- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 218,167
Although he has been banned for non-cooperation but the real question is whether you believe he is guilty of spot-fixing or not.
-
Contact the PP Team
[VIDEOS] Is Nasir Jamshed guilty of involvement in spot-fixing?
- Thread starter MenInG
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 218,167
I have to say, yes! I do believe he is involved in something as NCA have a case against him.
Savak
World Star
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Runs
- 51,721
- Post of the Week
- 3
No smoke without fire. If he was not guilty, he would have taken the first available flight back to Pakistan and would have aggressively protested his innocence on all the forums without any delay.
Hasan123
Test Star
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2016
- Runs
- 38,432
It will be known soon anyway. If he's guilty, he should be banned for life.
Pete Rose
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Runs
- 22,848
- Post of the Week
- 2
I reflexively believe every allegation against Pakistani players when it comes to ball tampering, spot fixing and match fixing
kingusama92
ODI Captain
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Runs
- 45,637
- Post of the Week
- 1
Hard to say otherwise.
Multiple players mentioned his name. Unless all of them were out to get him, it's clear he was acting as the middleman.
Multiple players mentioned his name. Unless all of them were out to get him, it's clear he was acting as the middleman.
Buffet
Post of the Week winner
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Runs
- 27,837
- Post of the Week
- 3
What did he fix?
Rana
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Runs
- 96,532
He is guilty of hooking these guys up with the bookie.
Basically he knew that his international career may never be revived. He didn't get a PSL contract either so all that is left for him is to play club cricket around the world and the domestic games in Pakistan. He was basically going out with a bang, making as much as international players by not even playing. Possibly taking a commission now by hooking bookies up with current international players.
Basically he knew that his international career may never be revived. He didn't get a PSL contract either so all that is left for him is to play club cricket around the world and the domestic games in Pakistan. He was basically going out with a bang, making as much as international players by not even playing. Possibly taking a commission now by hooking bookies up with current international players.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 218,167
Whereas we dont know exact charge of fixing - the implication is that he is involved in it (title of thread and poll adjusted)
msb314
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Runs
- 10,949
- Post of the Week
- 2
IMO he is.
There is no smoke without fire.
There is no smoke without fire.
msb314
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Runs
- 10,949
- Post of the Week
- 2
big_gamer007
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2016
- Runs
- 8,787
Well if someone can summarise the facts against him presented in trial one can make an informed opinion.. Otherwise it’s mere speculation going on where people believe quotes such as “no smoke without fire” or if it is a Pakistani player he has to be guilty..
From the looks of it all the players involved mentioned his name.. What did they say? He introduced them to bookies? What else do we have on him?
From the looks of it all the players involved mentioned his name.. What did they say? He introduced them to bookies? What else do we have on him?
Madplayer
Senior Test Player
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2012
- Runs
- 28,686
- Post of the Week
- 1
Not his fitness
hadi123
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2010
- Runs
- 15,247
- Post of the Week
- 1
I'm still confused as to what his actual role is as he didn't even play PSL but I do believe he has done something wrong. He has history of doing some bad things so wouldn't surprise me. But 1 year isn't a lot so he'll be back in domestic scene in no time and he isn't even 30 so I hope he stays away from trouble now
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 218,167
So what's happening with Nasir Jamshed? been almost 2 days and no response from him?
shaz619
T20I Captain
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Runs
- 40,368
- Post of the Week
- 7
Big Nas doesn't want to be disturbed during his dinner
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2023
- Runs
- 25,365
Nasir Jamshed expressed regrets regarding his spot fixing saga:
"I won't forgive myself for what I did with my career."
"I am truly sorry, but I will try to pass my talent on to my daughter and give her the best chance."
"I won't forgive myself for what I did with my career."
"I am truly sorry, but I will try to pass my talent on to my daughter and give her the best chance."
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
- Runs
- 7,542
I wonder what made him to accept this after all these years. Maybe he is looking to get some post in PCB 
Savak
World Star
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Runs
- 51,721
- Post of the Week
- 3
In the 2012 BPL, a bookie was found to have NJ's bank account details. The PCB took no action against him. End result he approached more pakistani players later on in the PSL. NJ also went to jail before because he was caught cheating in an exam. Background checks exist for a reason.
mominsaigol
ODI Star
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2021
- Runs
- 33,277
- Post of the Week
- 2
Short answer Yes.
Long answer Yes.
Long answer Yes.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2023
- Runs
- 44,993
He was guilty that is why he was asking for forgiveness. These guys have no idea about what is right or wrong. PCB should work with the players to check these players' mental health because they just don't learn.
ExpressPacer
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2016
- Runs
- 8,560
- Post of the Week
- 1
Wasted himself even before he started fixing. He had so much potential but like every other Pakistani cricketer, he thought he was perfect and didn't need to learn anything anymore. Stopped working hard, stopped evolving and eventually withered away.
Will always nevertheless be remembered for destroying India at home though.
Will always nevertheless be remembered for destroying India at home though.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2023
- Runs
- 44,993
Yeah, man, those were the days for him. Smashing India for centuries for fun at their home. But if you are running after easy money more than your actual job, it will eventually come and haunt you for sure.
adi_62941
Local Club Star
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2013
- Runs
- 2,037
A very average batter and a horrible fielder. Shown some trust initially playing against India on batting friendly wickets but soon got found out as his peer pakistani batters
FearlessRoar
T20I Star
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2023
- Runs
- 30,521
young star in the making
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
- Runs
- 25,056
he had a lot of potential but he ruined his career himself.
Bewal Express
T20I Captain
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Runs
- 41,495
A crooked guy. One of many PKs that betrayed PK.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2023
- Runs
- 44,993
Spot-fixing cricketer’s solicitor cleared of urging false defence
A solicitor who acted for a cricketer jailed for spot fixing has been cleared of an allegation that he encouraged his client to offer false evidence in his defence.
However, Shahid Ali was fined £40,000 after admitting that he had dishonestly misled his client’s wife about money he was holding on his behalf and failed to comply with the accounts rules while doing so.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) decided that the case fell into the limited ‘exceptional’ circumstances where the usual sanction for dishonesty – striking off – should not be applied.
While ‘Client A’ was not named in the ruling, the dates cited indicate that it was Nasir Jamshed, a former Pakistani international cricketer.
In December 2019, he changed his plea to guilty during the trial at Manchester Crown Court for conspiracy to bribe players in the Pakistan Super League and in February 2020 was jailed for 17 months. He had already been banned from playing for 10 years by the Pakistan Cricket Board.
The change in plea followed the playing of a covert recording of a conversation in Urdu and English which took place at a meeting in a Birmingham restaurant in January 2017.
Client A’s case was that he understood the discussion at the restaurant, which took place in both English and Urdu, to be about setting up a business for the sale of cricket equipment in the UK and Pakistan, referred to subsequently as ‘the cricket bat defence’.
He said he had understood little of what was discussed as he was not fluent in English.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) alleged that Client A had told the truth about his guilt to Mr Ali from the outset, and that the solicitor had asked him to fabricate the cricket bat defence.
Further, the SRA alleged, when the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) served further evidence of WhatsApp messages in October 2019 that indicated Client A’s guilt, Mr Ali “was trying to make up a story to explain the messages and lie about them in court”.
The allegations were supported by the evidence of Client A and his wife, ‘Person A’.
Mr Ali, who qualified in 1995 and was a partner at Manchester firm Osborn Knight, insisted that on Client A’s instructions a positive case for the defence could be put forward.
The SDT found that Mr Ali’s position was supported by a paralegal who worked for him as well as counsel Mohammed Nawaz KC (then a junior representing Client A), both of whom said Mr Ali had not encouraged Client A to fabricate a defence.
The SDT determined that it should approach the evidence given by Client A and Person A “with caution”; it was “feasible that Client A’s evidence was motivated by his wish to improve his position in relation to pending immigration proceedings”.
It did not accept the assertion that Mr Ali had told Client A to fabricate the cricket bat defence.
Mr Ali was also cleared of misleading counsel about the content of the crucial audio recording.
As an undercover officer featured in it, Mr Ali and Client A were not given a copy of it; Mr Ali was instead allowed to listen to the audio at a secure location in August 2019.
The following day, he told counsel that the transcript which had been provided was a fair translation and that the parts of the translation noted as inaudible or undecipherable “are very much that”.
However, when the recording was “unexpectedly” played to the court, those parts were actually audible.
Mr Nawaz understood Urdu, as did a member of the Pakistan Cricket Board present in court, and they recognised that the conversation was evidence of Client A’s guilt.
They alerted the CPS and Client A then changed his plea to guilty.
The SRA said Mr Ali had provided a “woefully inadequate and misleading assessment” of the recording.
The SDT rejected this too as it could not determine what Mr Ali, who was fluent in Urdu, “did or did not hear when he listened to the recording”.
Though the solicitor had referred to the Urdu conversations as “unhelpful”, the SDT was not sure whether this meant ‘not determinative’ or ‘detrimental.’ On the balance of probabilities, the SRA had not proved its case.
The National Crime Agency had seized £5,500 in cash during a raid on Client A’s house but returned it to Mr Ali, on behalf of Client A, in September 2017. Client A also gave Mr Ali £15,000 in cash around October 2019, the purpose of which was unclear; Mr Ali said his client had asked to hold on to it for safekeeping and instructed him to mislead Person A as to its whereabouts, if required.
This he did, telling Person A that he was still awaiting the first sum back from the CPS, while the second sum was for legal fees – when Client A was legally aided.
The SDT found that Mr Ali had been dishonest. “It was open to Mr Ali to have indicated to Person A that he could not deal with queries about the cash without instructions from Client A, but he chose instead to give misleading information.”
He also admitted failing to record Client A’s money in a client ledger, return it promptly and maintain proper accounting records.
The SDT did not accept his argument that these breaches were merely technical – breaches of the accounts rules “were always serious and not administrative in nature”.
In deciding on sanction, the tribunal found the case to be “genuinely unusual, to such an extent that it was justified in departing from the presumptive sanction of a strike off when dishonesty had been proved”.
It accepted that Mr Ali believed he was following his client’s instructions, and that doing so was his paramount responsibility – but he was “genuinely mistaken in this assumption”.
“This was coupled with genuine concerns about whether his client’s marriage would survive his client’s imprisonment, which meant he believed he was acting in his client’s best interests by retaining the funds.
“Mr Ali’s misleading of a third party occurred during an isolated period and amounted to a ‘moment of madness.’ There was no pattern of such behaviour, risk of repetition, or risk to the public.”
But he was in “material breach” of his obligations and the SDT decided that a fine of £40,000 was appropriate.
The SRA sought costs of £50,000 but was awarded £30,000 given the failure to substantiate some of the allegations.
www.legalfutures.co.uk
A solicitor who acted for a cricketer jailed for spot fixing has been cleared of an allegation that he encouraged his client to offer false evidence in his defence.
However, Shahid Ali was fined £40,000 after admitting that he had dishonestly misled his client’s wife about money he was holding on his behalf and failed to comply with the accounts rules while doing so.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) decided that the case fell into the limited ‘exceptional’ circumstances where the usual sanction for dishonesty – striking off – should not be applied.
While ‘Client A’ was not named in the ruling, the dates cited indicate that it was Nasir Jamshed, a former Pakistani international cricketer.
In December 2019, he changed his plea to guilty during the trial at Manchester Crown Court for conspiracy to bribe players in the Pakistan Super League and in February 2020 was jailed for 17 months. He had already been banned from playing for 10 years by the Pakistan Cricket Board.
The change in plea followed the playing of a covert recording of a conversation in Urdu and English which took place at a meeting in a Birmingham restaurant in January 2017.
Client A’s case was that he understood the discussion at the restaurant, which took place in both English and Urdu, to be about setting up a business for the sale of cricket equipment in the UK and Pakistan, referred to subsequently as ‘the cricket bat defence’.
He said he had understood little of what was discussed as he was not fluent in English.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) alleged that Client A had told the truth about his guilt to Mr Ali from the outset, and that the solicitor had asked him to fabricate the cricket bat defence.
Further, the SRA alleged, when the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) served further evidence of WhatsApp messages in October 2019 that indicated Client A’s guilt, Mr Ali “was trying to make up a story to explain the messages and lie about them in court”.
The allegations were supported by the evidence of Client A and his wife, ‘Person A’.
Mr Ali, who qualified in 1995 and was a partner at Manchester firm Osborn Knight, insisted that on Client A’s instructions a positive case for the defence could be put forward.
The SDT found that Mr Ali’s position was supported by a paralegal who worked for him as well as counsel Mohammed Nawaz KC (then a junior representing Client A), both of whom said Mr Ali had not encouraged Client A to fabricate a defence.
The SDT determined that it should approach the evidence given by Client A and Person A “with caution”; it was “feasible that Client A’s evidence was motivated by his wish to improve his position in relation to pending immigration proceedings”.
It did not accept the assertion that Mr Ali had told Client A to fabricate the cricket bat defence.
Mr Ali was also cleared of misleading counsel about the content of the crucial audio recording.
As an undercover officer featured in it, Mr Ali and Client A were not given a copy of it; Mr Ali was instead allowed to listen to the audio at a secure location in August 2019.
The following day, he told counsel that the transcript which had been provided was a fair translation and that the parts of the translation noted as inaudible or undecipherable “are very much that”.
However, when the recording was “unexpectedly” played to the court, those parts were actually audible.
Mr Nawaz understood Urdu, as did a member of the Pakistan Cricket Board present in court, and they recognised that the conversation was evidence of Client A’s guilt.
They alerted the CPS and Client A then changed his plea to guilty.
The SRA said Mr Ali had provided a “woefully inadequate and misleading assessment” of the recording.
The SDT rejected this too as it could not determine what Mr Ali, who was fluent in Urdu, “did or did not hear when he listened to the recording”.
Though the solicitor had referred to the Urdu conversations as “unhelpful”, the SDT was not sure whether this meant ‘not determinative’ or ‘detrimental.’ On the balance of probabilities, the SRA had not proved its case.
The National Crime Agency had seized £5,500 in cash during a raid on Client A’s house but returned it to Mr Ali, on behalf of Client A, in September 2017. Client A also gave Mr Ali £15,000 in cash around October 2019, the purpose of which was unclear; Mr Ali said his client had asked to hold on to it for safekeeping and instructed him to mislead Person A as to its whereabouts, if required.
This he did, telling Person A that he was still awaiting the first sum back from the CPS, while the second sum was for legal fees – when Client A was legally aided.
The SDT found that Mr Ali had been dishonest. “It was open to Mr Ali to have indicated to Person A that he could not deal with queries about the cash without instructions from Client A, but he chose instead to give misleading information.”
He also admitted failing to record Client A’s money in a client ledger, return it promptly and maintain proper accounting records.
The SDT did not accept his argument that these breaches were merely technical – breaches of the accounts rules “were always serious and not administrative in nature”.
In deciding on sanction, the tribunal found the case to be “genuinely unusual, to such an extent that it was justified in departing from the presumptive sanction of a strike off when dishonesty had been proved”.
It accepted that Mr Ali believed he was following his client’s instructions, and that doing so was his paramount responsibility – but he was “genuinely mistaken in this assumption”.
“This was coupled with genuine concerns about whether his client’s marriage would survive his client’s imprisonment, which meant he believed he was acting in his client’s best interests by retaining the funds.
“Mr Ali’s misleading of a third party occurred during an isolated period and amounted to a ‘moment of madness.’ There was no pattern of such behaviour, risk of repetition, or risk to the public.”
But he was in “material breach” of his obligations and the SDT decided that a fine of £40,000 was appropriate.
The SRA sought costs of £50,000 but was awarded £30,000 given the failure to substantiate some of the allegations.
Spot-fixing cricketer's solicitor cleared of urging false defence
A solicitor who acted for a cricketer jailed for spot fixing has been cleared of an allegation that he encouraged his client to offer false evidence in his defence.
www.legalfutures.co.uk
sweep_shot
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Runs
- 61,184
He was a talented batter. He threw it all away.
Tragedy.
Tragedy.
Similar threads
