CASE STUDY 1: Social Media Approaches, Grooming 101 & ‘the outsider’
What Happened? In mid-2016 two players from different countries were approached through social media by an Indian national. The male contacted the first player (Player A) on Facebook Messenger asking to be friends and to speak on WhatsApp – he stated they could both “earn good money”. Player A did not respond to these messages, and immediately reported the matter to the ACU together with a screenshot of the images.
As a result of the unsuccessful corrupt approach to Player A, the male changed his modus operandi (MO) in his attempt to corrupt the second player (Player B). He first sent a Facebook Friend request to Player B, which was accepted as the player felt that having more friends/contacts on his Facebook profile would assist him to negotiate a good sponsorship deal.
Shortly after, the male sent a Facebook Message to confirm Player B was a cricketer and advised he would send him a WhatsApp message. This was possible as Player B had his telephone number showing in his Facebook profile. From then, the male sent a number of messages on WhatsApp over the following days and weeks.
As evidenced by the WhatsApp chat over this period, the man’s actions were identified as a case of ‘classic grooming’ techniques; he ensured he messaged all the right things to establish a friendship and when trust was secured, he tested the waters with respect to fixing. When this topic was rejected by Player B, the man reverted back to grooming the player by being friendly, and discussing how he could assist with his career. He then raised the subject of fixing again, this time more directly, stating that he would use his connections to get the player selected for a specific T20 premier league, however it would be only on the basis he was willing to fix matches. When Player B realized the man was serious about his discussion on fixing, he terminated the conversation and reported to the ACU, providing the entire chat history.
Consequences: The investigation into this matter by the ICC ACU proved highly successful on a number of fronts. Both Player A and Player B demonstrated exceptional conduct in terms of refusing to engage with any suggestion of making money or fixing in cricket, and correctly reported to the ACU. Player B, who was the subject of the corrupter’s grooming attempts has since spoken of his experience for an educational video. This enabled intelligence to be gathered on the Indian male and he was interviewed by the ACU and ‘disrupted’. Overall this case provides excellent examples to players on social media risks, in addition to proactive efforts by the ACU to disrupt the corruptor (an ‘outsider’ with no formal involvement with cricket), and protect players from further attempts to corrupt the game by this man.
