Details Of The Higgins Sting
- Thread starter Scaramouche
- Start date
I'm not saying that Higgins and Mooney are beyond corruption but
Mahmoud's techniques go way beyond a sting. From what I read, Mooney and Higgins never agreed to fix competitive matches and never really knew what was going on. (Mooney being in the fog of alcohol)
Mahmoud's techniques go way beyond a sting. From what I read, Mooney and Higgins never agreed to fix competitive matches and never really knew what was going on. (Mooney being in the fog of alcohol)
If the facts are correct, I think Mooney is culpable and Higgins is probably guilty, but with some distrubing reservations.
In my opinion, Mooney clearly is corrupt because he set up the Ukraine meeting after he knew that match fixing was involved, but accrording to the article Higgins didn't know about fixing until the morning of the meeting.
People do funny things when they're frightened. If Higgins really was lured to the Ukraine under the guise of geting paid to organize a tour and set up exhibition matches and then only told by Mooney shortly before the meeting that payola might be involved from the syndicate, I can see where he might be alarmed. They show up and are surprised to meet with two new contacts in the Ukraine that Mooney had not met before.
A scenario could be painted that Higgins acted interested in order to get Mooney off the hook for "not delivering". Higgins was nervous about how he would receive the money and concerned about getting caught. If he was such a corrupt crooked guy, he would have had no problem just taking cash.
So you have these guys leave the Ukraine with some vague plan to toss 4 frames to who knows who, and who knows when, who knows where? If they intended on really doing this, why didn't Higgins ask for or expect an immediate down payment, or progressive payments? If I were making a deal like this, I sure would have asked for something up front to lock it up. Maybe he really did want to get the hell back to the UK ASAP just like they're saying, without implicating Mooney or putting him in danger for not delivering.
Mooney plotted, thought it over and agreed to the scheme - guilty. Although it's possible that Higgins would have eventually gone along with the scam, I also think it's enitrely possible Higgins would get or got cold feet and wanted to back out too without putting him or Mooney in danger.
I think Mooney's punishment should be a long term ban. Higgins, maybe a one year suspension and a fine. The personal hell he is going to go through is far more serious than any suspension is going to be.
Chris
I just watched the video. These two guys (Higgins and Mooney) were not under any duress. They looked quite relaxed and very comfortable as they discussed the deal to lose four frames during a snooker match. They were willing co-conspirators in whatever was going on. Pretty damning evidence here. They could have said no to this at any time, but didn't.
Last edited:
Maybe, but Higgins never reported it to the snooker authorities in England. Snooker loses all credibility if they don't ban him for a few years.
It's complicated. Did they actually do it? No. Might they not have done it? Yes. They were solicited presumably by a large, respectable business, to run a tour and set up some events. Then the large, respectable business suddenly becomes a front for the Russian syndicate where they expect him to throw some games.
Here, let me give you a scenario:
Al, lets say you leave St. Louis and you go to Vegas where you are a famous professional poker player. You sit down in the huge, fancy, 80 story all-glass Bank of America Resort and Casino to play some poker.
A nice man in a suit wearing horn-rim glasses comes over to your business partner. He talks wiith him for awhile and you partner approaches you. He smiles and says "interested in a high paying job here, Al? They could use someone like you to organize tournaments for them. " You say "sure, let's talk". He sets up a meeting him in the penthouse at 6 p.m. You show up and your partner says "we may have to toss a tournament for them". You say "hey, I thought this was legit". He says "let's hear them out - these people are persuasive if you know what I mean".
You knock on the door, the door opens and the nice man isn't there. A couple of thugs with lumps under their jackets say "come in" and sit you down while they eat lasagna with napkins tucked into their shirts. There are red stains on the napkins and the guys make the Sopranos cast look like models. They say "we hear you'll work with us, Al. Well, we have something we want you to do. Will you do it for us, Al?" You say "ummm sure - what do you want me to do?" .
They say, you take these chips and get in this tounament. Everybody is going to lose to you. Then you will play the Lady in Red in the finals. Al, when the dealer puts both his elbows on the table, you go all-in, OK? You're tossing the tournament on that hand." "Don't worry, it will be a good hand, Al".
Al says "ummm - what do I get". The lasagna brothers say 200 maybe 300 euros." "All I gotta do is go all in on one hand?". They say yes - do that and we'll get you 300 euros. The money is tempting because you've been running dry this year. So you think about it and realize you might be in danger just knowing as much as you do about these thugs and this scheme. This is BIG business - well connected - they can do anything they want to. You figure they're going to bet against you and win big. You say "sure, lets toast " and walk out of the room with your partner, happy to be alive but unsure what you'll do next.
You consider turning them in to the Professional Poker Ethics Association but realize they don't have a very good witness protection program, especially for your wife and three children.
That night the film of your meeting is aired on 60 minutes. The thugs were really Harry Reasoner and Mike Wallace in disguise. Have you conspired to commit a crime or was this entrapment?
Chris
Last edited:
Of all the possible defenses he could have chosen for it, this was absolutely the best one. I'm don't think I buy it, but it's plausible enough that I still can have a sliver of doubt.
It looks like this article confirms there is 0 chance of police involvement, at this point his only concern is figuring out how long he's banned for and how much he can knock down the fine.
For practical purposes, what's the difference between a guy who really got stung doing something illegal and a guy who only pretended to go along? It goes no further in either case. They can't hit him with a lighter fine just because he claims he's scared. There's no way to prove that if it ever happens again. Even saying he looks scared or looks relaxed on camera isn't ironclad proof of anything. If he'd called barry hearn or the police right after, that's a little closer to proof. But he will argue he didn't call because he didn't want to bring any heat on the russians, who might retaliate.
Read my scenario above. It's meant to be comical, but I think the story captures a certain frame of mind that could cause someone to be very deeply concerned about screwing with the mob.
Chris
I agree...He offered up to much detail information to be under duress...If he was under duress..he would have been as vage as possible and probably would have tried to create doubt that the scam would work.
From what I watched it appeared that he made it seem very easy to not make obvious....almost like he was trying to "sell" just how easy the scam was.
WOW!!!!!!!!!! WHwen is the book coming out?LOL!
I am going to tell you a real story about real fear in these situation.
A long time ago when I was just a year into making cases I met a man with a nice big Merecedes. This man bought a case from me and hung out at my shop a few times. He told me stories of recently selling his construction company and that he was looking at other things to invest in.
He suggested that we team up so he could do sales and I could focus on making cases. I took the chance and he set up a nice office in a building that he said he owned and we set up a little workshop in another building at another location.
This goes well for a few months then I call my leather supplier to get more leather and the supplier says that we owe him several thousand from unpaid bills. He contends that every time he calls then my partner will act as if he doesn't understand German and put him off. I confront my partner and he says nonchalantly that he did this as a "joke" once and claims he never saw an invoice. He pays the invoices and I get my leather.
Then later I go on vacation to Italy and when I come back there are ten cases missing. I inquire about them and my staff tells me that my partner just took them and didn't say anything. Turns out he traded TEN of our cases for one Jensen Cue. And these were all one of a kind cases.
So I confront him about this and I am highly upset. He very calmly says to me that our partnership is "just fine" pulls a gun out of his desk and sets it down and says that he would be "very upset" if our partnership were to break up.
When I left I was highly freaked out. So I continue to make cases trying to figure out what to do and then it goes to another level.
One night there is a knock at my door and there are two members of the German police there, detectives. They ask me what my relationship is to my partner. I tell them and they tell me that he is supected of smuggling drugs into Holland. They asked me to wear a wire. That's right a wire, just like on TV. I refuse and my girlfriend is totally freaked out at this point. I tell them that this person is very careful and that I would not take the chance of being discovered.
One time I had called the police station from the phone at the office and my partner had come in a fe minutes later and he hit the redial button on the phone and asked me why I was calling the police station. I said quickly that it was something about a traffic ticket.
At the end I was very very very docile and agreeable to anything he said. I enlisted the aid of my friend and one night I packed up everything that I had brought to the partnership and we moved out that night.
So after we moved across Germany the very next thing I did was go to the local police station to explain my situation. The detective who I spoke with was really pissed off that the detectives in the other city had not apprised me of how dangerous that my ex-partner really was. For example I was not made aware that he had been convicted of violent extortion and assault. I had police protection for six months following my defection from the partnership.
For years after that I lived in real fear. When I went to tournaments I was always fearful, even when I attended events in the USA. At one point I had heard that he might be at an event I was scheduled to go to and so I borrowed my father's gun even though I don't like guns and wouldn't know what to do with it.
This is a story of a person, me, who wanted to believe that the person across the table from him was legitimate and benevolent. I ignored the early warning signs and the objections of my girlfriend who had a "creepy" feeling about him. At the end I spent several years in very real fear of losing my life over it.
So I can buy John Higgins' version of events and without knowing Mooney's conversations I can buy his version as well. I personally think that the way this was all set up it was deliberately staged to put two people into a very uncomfortable position in a foreign country and under the influence of alcohol.
IF they are telling the truth then their real mistake here is that they didn't report it to Barry Hearn immediately.
If I were Mooney I would sue the newspaper for fraud because of the fact that they went to such lengths to establish a false company and misled both Mooney and Higgins as to their intent, stringing them along with the non-existent offers to fund four events.
That's the real tragedy in my opinon. These assholes were allowing Mooney and Higgins to beleive that they were about to provide in influx of millions into the game of Snooker and all along it was about seeing whether Higgins would go along with some nebulous idea of throwing frames????
I would like to know if Mooney and Higgins traveled to Kiev on their own money? Mooney had contracts drawn up - who paid for that? These jerks robbed Higgins and Mooney of their time and effort just to get them drunk and scared in a Russian hotel room??? And after all that they couldn't get a concrete deal?
The more I think about the more I think that the newspaper should be tried for conspiracy to commit fraud. They misrepresented themselves in order to entice the services of one of snooker's top stars and one of snooker's top managers.
Mooney and Higgins SHOULD have reported it and ultimately that's what will never erase the idea that they would have done it. Had they reported then this would be a non-issue.
But it really raises the question of how far should someone be allowed to go in misrepresenting themselves to "expose" other.
JAL wrongly posted a reference to Stanley Milgram in another thread. That reference is much more appropriate here. I will let you do the research to understand why. Here is a hint, people are much more likely than they think to GO ALONG with things that are against their morals when they are being told to do so by an authority.
Thus when the asshole reporter says "these are guys you don't mess with" or some similar sentiment as a preface to the ensuing conversation with a couple of strangers that Higgins and Mooney had never met then it sets the tone right there.
Well I beleive in innocent until proven guilty and I see that Higgins has had a stellar carreer without a blemish on it and in my eyes these reporters went way overboard to put him in a stressful and scary situation. Now maybe he is guilty and using the only plausible explanation, I don't know. But the fact is that the newspaper gave him that out by the way they chose to do this.
A long time ago when I was just a year into making cases I met a man with a nice big Merecedes. This man bought a case from me and hung out at my shop a few times. He told me stories of recently selling his construction company and that he was looking at other things to invest in.
He suggested that we team up so he could do sales and I could focus on making cases. I took the chance and he set up a nice office in a building that he said he owned and we set up a little workshop in another building at another location.
This goes well for a few months then I call my leather supplier to get more leather and the supplier says that we owe him several thousand from unpaid bills. He contends that every time he calls then my partner will act as if he doesn't understand German and put him off. I confront my partner and he says nonchalantly that he did this as a "joke" once and claims he never saw an invoice. He pays the invoices and I get my leather.
Then later I go on vacation to Italy and when I come back there are ten cases missing. I inquire about them and my staff tells me that my partner just took them and didn't say anything. Turns out he traded TEN of our cases for one Jensen Cue. And these were all one of a kind cases.
So I confront him about this and I am highly upset. He very calmly says to me that our partnership is "just fine" pulls a gun out of his desk and sets it down and says that he would be "very upset" if our partnership were to break up.
When I left I was highly freaked out. So I continue to make cases trying to figure out what to do and then it goes to another level.
One night there is a knock at my door and there are two members of the German police there, detectives. They ask me what my relationship is to my partner. I tell them and they tell me that he is supected of smuggling drugs into Holland. They asked me to wear a wire. That's right a wire, just like on TV. I refuse and my girlfriend is totally freaked out at this point. I tell them that this person is very careful and that I would not take the chance of being discovered.
One time I had called the police station from the phone at the office and my partner had come in a fe minutes later and he hit the redial button on the phone and asked me why I was calling the police station. I said quickly that it was something about a traffic ticket.
At the end I was very very very docile and agreeable to anything he said. I enlisted the aid of my friend and one night I packed up everything that I had brought to the partnership and we moved out that night.
So after we moved across Germany the very next thing I did was go to the local police station to explain my situation. The detective who I spoke with was really pissed off that the detectives in the other city had not apprised me of how dangerous that my ex-partner really was. For example I was not made aware that he had been convicted of violent extortion and assault. I had police protection for six months following my defection from the partnership.
For years after that I lived in real fear. When I went to tournaments I was always fearful, even when I attended events in the USA. At one point I had heard that he might be at an event I was scheduled to go to and so I borrowed my father's gun even though I don't like guns and wouldn't know what to do with it.
This is a story of a person, me, who wanted to believe that the person across the table from him was legitimate and benevolent. I ignored the early warning signs and the objections of my girlfriend who had a "creepy" feeling about him. At the end I spent several years in very real fear of losing my life over it.
So I can buy John Higgins' version of events and without knowing Mooney's conversations I can buy his version as well. I personally think that the way this was all set up it was deliberately staged to put two people into a very uncomfortable position in a foreign country and under the influence of alcohol.
IF they are telling the truth then their real mistake here is that they didn't report it to Barry Hearn immediately.
If I were Mooney I would sue the newspaper for fraud because of the fact that they went to such lengths to establish a false company and misled both Mooney and Higgins as to their intent, stringing them along with the non-existent offers to fund four events.
That's the real tragedy in my opinon. These assholes were allowing Mooney and Higgins to beleive that they were about to provide in influx of millions into the game of Snooker and all along it was about seeing whether Higgins would go along with some nebulous idea of throwing frames????
I would like to know if Mooney and Higgins traveled to Kiev on their own money? Mooney had contracts drawn up - who paid for that? These jerks robbed Higgins and Mooney of their time and effort just to get them drunk and scared in a Russian hotel room??? And after all that they couldn't get a concrete deal?
The more I think about the more I think that the newspaper should be tried for conspiracy to commit fraud. They misrepresented themselves in order to entice the services of one of snooker's top stars and one of snooker's top managers.
Mooney and Higgins SHOULD have reported it and ultimately that's what will never erase the idea that they would have done it. Had they reported then this would be a non-issue.
But it really raises the question of how far should someone be allowed to go in misrepresenting themselves to "expose" other.
JAL wrongly posted a reference to Stanley Milgram in another thread. That reference is much more appropriate here. I will let you do the research to understand why. Here is a hint, people are much more likely than they think to GO ALONG with things that are against their morals when they are being told to do so by an authority.
Thus when the asshole reporter says "these are guys you don't mess with" or some similar sentiment as a preface to the ensuing conversation with a couple of strangers that Higgins and Mooney had never met then it sets the tone right there.
Well I beleive in innocent until proven guilty and I see that Higgins has had a stellar carreer without a blemish on it and in my eyes these reporters went way overboard to put him in a stressful and scary situation. Now maybe he is guilty and using the only plausible explanation, I don't know. But the fact is that the newspaper gave him that out by the way they chose to do this.
See now this is an example of how two people can watch the same thing and come to different conclusions.
I watched it three times.
What I see is Mooney looking nervous and unfocused. He is repeatedly looking off to the side. John seems to be trying to stay focused and seems to be making conversation that is relative to the topic.
I mean this is a top manager who is used to dealing with contracts and deals, so a little thing like throwing four frames for 300,000 or was it 200,000? should be easy to deal with. To me he is clearly uncomfortable and unwilling to nail down specifics.
John speaks in general terms about the mechanics of missing balls on purpose and how he can't make it obvious. This is something every top player knows and is an easy fall back to make conversation.
This man has an MBE, he is not stupid, if he really wanted to do this deal then he would be leaning forward and eager and would have been able to come up several ways to "dodge the taxman" on the fly.
That's just my take on it. To me they don't seem relaxed and eager at all. And furthermore we don't have the full conversation, we have the EDITED version. And I hope that we all understand that with creative editing things can certainly be made to appear much worse than they are - or much better depending on what they editor is told to do.
The thing that got me was Higgins and Mooney did not ask for any money, or even when they would get paid. That would be the first thing I would ask if I really intended on making the deal. Where's the money? How about 10,000 euros a month for 30 months?
As far as the law goes, the magazine has to be careful, because it was not a legal sting operation conducted by law enforcement. Basically, according to the tape - if Higgins and Mooney are guilty of conspiracy to rig snooker matches, so are they.
Chris
Well this is pretty damning - of course it's also one sided - http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/801883/John-Higgins-snooker-match-fixing-scandal.html
This is the story about the first meeting where this was brought up.
This is the story about the first meeting where this was brought up.
The whole time, Mooney and Higgins wondered if it was a set-up, even asked if these guys were with the press, and Mooney figured it was being recorded (the hand written note) -- yet they still took the bait. Pretty dumb if you ask me.
Chris
The thing I noticed is that both Higgins and Mooney were fairly non-communicative at times. Watch the end of the video from when they start talking about the actual number of frames to dump and the money, it seems like JB might be right as neither person looks comfortable. Now that said John did not have to go on and on how easy it is to dump frames. He had something of an out there where he could have stated "well it is tough, you cannot miss much without gaining suspisions, the other guy has to do his part when you give him the chance", but he did not take that out and instead went the other direction which weakens the case that he was simply scared and wanted out.
Debateable, I am torn both ways. I have been in situations with people who seemed to be a little off and you truly do just as JB said, stay on their good side and make them think that you are totally cool with the going ons. I mean at the point you get picked up in a private car from an airport of a country you are not that familiar with, taken to a private hotel room, introduced to two guys with names that sound right out of any KGB cold war spy novel, and suddenly hear they are from a shady gambling ring and want you to do some dumping for them.... I dont know, at that point I am telling them what they want to hear and getting the heck back on a plane asap. The Russian Mob is controlled by some very serious people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnkYo9TuBIQ&feature=related
I would decline the offer if I was in Vegas. It wouldn't be worth the potential loss in earnings to fix a game. My "partner" would immediately be my former partner and I would report it to the poker authorities. In Higgins' case, I would have reported it as soon as I was safely back in England. His problem was his manager, and the old saying is if you are hanging with the wrong crowd, you are the wrong crowd. Once you go down that road it is hard to turn around and go back because once the mob gets some dirt on you they are not going to leave you alone.
But to answer the question there is no entrapment if the person is ready and willing to commint a crime and someone simply provides the opportunity. Therefore if I don't tell my partner to take a hike and I go along with the scam, it is not entrapment.
And, in real life I suspect the approach would be a little more subtle than a couple guys with bulges under their shirts. They would do their homework, find a player who is having financial difficulties and befriend him, maybe back him in a tournament or two, then pop the question.
The postmaster where I live got busted shoplifting $200 dollars worth of clothing and lost a $90,000 dollar a year job. It happens.