For 2 bitcoins and an iPhone, the details of how Streak arrived at his hour of shame

Former Zimbabwe captain and coach Heath Streak came at his shameful moment when he was banned for eight years for breaching the International Cricket Council (ICC) Anti-Corruption Code.

Photo by Karolina Grabowska on Pexels.com

This is how the ICC has described the move to the hour of shame:

In September 2017, Mr Streak began a WhatsApp conversation with an Indian gentleman, Mr X, at Mr X’s instigation, who said he was interested in organizing a league in Zimbabwe and who asked Mr Streak if he would be interested as he could earn some good money from it.
During these discussions, Mr X made it clear to Mr Streak that he was involved in betting on cricket, and also requested details of Mr Streak’s bank account outside Zimbabwe, which Mr Streak provided. Mr Streak also made it clear in these discussions that he wanted to establish a T20 League in Zimbabwe and was passionate about furthering cricket in Zimbabwe.
These conversations took place via personal email addresses and phones and not official ones, at both Mr Streak and Mr X’s request.
During the course of these conversations, which lasted for a period of more than 15 months, Mr X asked Mr Streak to provide him with various information in relation to tournaments and matches he was involved with.
In particular:
- in relation to the 2017 edition of the Bangladesh Premier League, (the “BPL”), Mr X asked Mr Streak to provide him with any links, namely team captains, or owners or players, in the BPL, saying they could earn good money as a result which they could invest in a T20 event in Zimbabwe. It appeared that Mr X wanted Mr Streak to provide him with contacts of players, team owners etc. who Mr X could then approach for Inside Information, such as which team would win a match, in upcoming matches
- Mr Streak provided Mr X with the contact details of three players in the BPL (including the details of a national captain), in circumstances where he knew or should have known that Mr X may use these details to contact these players and request Inside Information from them for him to use for betting purposes. Further, in respect of two of these players, Mr Streak actually contacted the players to effectively vouch for Mr X.
- Mr X asked for player references for the Pakistan Super League 2018.
- In relation to the 2018 edition of the Afghanistan Premier League (the “APL”), Mr Streak facilitated the introduction of Mr X to one player and attempted to facilitate the introduction of Mr X to another player.
- Mr X also requested, and Mr Streak provided, Inside Information relating to matches in the APL.
Mr Streak has accepted that passing on this information to Mr X amounted to Corrupt Conduct under the Code.
Mr Streak has also admitted accepting 2 bitcoins from Mr X (subsequently converted into US $35,000 in cash). Mr Streak has accepted that, despite his obligation to do so, he failed to disclose receipt of this payment to the ICC ACU or any relevant Designated Anti-Corruption Official.
Mr Streak has also accepted that, despite his obligation to do so, he failed to report any of the approaches he received from Mr X to engage in Corrupt Conduct to the ICC ACU or any relevant Designated Anti-Corruption Official.
During the APL, Mr X gifted Mr Streak with a new iPhone for his wife, a gift which Mr Streak has accepted he did not disclose to the ICC ACU or the Designated Anti-Corruption Official.
In December 2018, Mr Streak was advised by the ACU that he was to attend an interview with the ACU in January. During this call, Mr Streak was given notice that he would be required to present any phones and SIM cards that he had used in 2018 at the interview.
Prior to his interview with the ACU, Mr Streak engaged in a series of WhatsApp messages with Mr X, knowing that Mr X himself had recently been interviewed by the ACU. These WhatsApp conversations between Mr X and Mr Streak related to what Mr X had told the ACU in his interviews. In these conversations, Mr Streak has admitted that he and Mr X effectively discussed what Mr Streak should say in the interviews to ensure that they both told the same story (a story which on occasions was not true) and consequently he has admitted that his conduct in so doing could be construed as misleading or obstructing the ACU’s investigation. Mr Streak also sought clarification from Mr X over the interview process and what Mr X had told the ACU on certain matters.
Additionally, following this conversation, Mr Streak has admitted that, at the instruction of Mr X, he deleted these messages from his phone before he attended the ACU interview, as well as deleting Mr X’s phone number from his phone. In so doing, Mr Streak accepts that his conduct in this regard was wrong.