Disciplinary

The rules that set out the procedure that needs to be adopted for any Disciplinary Action applicable to all members were last revised in June 2022 and can be found within Part 2 of the WPBSA Conduct Regulations.

Matters set out in the rules include, but are not limited to:

  • Jurisdiction
  • Misconduct
  • Suspension prior to an investigation or hearing
  • The Disciplinary Committee
  • Initial Procedure
  • Disciplinary procedure
  • Hearing
  • The Independent Disciplinary Hearing Board
  • Appeals against findings from the Disciplinary Committee or Independent Disciplinary Hearing Board.
  • Sanctions
  • Costs
  • Confidentiality

WPBSA Members Rules Breaches

General Breaches

Betting Rules

Since 2012 there have been the following instances of breach of the WPBSA Members Rules Betting Rules:

Mark King

Documents

Liang Wenbo / Li Hang / Lu Ning / Yan Bingtao / Zhao Xintong / Zhao Jianbo / Chang Bingyu / Bai Langing / Chen Zifan / Zhang Jiankang

Documents

The full decision of the Independent Disciplinary Commission can be found here.

Thanawat Tirapongpaiboon

Documents

The full decision of the Independent Tribunal can be found here.

David John / Jamie Jones

Documents

The full decision of the Independent Tribunal can be found here.

The full findings of the Independent Tribunal on sanction can be found here.

Cao Yupeng / Yu Delu

Documents

Stuart Bingham

Documents

  • The finding of the Disciplinary Committee can be found in full here
  • The finding on sanction and costs can be found here

Kurt Maflin

Documents

Joe Perry

Documents

Alfie Burden

Leo Fernandez

Documents

John Sutton

Documents

Stephen Lee

On 2nd October 2012 after a two year police and Gambling Commission enquiry the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to proceed with a case against Lee and others in relation to match fixing.

On 5th October 2012 the Gambling Commission referred the case back to the WPBSA.

After receipt of some material from the Gambling Commission and after further investigation Nigel Mawer the Chair of the WPBSA disciplinary Committee, decided that Lee had a case to answer in relation to match fixing allegations.

The allegations were serious and related to match fixing or the provision of inside information to enable persons to win money by betting on those matches. The matches in question were three matches in the Malta Cup 2008, two matches at the UK Championships 2008, one at the China Open 2009 and one at the World Championships 2009.

The WPBSA, in accordance with its Disciplinary Rules, asked Sport Resolutions UK to appoint an independent QC to hear the available evidence.

The case was heard between the 9th and 11th September 2013 in front of Adam Lewis QC who sat as the Independent Disciplinary Hearing Board. On 16th September 2013 he delivered the following decision:

“Stephen Lee is found guilty of “agreeing an arrangement… [and of] …accepting or receiving or offering to receive… payment or… other… benefit… in connection with influencing the outcome or conduct of” each of the seven matches in breach of Rule 2.9.”

He imposed a sanction of a suspension from involvement in the sport of snooker and billiards for 12 years and ordered Lee to pay £40,000 as a contribution towards the cost of the hearing and investigation of the case.

The facts are that between February 2008 and April 2009 Stephen Lee was in contact with three different groups of people all of whom placed bets on the outcomes of his matches or on the outcomes of frames within his matches or on the exact score of his matches.

This took place in seven matches over four tournaments. The matches were Lee v Robinson, Lee v Fu and Lee v Doherty in the Malta Cup 2008 where there was betting on the exact score and the match outcomes. Lee v Hendry and Lee v King in the UK Championship 2008 where the betting was on the outcome of the first frame in each match. Lee v Selby in the China Open where there was betting on the match outcome. Lee v Day in the World Championship where there were bets on match outcome and the exact score. In this match there was ‘in match’ betting on the outcome of the frames in progress.

The bets were placed by three groups of people. The first were organised by his then sponsor who opened multiple betting accounts with various associates. These accounts were used to place the bets. The second group were coordinated by his then manager who placed almost identical bets the third was an individual known to Lee who placed the same bets independently of the other two groups. Lee was in contact with the groups in the lead up to the matches in question and afterwards. In one case the person collected the successful bet and placed the half of the winnings into Lee’s wife’s bank account.

The total amount bet on these matches was in excess of £111,000 leading to winnings of over £97,000 for the persons placing the bets.

It is not clear how much Lee benefited from their activity or of his motivation to get involved in match fixing.

Lee appealed the decision on finding and on sanction and costs and on 30th January 2014 the first part of his appeal was heard by Edwin Glasgow QC and Mr Peter Stockwell. On 24th February 2014 they dismissed the first part of his appeal and ordered him to pay £30,000 towards the costs of the appeal.

The second part of his appeal was heard by Nicholas Stewart QC on 12th March 2014 and he found that he failed completely in his appeal and increased the costs order imposed at the original hearing from £40,000 to £75,000. In addition he ordered that Lee must pay a further £20,000 towards the costs of the appeal. This means that Lee was ordered to pay a total of £125,000 in costs.

Joe Jogia

On 25th July 2012 The Disciplinary Committee of the WPBSA heard the case of Joe Jogia in relation to the suspicious betting patterns on his match with Matthew Selt that was due to take place at the Sky Snooker Shootout at Blackpool on Saturday 28th January 2012.

It was alleged that a series of bets were placed on Matthew Selt to win this match and the pattern of betting was deemed to be suspicious. As a result betting was suspended on the match on the evening of 23rd January 2012. On 26th January 2012, Joe Jogia withdrew from the match citing an injury and the match did not take place.

An investigation was conducted by the WPBSA which found that on and between 20th and 24th January 2012, a total of 19 bets were made or attempted, all at different betting shops in the Leicester area on Matthew Selt winning this match against Joe Jogia. 14 bets to a total value of £4,830 were placed and 4 bets to a total of £2,300 and 1 bet of an unknown amount were declined.

It was established that the two persons placing the bets were known to Joe Jogia as associates and telephone records demonstrate that in the period leading up to and following the placing of bets Joe Jogia was in repeated contact with them. There was no contact prior to 16th January 2012 then he sent 33 text messages and made 3 calls to one of the persons placing the bets and 42 text messages and 1 call to the other. He did not provide a consistent or detailed explanation as to the reason for the contact.

Initially, Joe Jogia claimed that the reason for the betting must be that people were aware of an injury that he had suffered, but 4 of the suspicious bets were placed before he claimed to have suffered the injury and a further 7 of the bets were placed before he sought medical attention.

Although there was no evidence to show that Joe Jogia would have gained financially, the Disciplinary Committee found that the frequency and timing of this contact, his lack of a consistent explanation for the contact and the suspicions raised by the pattern of bets placed by his associates, created an actual or apparent conflict of interest for him as a Member of the WPBSA, or otherwise risked impairing public confidence in the integrity of his Match with Matthew Selt.

He was suspended from involvement in the sport of snooker and billiards until the conclusion of the 2014 World Championships and ordered to pay £2,000 as a contribution towards the cost of the hearing and investigation of the case. This was later increased to £10,000 after an aborted appeal.

In this Section