Distorting Betting Outcomes through Corruption

According to Section 363F of the Code, manipulative conduct concerning betting outcomes is described as follows:

An individual is considered to have manipulated the results of a betting event if they:

1. Engage in actions that manipulate the bet’s outcome.

2. Acknowledge that their actions impact the betting result.

3. Intend to gain financial profit or cause a financial loss for another bettor in the event.

4. Are aware that the information they possess falls under the category of manipulative conduct information.

Section 193H of the Crimes Act 1900 provides the definition of the offence ‘Corrupting Betting Outcome of Event’ and is detailed as follows:

(1) Within this Section, “manipulate a betting outcome of an event” means actions that:

(a) can influence or are liable to influence the results of betting related to the event, and
(b) deviate from the standards of honesty that the average person would expect from those able to impact the betting results of said event.

Here are some instances of manipulative actions:

1. A sports player, coach, or referee intentionally performing poorly during a game to ensure a team’s loss or a tied game.

2. Deliberate efforts to disrupt the inherent unpredictability of a sports event, like arranging match-fixing, where the result is predetermined to favor a particular outcome.

The police are required to establish:

1. The defendant’s full awareness or indifference to the corrupting impact of their actions on betting outcomes.

2. The defendant’s actions are driven by a desire for financial gain or to cause financial harm.

3. A direct connection between the actions and the betting event.

4. The defendant’s intention of personal financial gain or causing financial harm regarding the betting, or their awareness that someone else aimed for such outcomes through the defendant’s actions.

The police are not obligated to confirm:

1. The actual financial profit or loss incurred by the accused.

2. The occurrence of a specific bet.

3. Whether an individual, influenced by relevant information or persuasion, placed a bet.

4. If persuasion led someone to bet in a particular direction.

Potential defences that could be relevant include:

1. Factual Defence: Challenging the allegations by asserting that you did not partake in the actions as described.

2. Defence of Absence of Knowledge or Recklessness: Arguing that you neither know nor were negligent about the potential corruptive impact of the information on the betting outcomes.

3. Duress Defence: Stating that you were coerced into the actions under threat or pressure, leaving you with no reasonable alternative.

The court has the authority to impose any of the subsequent sentences for the offence:

1. Imprisonment

2. Intensive Corrections Order (ICO)

3. Community Communications Order (CCO)

4. Good Release Order (CRO)

5. Fine

This offence involves manipulating betting or sports outcomes through corrupt means, such as bribery, match-fixing, or other fraudulent activities.