CAS 2023 A 9637
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 13 Nov 2024
Why it matters
This case clarifies that the use of forged or falsified documents is an independent violation under Article 24 of the FIFA Code of Ethics, separate from misappropriation. It also confirms that CAS panels are bound by the parties' requests for relief and cannot review the proportionality of a sanction unless specifically requested, reinforcing the principle of party autonomy in CAS proceedings.
Summary
Abu Nayeem Shohag, the former General Secretary of the Bangladesh Football Federation (BFF), appealed a decision by the FIFA Ethics Committee's Adjudicatory Chamber that found him in violation of the FIFA Code of Ethics (FCE). The violations stemmed from his involvement in four transactions where BFF used FIFA Forward funds to purchase goods and services. In each transaction, BFF obtained three quotations from suppliers, but investigations by Control Risks and BDO revealed that the quotations were falsified: they contained identical typos, layouts, and other irregularities, and some suppliers did not exist or were not in the relevant business. The FIFA Ethics Committee concluded that Shohag, as General Secretary, approved these transactions and thereby violated Articles 24 (Forgery and Falsification), 13 (General Duties), and 15 (Duty to report) of the FCE. He was banned from football-related activities for 10 years and fined CHF 100,000. Shohag appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that he was not personally responsible for the falsifications and that the sanction was disproportionate. The CAS Panel, after a hearing, found that the quotations were indeed forged or falsified, and that Shohag, by approving the transactions, had used those documents. The Panel held that Article 24 of the FCE creates an independent violation for using forged documents, regardless of whether the user knew of the forgery. It also found that Shohag's role as General Secretary imposed a duty of care, and he had failed to ensure proper procurement procedures. On the sanction, the Panel noted that Shohag had not requested a review of proportionality in his appeal, and therefore it had no power to reduce the sanction. The appeal was rejected, and the FIFA decision was confirmed.
The detail
Parties: Abu Nayeem Shohag v. FIFA
Case number: CAS 2023 A 9637
Outcome: Appeal rejected; FIFA Ethics Committee decision confirmed; Appellant sanctioned for using forged/falsified documents.
Applicable law: FIFA Code of Ethics (2020 edition), FIFA Forward Development Programme Regulations, BFF Statutes
Issues in play: The case involved the interpretation of Article 24 (Forgery and Falsification) of the FIFA Code of Ethics, and whether the Appellant's approval of transactions supported by falsified quotations constituted a violation. The Panel also considered the scope of review of sanctions in CAS appeals.
Read the full decision at Court of Arbitration for Sport (football, via FIFA) ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.