There were allegations that individual having proxy ownership in the certain franchise which was one of the most discussed secrets in the cash-rich tournament all these years. On Friday, a formal complaint was filed against Modi by BCCI at the office of the ombudsman.
Former Indian Premier League chairperson Lalit Modi allegedly was a beneficiary of profit of three IPL franchise.
Activist Niraj Gunde, who has been busy filing complaints about alleged conflicts of interest in Indian cricket, once again wrote to the ombudsman this week, saying Modi “owns a beneficial interest in three IPL teams.”
“Lalit Modi, former BCCI vice-president, chairman of IPL governing council and current President of Rajasthan Cricket Association (RCA) was expelled by the BCCI in 2013 after the disciplinary committee found him guilty of several acts of indiscipline and corruption. While this has been in the public domain and IPL chairman Rajeev Shukla has informed that appropriate action would be taken after ascertaining facts, no action was initiated by the BCCI,” Gunde wrote in his complaint letter.
“The relevant mails between Dean Kino, lawyer of Lalit Modi and Sameer Modi (Lalit’s brother) – where they discuss the beneficial interest in three IPL teams – are also attached to the complaint letter,” Gunde writes.
Kino, an Australian, was the chairman of the Champions League T20 Governing Council September 2014. “Discussions between the parties (Kino and Modi siblings) indicate that Modi is a beneficial owner of three teams. This needs further investigation. There appears to be a cover-up by the BCCI and dereliction of duty by the current office bearers to protect Modi and other criminal elements in IPL,” Gunde wrote.
Gunde also filed a conflict of interest case against Anurag Thakur
When asked to Gunde about which rule would specifically apply in his complaint between BCCI secretary Anurag Thakur and selector Vikram Rathour, Gunde replied, “Thakur was a joint secretary when Rathour was appointed as a senior selector and re-appointed when Thakur became the secretary.”
A complaint alleged that Thakur and Rathour’s family members are “business partners” was filed by Gunde last week. “The issue is directly connected with the duty of the conflicted person to disclose his handicap in exercising his discretion to decide this issue, whether it be in a collective forum or as an individual. Here, the past relationship of both these individuals was apparently not known to anyone in the BCCI till I brought it up,” Gunde concluded.