept that this was mere coincidence.”

Then they had this to observe about the Dubai trip: “…there is no credible explanation as to why Mr Chhayakar should involve himself in Mr Samuels’ promotion of his Cologne, unless it was part of the inducement to persuade him to come to Dubai for other less innocent purposes. Mr Samuels did not give any evidence as to his Cologne business and did not make himself available for cross-examination where the credibility of this explanation could have been tested.

What’s the crux of the partially-dissenting view of the panel member?

Justice Reagan’s point can be summarised in her own words in the report. “It is not clear what adverse inference the ACU wishes us to draw that would result in a conclusion, to the point of comfortable satisfaction, that the Dubai trip was one that could result in the sport of cricket or Mr Samuels being brought into disrepute. It does not seem logically possible to infer from Mr Samuels’ silence on the record before us that Mr Samuels had agreed to engage in match-fixing at the T10 event. There is no evidence beyond the speculative on the record that supports such a conclusion. For these reasons, I am not comfortably satisfied that the ACU has made out a case against Mr Samuels on the first substantive charge,” Reagan states.