Match-Fixing Attempt: BCCI Bans Former Mumbai T20 League Team Owner Gurmeet Singh Bhamrah

BCCI Ombudsman Justice (Retd) Arun Mishra has banned the former co-owner of a Mumbai T20 League franchise Gurmeet Singh Bhamrah for making a corrupt approach to city players Dhawal Kulkarni and Bhavin Thakkar during the event's 2019 edition. (More Cricket News)

Kulkarni, a medium pacer, has also represented India in a 12 ODIs and a couple of T20 Internationals.

Bhamrah, who was also involved with the now defunct GT20 Canada as well, is no longer a part of Mumbai T20 League, which is being revived this year after a COVID-forced suspension following the 2019 edition. He co-owned the SoBo Supersonics.

The order copy doesn't specify the length of the ban but it could be anything between five years to a life ban as per the codes of the BCCI's Anti Corruption code.

"Upon completion of investigation, ACU submitted its report and wherein it recommended that respondent be charged with article 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.4.1 read with article 2.5.1 and article 2.5.2 of BCCI Anti Corruption Code (hereinafter the 'Code') for participants.

"ACU further recommended that appropriate orders may be passed against the respondent under the provisions of Article 4 and Article 5 of the Code."

As per the BCCI's ACU Code, any offence under articles 2.1.1 or 2.1.2 or 2.1.3 or 2.1.4 shall lead to a minimum of five years and a maximum of life-time ban.

The order copy states that a person named Sonu Vasan approached Thakkar to fix matches at Bhamrah's behest. The players referred to Bhamrah as "Paaji".

"Transcript of the conversation shows that Sonu Vasan offered money and other benefits to Bhavin Thakkar at the behest of the respondent. Upon meriting the entire offer that he made on behalf of the respondent, Sonu Vasan told Bhavin Thakkar whatever call Thakkar wishes to take in the matter, Vasan would relay it back to the respondent.

"Even prior to Thakkar's denial to be a part of wrongdoing, Vasan also mentioned that he was asked by 'Paaji' that incase Thakkar's reply was in the affirmative to the offer of under-performing/wrongdoing, 'Paaji' has asked that he i.e. the respondent could in fact be joined in on the same telephone call."

Regarding the approach made to Kulkarni, the order merely states that his "statement was recorded by the ACU" without getting into the specifics.