http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06...n-on-his-appeal

Mohamed bin Hammam, who challenged Sepp Blatter for the FIFA presidency, said sports’ top tribunal postponed its decision on his appeal against a life ban from soccer by a month.

The Lausanne, Switzerland-based Court of Arbitration for Sport will now deliver its verdict on July 27, Bin Hammam said in a text message sent to Bloomberg News.

I still can't believe FIFA actually picked Qatar. Oh wait, yes I can... power, money, corruption, etc.

http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=35233

(WFI) Sepp Blatter aims to restart FIFA's delayed reforms process next Tuesday with the appointment of a prosecutor and judge for its new two-chamber ethics committee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/dcu...FtcW_story.html

GENEVA — Switzerland’s supreme court ordered the release of a document identifying which senior football officials took millions of dollars in payments from the ISL agency, FIFA’s marketing partner until it collapsed into bankruptcy 11 years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18804464

Havelange received at least 1.5m Swiss francs (£986,000) and executive committee member Ricardo Teixeira at least 12.74m SFr (£8.4m).

The Swiss prosecutor's report, published by Fifa, reveals the pair may have received up to 21.9m SFr (£14.4m).

They are the only two Fifa officials named in the report.

"In Panorama - Fifa's Dirty Secrets in November 2010, reporter Andrew Jennings named the two officials as recipients of bribes from the Swiss ISL sports marketing company, which was repeatedly given lucrative World Cup marketing rights by FIFA."

The documents concerning Havelange also revealed that officials repaid 5.5m Swiss francs (£3.6m) to end the prosecution office's investigation on condition their identities remain secret.

The document:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affedera...proceedings.pdf

1.1 The initial suspicion that led to the opening of the proceedings resulted from the taking of evidence, which was done in the context of the investigation no. URA 2001/756. These proceedings were initiated on May 29, 2001 due to a complaint of FIFA against those responsible for the management of the ISMM/ISL Group and were closed on March 18, 2005 (HD 2/1).

1.4 It was conceivable that a third party that was in a contractual
relationship with FIFA or held positions in the (executive) body of FIFA paid the amount with the consent of FIFA to the bankruptcy estate; FIFA expressed an interest, according to its own statement, not to be involved in speculations in connection with the bribery payments. This initial suspicion was confirmed.

2 Furthermore, the files concerning criminal proceedings that had been initiated by 11 members of the executive committee of FIFA against the president of the association were obtained, evaluated and placed on file (D 21 et seq.).

Based on the findings from the pre-trial discovery, proceedings were initiated against Ricardo Terra Texeira (2A 2008 137/D 23/1) and Jean-Marie Faustin Godefroid Havelange (2 A 2008 138/D 24/1) on October 1, 2008.

3.3 The money transfer made by the Company 1 to the Company 4 amounting to
CHF 36’130’220.05 concerned assets that the ISMM/ISL Group made available in order to make payments of commission for already acquired rights and rights to be acquired in the future (D 3/1/1, cipher 13). This practice is uncontested (D 3/1 – D 3/12). The chairman of the board of directors of the Company 1/ISMM X1 AG, for example, explained that the concept whereby well-known individuals in sports were favored in order to promote sports policy and economic
goals originated in the 1970s, when sports became an important factor in the economy. He was informed of the fact that ISL had been using such practices since its foundation some time after he was appointed as a member of the board at the beginning of the nineties, and when he was confronted with the Company 1. When he repeatedly insisted on stopping such favoritism, his
successor, P4 of ISL1, made clear to him that these personal relations had led to further existing commitments.

Also the CFO of the group stated that additional payments to the actual acquisition costs had to be made with regard to the acquisition of rights. These involved payments to individuals who had helped conclude the contract (D 3/1/1, cipher 15, cipher 16).


3.3.1...however, as will be illustrated below, only partially concerned the Accused. Prior to 1989, millions were paid in “pre-investments” (D 20/1/17).

..........................................................................................................................

The culture of bribery inside FIFA made the 2018 and 2022 World Cup bids nothing even close to a "Bid Process". Calling it a bid process was a fraud and all inside of the decision making body (The Ex Comm) knew this to be fact...


.........................................................................................................................

3.5 These commission payments did not occur on a specific date, but were rather spread over several years, with two to three payments being made each year. The payments were made both prior to and after the conclusion of the marketing contracts” (D 11/6/1).

4 Furthermore, on July 14/17, 2009, an agreement on jurisdiction was
concluded with the competent authorities of the Canton of Zurich, according to which the criminal authorities of the Canton of Zug would prosecute persons unknown and Ricardo Terra Texeira and Joao Havelange for alleged criminal acts to the detriment of FIFA...

........................................................................................................................


The Swiss penal code may produced it own findings and reparation based on a lack of proper international ethics laws concerning these events, but everyone inside of FIFA World Cup Ex Comm knew what was going on and it was bribery on a very large scale concluded over a very long period of time. It was part of the FIFA culture of completing international event contracts.

..........................................................................................................................

Art. 53 PC governs the exemption from punishment in the event of reparation being made. If the offender has paid for the damage or undertaken all reasonable endeavors to compensate for the injustice he caused, then the competent authority will refrain from prosecuting him, bringing him
to court or punishing him; however, this applies only if the requirements for a suspended sentence under Art. 42 PC are met (lit. a) and the interests of the public and of the aggrieved party in a prosecution are negligible (lit. b).
According to the Bill, the cornerstones of the aforementioned provision can be described as follows: The reparation serves, above all, the victim for whom the compensation of damages are (in reality) more important than the punishment of the offender. The sense of responsibility of the offender is appealed to. He should realize the injustice of his act. With reparation, the relationship between the offender and the victim will be improved; this restores public peace.

.........................................................................................................................

Public peace has not been restored. The problem of bribery was not solved by FIFA prior to the 2018 and 2022 World Cup bid process decisions. No corrective action was taken to solve the known problem...
Furthermore, many attempts were made by active FIFA EX Comm members to hide the truth from the public.
..........................................................................................................................

4.3 FIFA is accused of having a deficient organization in its enterprise. The accusation is that it failed to ensure that it had strict internal regulations that guaranteed the disclosure of payments made to its bodies and employees outside their ordinary remuneration and for failing to establish a regular procedure within the association for such scenarios. By this omission, it not only hindered the establishing of principles reserving the decision on the use of such assets to
a body within the association...

FIFA refrained from enforcing its claim for surrender against the Joao Havelange
and Ricardo Terra Texeira, who were, on the basis of their positions, obliged to surrender the assets to FIFA. As a result, FIFA was damaged to the extent of its omission, which was in breach of its duty, while the Ricardo Terra Texeira and Joao Havelange were thereby enriched to the same extent.

5.3.2 Aspects concerning the specific relationship between the briber and the bribe, taking account of the timing, as well as the amount of the payments, the frequency and the temporal distribution of performance and counter-performance, as well as the intensity of the interim contacts are decisive. This applies to both the active and passive bribery of officials as well as to the private bribery. With respect to the current facts of the case, it must be noted that the bribery was on a long term basis.

Following from the unified act, it can be assumed with respect to the facts of the case involving bribery (e.g., establishing a network of connections and maintaining this over a longer time period) that when such conduct is subsumed under the offence of disloyal management/embezzlement, the illegal conduct will in practice involve at least several individual acts;

6.3.2 Members of the association have a general duty of loyalty; in other words, the duty not to do anything that might oppose interests commensurate with the objects of the association19

Concerning the “treatment of bribe payments according to civil law” discussed by the legal representative for FIFA, the following must be said. The acceptance of such pecuniary advantages has been repeatedly rated as contrary to duty23.


Even if the Swiss Penal Code (as opposed to Art. 4 lit. b of the Unfair Competition Act25) does not explicitly make the bribery of private persons an offence, such “performances” are still considered by the Federal Supreme Court to be immoral26. According to Art. 20 para. 1 CO, a contract that is impossible, unlawful or immoral is null and void.

Also immoral is what is considered unfair within the meaning of the
Federal Act on Unfair Competition (“UCA”). According to the former Art. 4 lit. b of this law, conduct giving rise to an act of unfair competition occurs where a person attempts to secure advantages for himself or another by granting or offering benefits to employees, agents or other auxiliary personnel of a third party to which they are not legally entitled and which are intended
to induce such persons to act contrary to their duty in accomplishing their services or professional tasks. However, the former Art. 4 lit. b is not exhaustive. Other forms of bribery may fall under the general clause of Art. 2 of the Unfair Competition Act28.