Match-fixing and corrupt betting outcomes.

The news, in summary.

On Sunday 19 July 2026, before the World Cup final between Spain and Argentina, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe published an open letter to FIFA urging it to build a stronger integrity framework for the next tournament. Part of the letter dealt with wagering. He wrote that betting on moments a single player can produce, without changing the score, is an open door to fraud.

That is a statement about European sports governance, and it makes no allegation of an offence by anyone. It is worth reading in Australia for a different reason. The letter describes a betting product, not a crime, and the question it raises for an Australian lawyer is whether our criminal law already covers the conduct it worries about.

It does, and it has since 2012. What Australia does not have is a single law that says so.

Is match-fixing illegal in Australia?

Yes, and no Commonwealth statute says so. In June 2011 all Australian governments agreed to the National Policy on Match-Fixing in Sport and committed to pursue nationally consistent offences. What followed was separate legislation in each jurisdiction. A review of Australia's sports integrity arrangements reported in 2018 that the national consistency the policy promised had not been delivered.

In NSW the offences are in Part 4ACA of the Crimes Act 1900, headed "Cheating at gambling". Part 4ACA was inserted by the Crimes Amendment (Cheating at Gambling) Act 2012, which was assented to on 13 September 2012 and commenced on assent. It has not been amended since.

In the ACT the offences are in Part 3.8A of the Criminal Code 2002, inserted by the Criminal Code (Cheating at Gambling) Amendment Act 2013, which was notified on 20 August 2013 and commenced the following day. The two schemes look alike at a glance. They are not the same, and the differences matter to anyone charged in Canberra.

Are spot fixing and betting the same?

They are different things, and the difference is the whole point of the NSW definition. Betting with a licensed operator is lawful. Arranging an incident so that a bet on that incident wins is not.

Section 193H(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) says conduct corrupts a betting outcome of an event if it affects, or if engaged in would be likely to affect, the outcome of any type of betting on the event, and is contrary to the standards of integrity that a reasonable person would expect of persons in a position to affect that outcome. Nothing in that turns on the result of the match.

Two further definitions close the gap. Section 193I(2) says a reference to betting on an event includes betting on any event contingency. Section 193J(2) defines an event contingency as any contingency in any way connected with an event, being one on which it is lawful to bet. Read together, a bet on a card, a no-ball, the timing of a throw-in or the first player to be substituted is betting on the event.

So the conduct the Council of Europe letter describes, an arrangement that produces a moment without touching the scoreline, is squarely inside section 193N. Australia did not need to wait for prediction markets to catch up. The best-known Australian prosecutions in this area have concerned exactly that kind of arrangement rather than any attempt to change who won.

Can you bet on yellow cards?

Placing the bet is lawful where the operator is licensed. That lawfulness is not incidental to the offence, it is a condition of it. Section 193J(1) defines an event as any event, whether it takes place in NSW or elsewhere, on which it is lawful to bet under a law of NSW, another State, a Territory or the Commonwealth.

Two consequences follow. If no lawful market exists on the thing arranged, Part 4ACA is not engaged and the conduct has to be looked at as fraud or not at all. And because the definition covers events held elsewhere, a person in Sydney who arranges an incident in an overseas fixture is within reach of the NSW offence, provided lawful betting on it is offered somewhere in Australia. A global tournament played on another continent is not outside the section. We have written separately about how Australian criminal law reaches conduct beyond the coastline in our note on Division 115 of the Criminal Code.

What is the maximum penalty for criminal match-fixing Australia?

In NSW, section 193N carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. The offence requires the person to engage in conduct that corrupts a betting outcome, knowing or being reckless as to whether it does, and with the intention of obtaining a financial advantage or causing a financial disadvantage in connection with any betting on the event.

Three other offences carry the same 10 years. Section 193O covers facilitating the conduct, which section 193O(2) defines as offering to engage in it, encouraging another person to engage in it, or entering into an agreement about it. Section 193P covers encouraging another person to conceal the conduct or the agreement from an appropriate authority, which section 193P(2) says includes a police officer or a body with the official function of regulating the event or betting on it. Section 193Q(1) covers betting on, or passing on, corrupt conduct information.

Two features of the drafting are easy to miss. Section 193L(1)(b) says the intention element is made out if the accused was merely aware that another person meant to obtain a financial advantage as a result of the conduct charged. The accused does not have to stand to profit. And section 193L(2) says it is not necessary to prove that any financial advantage was actually obtained or any disadvantage actually caused. The offence is complete on the arrangement.

On procedure, Schedule 2 of the 2012 Act added these offences to Table 1 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. They are indictable offences triable summarily, so most are dealt with in the Local Court unless the prosecution or the accused elects to go to the District Court. Dealt with summarily, the maximum drops to the Table 1 ceiling of 2 years for the offence. That election is one of the first decisions in a case of this kind, and our note on the Local Court mention explains where it sits in the process.

Is it legal to make a bet based on insider information?

No, and this is the limb that catches people who have fixed nothing. Section 193Q(2) makes it an offence to hold inside information about an event, knowing or being reckless as to what it is, and then to bet on the event, to encourage another person to bet on it in a particular way, or to communicate the information to someone the person knows or ought reasonably to know would be likely to bet. The maximum is 2 years.

Section 193Q(6) removes an obvious defence. It is not necessary to prove that the person encouraged to bet, or to whom the information went, actually placed a bet. Section 193Q(7) allows an alternative verdict, so a jury not satisfied of the corrupt conduct information offence under subsection (1) may still convict of the inside information offence under subsection (2).

Why is gambling using insider information a crime?

Because the bet is placed into a market that has been kept from the same facts. Section 193Q(4) defines inside information as information that is not generally available and that, if it were, would be likely to influence people who commonly bet on the event in deciding whether to bet or in making any other betting decision. Section 193Q(5) then defines generally available broadly, taking in matter readily observable by the public, matter made known in a way likely to reach the public, and deductions or inferences drawn from either.

The practical reach is wider than most players and staff assume. Knowledge of an unannounced injury, a selection not yet released, or an internal decision about resting a player is capable of being inside information. Nobody has to corrupt anything. Telling a friend who bets is enough to raise the offence, and the person who received the information may face their own exposure.

In practice these charges rarely arrive alone. Betting records, account movements and phone material tend to bring other allegations with them, and matters of any size sit alongside charges of the kind we have written about in money laundering under Division 400, possessing proceeds of crime, and participating in a criminal group.

Who investigates match-fixing?

State and Territory police, because these are State and Territory offences. Sport Integrity Australia coordinates the national response and works with governments, sporting bodies, regulators, wagering operators and law enforcement, but it does not lay these charges and it does not prosecute them.

A person under investigation is usually facing two processes at once. The sporting code runs its own disciplinary machinery, on a lower standard of proof, often with contractual obligations to answer questions. The criminal investigation runs beside it, where the right to silence applies. Answers given to a code investigator do not stay in that room, and the sequencing of the two is one of the earliest and most consequential decisions in a case of this kind. Our note on the police interview deals with the criminal side of that problem.

Where the ACT scheme is narrower than the NSW one.

This is the part that gets lost in national commentary treating Australia as though it has one law. It does not, and the ACT drafting is materially different.

Part 3.8A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) creates three offences, not five. Section 363F is conduct that corrupts a betting outcome, with a maximum of 10 years. Section 363G is betting, encouraging a bet, or passing information while holding corrupt conduct information, again 10 years. Section 363H is the same conduct while holding inside information, 2 years.

There is no ACT equivalent of the NSW facilitation offence in section 193O, and none of the NSW concealment offence in section 193P. A person in Canberra who offers to fix, encourages a fixer, or agrees to a fix, but who does not themselves engage in the corrupting conduct, is not caught by a discrete Part 3.8A offence. The prosecution has to reach them through the general extension provisions in Chapter 2 of the Code, dealing with attempt, complicity and conspiracy. Nor is there an ACT offence of encouraging someone to hide a fix from police or a regulator.

The fault element is drawn differently too. Section 363F requires recklessness as to whether the conduct corrupts a betting outcome, with a note recording that recklessness is satisfied by proof of intention or knowledge under section 20(4). And section 363F(d) requires an intention to obtain a financial advantage from a bet on the event, or to cause a financial disadvantage to another person who bets on the event. The NSW formula, an intention to obtain an advantage "in connection with any betting on the event", is looser. On unusual facts those words could decide a case.

What we do for clients facing these charges.

The first question is which jurisdiction, and it is not always obvious. The conduct, the bet and the fixture can each sit in a different place, and the NSW and ACT provisions do not cover the same ground.

Then the market. If the thing said to have been arranged was not the subject of a lawful betting market, the definitions in sections 193I and 193J are not satisfied and the charge has a problem at its foundation. Then the standard in section 193H(1)(b), which is an objective test about the integrity a reasonable person expects, and which is not the same as breaching a code rule. Poor play, a tactical decision, and a fix are different things, and the line between them is a question of evidence.

Then the intention element, where section 193L(1)(b) does a great deal of work for the prosecution and needs to be tested against what the accused actually knew about anyone else's plans. Then the election between the Local Court and the District Court, which carries a difference between a 2 year ceiling and a 10 year one. And throughout, the interaction with the code's own process, because what a client says to an integrity officer on Monday will be read out in court later.

Frequently asked.

Is match-fixing illegal in Australia?

Yes, but not under a single national law. There is no Commonwealth match-fixing offence. Each State and Territory legislates for itself. In NSW the offences sit in Part 4ACA of the Crimes Act 1900, added by the Crimes Amendment (Cheating at Gambling) Act 2012. In the ACT they sit in Part 3.8A of the Criminal Code 2002, added by the Criminal Code (Cheating at Gambling) Amendment Act 2013. The wording differs between the two.

What is the maximum penalty for criminal match-fixing Australia?

In NSW the maximum is 10 years imprisonment for engaging in conduct that corrupts a betting outcome under section 193N of the Crimes Act 1900, and the same maximum applies to facilitating that conduct under section 193O, to encouraging its concealment under section 193P, and to betting on corrupt conduct information under section 193Q(1). Betting on inside information under section 193Q(2) carries 2 years. The ACT maximum under section 363F of the Criminal Code 2002 is also 10 years.

Are spot fixing and betting the same?

No. Betting on a sporting event is lawful where the operator is licensed. Spot fixing means arranging an incident inside the game so that a bet on that incident wins. The NSW offence does not require the result of the match to change. Section 193H asks whether the conduct affects, or would be likely to affect, the outcome of any type of betting on the event, and section 193I(2) extends betting on an event to betting on any event contingency.

Can you bet on yellow cards?

Licensed operators offer markets on incidents inside a game, including cards, and placing such a bet is lawful. Arranging the incident is what creates criminal exposure. Because section 193J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) defines an event contingency as any contingency in any way connected with an event on which it is lawful to bet, a card, a no-ball or a throw-in falls inside the offence just as the final score does.

Is it legal to make a bet based on insider information?

Not in NSW or the ACT. Section 193Q(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) makes it an offence to bet on an event, to encourage someone to bet on it in a particular way, or to pass the information to a person likely to bet, while holding inside information and knowing or being reckless as to that fact. The maximum is 2 years. Section 363H of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) is to the same effect and carries the same maximum.

Why is gambling using insider information a crime?

Because the bet is placed against a market that has been denied the same facts. Inside information is defined in section 193Q(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) as information that is not generally available and that would be likely to influence people who commonly bet on the event. No corruption of the game is required. A staff member who knows of an unannounced injury and backs the other side commits the offence even though nobody has fixed anything.

Who investigates match-fixing?

State and Territory police investigate and the relevant Director of Public Prosecutions prosecutes, because the offences are State and Territory offences. Sport Integrity Australia coordinates the national response and works with sporting bodies, regulators, wagering operators and police, but it does not lay these charges. Sporting codes also run their own disciplinary processes, which are separate from the criminal case and can proceed on different evidence.

Is the ACT scheme the same as the NSW one?

No. Part 3.8A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) creates three offences: corrupting a betting outcome under section 363F, betting on corrupt conduct information under section 363G, and betting on inside information under section 363H. NSW creates five. The ACT has no equivalent of the NSW facilitation offence in section 193O or the NSW concealment offence in section 193P, so conduct short of the fix itself has to be reached through the general extension provisions in Chapter 2 of the Code.

To speak to a criminal defence lawyer, call Aaron Kernaghan on 0421 717 019.

This article is written by Aaron Kernaghan, criminal defence lawyer at Good Legal Lawyers, as at 20 July 2026. It is commentary and reflects the personal opinion of the author only. It is not legal advice, it is not a substitute for advice on your own matter, and it does not purport to be accurate or complete. Any matter referred to may be before the court and any person charged is presumed innocent. For advice on a specific matter, contact Aaron Kernaghan on 0421 717 019 or contact the firm.

More criminal-law commentary by Aaron Kernaghan.

Sources: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), Part 4ACA, ss 193H to 193Q · Crimes Amendment (Cheating at Gambling) Act 2012 (NSW) No 64 · Criminal Code (Cheating at Gambling) Amendment Act 2013 (ACT) A2013-26, Part 3.8A, ss 363A to 363H · Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) · Sport Integrity Australia, competition manipulation and sports wagering

Related.

• Fraud
• Money laundering under Division 400
• Possessing proceeds of crime
• Participating in a criminal group
• The police interview
• The Local Court mention explained