A Singapore court has ordered veteran journalist and scholar James M. Dorsey to reveal his sources for his reporting on an audit of suspended world soccer body FIFA vice president and Asian Football Confederation (AFC) president Mohammed Bin Hammam’s management of AFC’s finances and agreement with a Singapore-based company on the group’s marketing rights.
The court accepted a demand by World Sports Group (WSG) to instruct the journalist and scholar to reveal his sources on the grounds that the audit was confidential and that the sources had defamed the company.
The court in a four-hour hearing however stayed its decision pending an appeal that Mr. Dorsey’s lawyers, N. Sreenivasan and Sujatha Selvakumar of Straits Law Practice LLC, will submit in the coming days.
Mr. Dorsey’s lawyers argued that he was not a party to any confidentiality agreement and that if WSG had an issue it should take it up with the AFC to whom the original report was addressed. The lawyers noted further that the code of ethics of journalists in Singapore as well as in numerous Asian countries, including Malaysia and Hong Kong shield journalists from revealing sources.
In an affidavit to the court, Mr. Dorsey asserted that he believed that WSG’s legal action was an attempt at “indirectly discovering who within the AFC may have breached their confidentiality and also suppress any well meaning or good intended person from coming forward in the future and is seeking to punitively punish those who may have spoken against them.”
WSG has said it applied to the High Court to force Mr. Dorsey to reveal his sources with the intention of launching possible defamation or breach of confidence proceedings. „We want information so we can determine what charges to make and against whom,“ WSG lawyer Deborah Barker told Agence France Presse.
The internal AFC audit conducted by PriceWaterhouse Coopers (PwC) charged that Mr. Bin Hammam had used an AFC sundry account as his personal account, questioned the terms and negotiation procedure of a $1 billion marketing rights agreement between WSG and the AFC and raised questions of $14 million in payments by a WSG shareholder to Mr. Bin Hammam prior to the signing of the agreement.
- Bin Hammam audit opens Pandora’s Box
- Court questions integrity of FIFA proceedings against Bin Hammam
- AFC reports stolen Bin Hammam payment documents to police
- Iran accuses WSG of overpricing in breach of international rules
- Malaysian police make first arrest in Bin Hammam case
- World Sports Group sues journalist in bid to squash reporting on Bin Hammam
- Jesse Fink on ESPN Star.com: Dorsey case is a waste of time
- AIPS: Freedom of press under threat as WSG sues sports journalist James M. Dorsey over Bin Hammam saga [verlinkt, obwohl ich die Glaubwürdigkeit dieser Institution/AIPS, die gerade mit Sepp Blatter und dem Diktator in Baku Geschäfte macht und ein Journalistenprogramm „fördert“, und einiger Personen in Zweifel ziehe/JW]
In its report, PwC said that “it is highly unusual for funds (especially in the amounts detailed here) that appear to be for the benefit of Mr Hammam personally, to be deposited to an organization’s bank account. In view of the recent allegations that have surrounded Mr Hammam, it is our view that there is significant risk that…the AFC may have been used as a vehicle to launder funds and that the funds have been credited to the former President for an improper purpose (Money Laundering risk)” or that “the AFC may have been used as a vehicle to launder the receipt and payment of bribes.”
Malaysian police earlier this month arrested the husband of an associate of Mr. Bin Hammam on suspicion of helping steal documents related to one of the payments to Mr. Bin Hammam from AFC’s head office in Kuala Lumpur.
WSG has refused to comment on the PwC report and has threatened reporters, including the author of this report, with defamation proceedings. However in an August 28, 2012 letter to this reporter WSG Group Legal Advisor Stephanie McManus asserted that “PWC are incorrect and misconceived in suggesting that the MRA was undervalued. They have neither considered the terms of the contract correctly, the market, nor the circumstances in which it was negotiated,” Ms. McManus wrote.
The master rights agreement is controversial both because of the unexplained payments as well as assertions by sources close to the AFC that the soccer group, in line with common practice among international sport associations, should have concluded a service provider rather than a master rights agreement with WSG. The sources said such an agreement would have given the AFC greater control of its rights and how they are exploited and enabled it to better supervise the quality of services provided by WSG.
In a July 13 letter to lawyers Shearn Delamore & Co, PWC explicitly leaves open the possibility that the AFC might share the report with third parties. For that reason, the terms of the report contain a clause that shields PwC from any liability should the AFC choose to share the report with non-AFC institutions or persons.
The letter stipulates that the report is intended “solely for the internal use and benefit of Shearn Delamore & Co. and the Asian Football Confederation,” and that third parties are not authorised to have access to the report. The letter however goes on to say that should third parties gain access they agree that the report was compiled in accordance with instructions by the law firm and the AFC and that PwC is not liable for any consequences stemming from the fact that third parties had been granted access.
Lawyers for FIFA earlier this year sought unsuccessfully to introduce the report in Mr. Bin Hammam’s appeal proceedings in the Lausanne-based Court of Arbitration of Sport against the world soccer body’s banning for life of the Qatari national from involvement on soccer on charges of bribery.
Both FIFA and the AFC have suspended M. Bin Hammam on the basis of the report pending further investigation of the allegations in the PwC report and separate charges that he last year sought to bribe Caribbean soccer officials. Mr. Bin Hammam has denied all allegations and charges.
James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and the author of the blog, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.
Die jüngste Entwicklung:
Singapore court to hear appeal in disclosure of sources case
Mir hat sich – weil bisher nur flüchtig wahrgenommen – gerade erst erschlossen, um welche Dimension es abseits der Attacke „on freedom of press“ geht: um 14 Millionen US-Dollar Bestechungsgeld für Bin Hammam, gewaschen über ein AFC-Konto. Wenn sich der PWC-Audit bestätigen sollte: einer der größten bisher bekannt gewordenen Fälle von Korruption im Sport. (Gleich nach ISL, wie dort für Medien- und Vermarktungsrechte.)
Kann man eingedenk der hiesigen Berichterstattung – Bin Hammam als ausschließlich eine Art Blatter-Opfer – noch mal auf Deutsch sagen ;)
Peanuts im Vergleich zu Gribkowsky! ;-)
Meinst Du, der hat noch Chancen, zum Sportfunktionär aufzusteigen?
Ernsthaft: Nach bisherigen Vorwürfen galt Bin Hammam als „Geber“ (ob nun in Blatter-Wahlkämpfen, in der Karibik oder sonstwo). Als Nehmer bisher meines Wissens nach nicht (da, die gern gebrauchte Argumentation, selbst „steinreich“). Ist schon eine neue Qualität. Echte Ganoven spielen in dem Geschäft wohl alle Seiten der Korruptionsklaviatur.
Auch typisch für die „Ermittlungen“ der FIFA (oder nun Garcia):
Najeeb ist eine Art Sekretär für MBH, den kennt jeder in der Szene und jeder, der als Journalist mal mit MBH zu tun hatte. MBH hat andere Partner auf Augenhöhe und andere um sich herum. Najeeb zu sperren, weil er „nicht kooperiert“ oder wie es formuliert wurde, ist lächerlich. Das suggeriert Härte und Ermittlungsbereitschaft. Najeeb ist, ich füge mal ein: sehr wahrscheinlich, das schwächste Glied in der Kette. Er ist ein Angestellter, der viel zu verlieren hat.
Entgegen anderslautenden Berichten ;) hat die FIFA bzw. haben deren neue Kammern Bin Hammam lebenslang gesperrt:
FIFA: Media release
Sicher ausschließlich eine Blatter-Verschwörung, die den Mangel an Unabhängigkeit der beiden Kammern unter Garcia und Eckert anzeigt. Wo doch Bin Hammam über die Vorwürfe aus den AFC-Ermittlungen (betreffen 18 Millionen Dollar) eh nur lacht. So als Opfer und Gentleman, als der er in deutschen Medien noch gelegentlich daherkommt.
James M. Dorsey mit einer Analyse auf seinem Blog:
Bin Hammam banning puts AFC marketing contract in the firing line
Geht nicht um 18 Mio., die an MBH geflossen sein sollen, nur um 14 Millionen ;)