Criminal Liability For Bribery In Sports And Entertainment Sectors
Case 1: Bribery in Chinese Football Matches (Guangdong, 2009)
Facts:
Several officials and coaches in a Guangdong football club accepted bribes from gambling syndicates to manipulate match outcomes in the Chinese Super League. Bribes ranged from ¥50,000 to ¥200,000 per match.
Legal Issues:
Acceptance of bribes to influence professional sports outcomes.
Violation of Criminal Law of the PRC, Article 389 (Bribery in Public or Commercial Contexts).
Court Reasoning:
The defendants used their positions of trust to deliberately influence match results for financial gain.
The offense damaged public confidence in professional sports and gambling integrity.
Sentencing considered both the amount of bribes and the impact on the sports sector.
Outcome:
Club officials: 2–5 years imprisonment.
Coaches: 1–3 years imprisonment.
Confiscation of illegal gains.
Significance:
Demonstrates that bribery in sports, even in private clubs, carries criminal liability in China.
Protecting the integrity of sports competitions is treated as a public interest.
Case 2: Bribery in Table Tennis Federation (Beijing, 2012)
Facts:
Officials in the Beijing Table Tennis Federation accepted cash and luxury gifts from sports equipment suppliers in exchange for awarding supply contracts.
Legal Issues:
Bribery under Articles 385 and 389 of Criminal Law.
Abuse of official position to gain commercial benefits.
Court Reasoning:
Officials violated rules for fair procurement by accepting gifts in exchange for contracts.
The scheme affected multiple suppliers and undermined the fairness of the sports procurement system.
Sentences reflected both amount of bribe and scope of corruption.
Outcome:
Officials received 1–4 years imprisonment.
Fines equal to double the value of bribes received.
Significance:
Shows bribery liability extends to administrative functions in the sports sector, not just competition results.
Case 3: Bribery in Film Production Approval (Shanghai, 2015)
Facts:
A film producer bribed local government cultural officials with ¥300,000 to expedite approval for a commercial film production, bypassing safety and content review procedures.
Legal Issues:
Bribery to influence official decision-making.
Violation of public trust and cultural content regulations.
Court Reasoning:
Officials accepted bribes and violated laws regulating cultural productions.
The offense harmed the public interest by bypassing safety and content regulations.
Court emphasized deterrence due to the entertainment sector’s wide social influence.
Outcome:
Officials: 3–5 years imprisonment.
Producer: 2 years imprisonment and fines.
Significance:
Bribery liability applies not only to sports but also to regulatory approvals in the entertainment sector.
Case 4: Bribery in Professional Basketball Team Selection (Shandong, 2016)
Facts:
A basketball coach and team manager accepted bribes from parents of young athletes to ensure selection into a professional youth team. Bribes totaled ¥100,000.
Legal Issues:
Corruption and bribery in youth sports selection.
Exploitation of official capacity to gain personal benefits.
Court Reasoning:
Officials deliberately violated rules, disadvantaging other athletes.
Harmed the fairness of the sports selection process and public trust in youth sports.
Outcome:
Coach: 2 years imprisonment.
Manager: 1 year 6 months imprisonment.
Illegal bribe funds confiscated.
Significance:
Highlights that bribery in selection or recruitment processes in sports also carries criminal liability.
Case 5: Bribery in Online Game Licensing (Beijing, 2018)
Facts:
Executives of a gaming company bribed officials in the National Press and Publication Administration to fast-track approval of an online game. Bribes included cash, luxury trips, and electronics totaling ¥500,000.
Legal Issues:
Bribery of government officials to gain economic advantage.
Violation of gaming and cultural licensing regulations.
Court Reasoning:
Officials abused public power, bypassing legal licensing procedures.
The company’s intent to gain an unfair commercial advantage was deliberate.
Sentencing considered both amount of bribe and public sector harm.
Outcome:
Officials: 3–6 years imprisonment.
Executives: 2–4 years imprisonment and fines.
Significance:
Demonstrates that bribery in the entertainment sector, including online gaming, is criminally prosecutable.
Case 6: Match-Fixing and Bribery in Chinese Super League (National Level, 2010)
Facts:
Multiple CSL (Chinese Super League) players, referees, and officials were found to have received bribes totaling over ¥10 million to manipulate match outcomes.
Legal Issues:
Bribery, match-fixing, and fraud under Criminal Law Articles 389 and 164.
Undermining public confidence in professional sports.
Court Reasoning:
Coordinated bribery with large financial gains and systematic manipulation.
Courts considered impact on national-level sports reputation.
Higher sentences due to scale, coordination, and repeated offenses.
Outcome:
Referees: 5–6 years imprisonment.
Players: 2–4 years imprisonment.
Officials: 6–8 years imprisonment.
Confiscation of all illicit gains.
Significance:
Illustrates that large-scale, coordinated bribery in sports leads to severe criminal penalties.
Protecting professional sports integrity is a top priority in China.
Key Legal Principles from These Cases
Bribery in both sports and entertainment sectors is criminal, regardless of amount.
Abuse of official or managerial power aggravates liability.
Economic motivation and public trust impact sentencing severity.
Bribery in match-fixing, procurement, licensing, or recruitment all carry criminal penalties.
Scale, repetition, and coordination significantly increase punishment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments