The King Commission Interim Report

The evidence does not disclose that anything untoward happened from about January 1997 to January 2000. During that period, inter alia, Australia were in South Africa (13 February - 13 April 1997), playing 3 tests and 7 ODIs; South Africa were in Pakistan (1 October - 8 November 1997), playing 3 tests and a quadrangular ODI series between Sri Lanka, West Indies, Pakistan and South Africa; South Africa were in Australia (25 November 1997 - 3 February 1998), playing 3 tests and a triangular ODI series between Australia, New Zealand and South Africa; Pakistan were in South Africa (29 January - 10 March 1998) playing 3 tests, Sri Lanka were in South Africa (7 March - 23 April 1998) playing 2 tests and Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa played an ODI series. South Africa were in England (14 May - 2 August 1998) playing 5 tests and 3 ODIs against England and playing an ODI series against England and Sri Lanka; the ICC knockout tournament in Bangladesh (24 October 1998 - 1 November 1998); the West Indies were in South Africa (11 November 1998 - 7 February 1999) playing 5 tests and 7 ODIs; South Africa were in New Zealand from 13 February - 30 March 1999, playing 3 tests and 7 ODIs; lastly South Africa participated in the World Cup in England in 1999.

For all these matches Cronjé captained the South African side.

It is interesting that the first time Cronjé was approached to fix a match, he was prepared to and did entertain the suggestion.

Mr Charles Robert van Staden

Mr Charles Robert van Staden, a deputy general manager in the Exchange Control Department of the South African Reserve Bank, confirmed the contents of a prepared statement, which was handed in and read into the record by him.

The amounts referred to as being handed in were US dollar notes; they were deposited by Cronjé's attorneys' office at a bank in Bloemfontein, converted into Rands and credited to the Trust Account of the Reserve Bank's attorneys in Pretoria.

Mr van Staden requested an explanation from Mr Cronjé in respect of the above-mentioned amounts as well as any foreign bank accounts.

Subsequently Cronjé's attorney informed van Staden of an account in his client's name in England, which was opened with Exchange Control authority given in 1995. This account forms part of the information requested by van Staden.

Van Staden confirmed that Cronjé's attorney has undertaken to furnish to the Reserve Bank an explanation regarding the deposits upon completion of the Commission. Although he had not received a formal explanation at the time of testifying, he had been advised by Cronjé's attorney of the existence of two foreign bank accounts, but had received no further details.

Van Staden confirmed that an undertaking had been given that upon completion of the Commission "the Reserve Bank would be furnished with an explanation regarding the deposits."

In his statement, which was read into the record, van Staden referred to 2 amounts, R63 482. 61 and R239 200. 15, transferred by Cronjé's attorneys to the trust account of the Reserve Bank's attorneys on 13 and 14 April 2000 respectively.

These amounts, according to van Staden, represented the nett Rand equivalent of $10,000 and $37,630 respectively.

It was confirmed in Cronjé's evidence that the $10,000 represented the money given to him by Sanjay (or part thereof) and the $37,630 comprised an advance of $25,000 received by Cronjé from the promotor of a proposed unofficial benefit series of 5 matches between a South African XI and an Indian XI in India during the latter part of April - beginning of May 2000. The South African participation in the series was to be organised by Cronjé. The balance of $12,000 odd represented an accumulation over a period of time of prize monies, subsistence allowances and the like.

Van Staden was further advised by Cronjé's attorney that in terms of Exchange Control regulations R200 000, 00 had been transferred abroad as a foreign investment allowance and was held in a foreign bank account in London.

At this stage the particular questions posed in the Terms of Reference may be answered as follows:

A1. the receipt by Cronjé of payment of approximately $10,000 from a bookmaker.
1.1 the identity of the person from whom such payment was received - Sanjay (or Sanjeev) Chawla (or Chowla) from whom Cronjé received an amount of between $10,000 - $15,000 on 1 February 2000 at the Beverly Hills Hotel, Umhlanga Rocks, KwaZulu-Natal.

Sanjay (as he is referred to in this report) is an Indian national, resident in the United Kingdom and is either a bookmaker engaged in betting on cricket matches or a gambler thereon, or possibly both.
1.2 the intended purpose of the payment was to secure Cronjé's assistance and participation in "fixing" i.e. influencing the result of, or the performance of individual players in, matches played by the South African national team, and/or providing information bearing on the possible outcome of matches i.e. Test matches and limited overs matches known as One-Day Internationals (ODIs).
1.3 the persons who were aware of the payment - in addition to Cronjé and Sanjay, one Hamid Cassim who brought them together and whose role in the transactions between them may not at this stage have been fully determined.
1.4 any decisions, actions or omissions by Cronjé or anybody else as a result of such payment:-
a.the evidence at this stage does not indicate that Cronjé made any decision or took any action or omitted to do anything pursuant to the payment, in respect of the triangular series between South Africa, England and Zimbabwe which took place during the period 21 January - 13 February 2000 in South Africa.
b.There was further contact between Cronjé, Sanjay and Cassim subsequent to the aforesaid payment insofar as there may have been a payment, so to speak, in advance for anticipated co-operation. What flowed from this will be dealt with under Term of Reference A2 which reads:

A2. Whether during the period 1 November 1999 - 17 April 2000, and excluding the matters referred to in paragraph 1, any member of the South African cricket team or team official received or was promised payment of any amount of money or other benefit (excluding salary, emoluments, sponsorship and other payments or benefits lawfully connected therewith) in relation to his functions as a member of the South African cricket team or as a team official and, if so,
2.1 from whom such payment was received or promised;
2.2 the intended purpose of such payment or promise;
2.3 the persons who were aware of such payment or promise;
2.3.1 whether any decision, action or omission by the recipient or anyone else in consequence of such payment or promise occurred; and any other matters related or incidental to the receipt of such payment or promise.

During this period:
(a)
2.1 Cronjé received from Marlon Aronstam, a bookmaker and/or gambler, a total of R53 000, 00 (and a lady's leather jacket);
2.2 There is a conflict between Cronjé and Aronstam as to the intended purpose of such payment - Aronstam maintained that the R50 000, 00 (made up of 2 instalments of R30 000, 00 and R20 000, 00) paid a day or two after the conclusion of the Centurion Test, was in respect of future information, particularly pitch reports, whereas Cronjé thought it may have been the gift promised to him by Aronstam in the event that he succeeded in increasing the prospects of a positive result to the match.

Aronstam and Cronjé are agreed that R3000, 00 was in respect of information to be provided by Cronjé to Aronstam in respect of the forthcoming one-day triangular series. The leather jacket was a gift to Mrs Cronjé.
2.3 The persons aware of this payment were Messrs. Cronjé and Aronstam and as to Cronjé's willingness to participate in match fixing, certain unnamed friends of Aronstam.
2.4 whether any decision, action or omission by the recipient or anyone else in consequence of such payment or promise occurred - what occurred was that Cronjé engineered a formula whereby what would otherwise have produced an inevitable draw in the Centurion Test was transformed into a match which would in all probability (and did) produce a positive result - a win for England.
Thus the decision was taken and the action pursuant thereto was influenced by the promise (and receipt) of a reward. Such other motive as there might have been is in this context secondary.

2.5 any other matters related or incidental to the receipt of such payment or promise - Cronjé apparently provided Aronstam with pitch reports during the ensuing one-day series.
(b) During the tour of India from 19 February - 19 March 2000, Cronjé approached various of his team mates in regard to match fixing; thus, shortly stated,
2.(b).(i) Cronjé approached his team mate, Pieter Strydom, with an offer of payment for his co-operation in influencing the result of the First Test against India at Mumbai.
2.(b).(ii) Cronjé approached certain of his team mates shortly before the Second Test against India at Bangalore, namely, Klusener, Boucher and Kallis. He told them that he had received an offer, (of money in return for match fixing) and enquired whether they were interested. They replied that they were not.
2.(b).(iii) Cronjé and Sanjay were in contact prior to the first ODI at Cochin; and again prior to the second ODI at Jamshedpur and also in respect of the 3rd and 4th ODI's.
2.(b).(iv) For the 5th ODI at Nagpur, Cronjé received the promise of co-operation from his team mates Gibbs and Williams, in return for payment, which in the result did not materialise.

Term of reference A3

This concerns a specific incident which occurred during the South African tour to India, prior to the final match of the tour, a one-day game to be played at Mumbai; a proposal was made that South Africa should contrive to lose the game.
3.1 By whom the proposal was made - by one, Mukesh Gupta ("MK") an Indian national and a bookmaker and/or gambler, at the end of the Third Test at Kanpur, i.e. 12 December 1996.
3.2 To whom the proposal was made - to Hansie Cronjé, the South Africa captain.
3.3 The terms of the proposal - a payment of either $200,000 or $250,000 in return for "throwing" i.e. deliberately losing the last game of the tour, an ODI at Mumbai on 14 December 1996. The offer was later raised by, probably $50,000 but possibly $100,000.
3.4 The initial proposal was put to the players at a team meeting. (i.e. all those on tour excluding Donald and Rhodes who had left for home.)
It allegedly came to the knowledge of Bob Woolmer the team coach, shortly afterwards. It is not at this stage clear whether or when it also came to the knowledge of the team management or the United Cricket Board.
3.5 any decisions, actions or omissions by any persons as a result of such proposal - the proposal was discussed at the team meeting and rejected.
At an informal gathering of senior players after the meeting, Cronjé contacted MK telephonically and obtained an increased offer. The evidence is to the effect that the offer was not taken up.
3.6 Any other matters related to or incidental to such proposal - Cronjé had received $30,000 from Gupta at the end of the third day of the third test at Kanpur, i.e. 10 December 1996, in return for "throwing" the match. At the time India were in a very strong position, eventually winning by 250 runs; there is no evidence that the match was "fixed".

Certain matters extrinsic to Terms of Reference A1, A2 and A3 are dealt with in the body of this report.
It must be emphasised that this is an interim report; it chronicles the activities of the Commission to date; it is provisional in nature, both in form and in substance.

The inquiry has been confined, as the Terms of Reference require, to matters covered by terms A1, A2 and A3, with certain other relevant matters also dealt with.

Term A4 still requires consideration; matters in respect of which evidence has been placed before the Commission and matters falling within terms A1, A2 and A3 which have not been considered will also be dealt with; this is specifically authorised by Term D.

One of the Commission's duties is to make recommendations concerning the various matters falling within its mandate. An important aspect of this is to suggest and recommend measures to be taken to ensure that appropriate steps are taken and safeguards introduced so as to ensure, as far as is humanly possible, that cricket match fixing and related activities are eliminated and banished from the game of cricket.

In response to an invitation from the Commissioner a substantial number of cricket lovers and enthusiasts have favoured the Commission with their recommendations and suggestions; these will be invaluable to the Commissioner in compiling what will be a most important aspect of the final report. It may in fact be feasible to release a further interim report dealing with this particular issue, prior to the resumption of the Commission's sitting on 2 October 2000.

It will be appreciated that until all the evidence has been heard, no aspect of the Inquiry can be, or can be regarded as finalised.

back

Mail Cricket Editor