Registered owner William Hinge and unlicensed individuals Keith Young and David Vivash have been informed they will be required to attend a Disciplinary Panel hearing on 2 – 4 June 2014 to consider possible breaches of the Rules of Racing, as follows:
William Hinge
The issues for Inquiry are:
1. Did WILLIAM HINGE between 1 January 2011 and 1 July 2012 act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with KEITH YOUNG and/or DAVID VIVASH to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice in relation to racing by communicating directly or indirectly to Betting Exchange account holders information relating to the prospects of some or all of the named horses which was or included information (i) obtained in his capacity as an Owner of the named horse and (ii) which was not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case and knowing that such information would or might be used to gain an unfair advantage in the betting market?
And/or
2. Did WILLIAM HINGE between 1 January 2011 and 1 July 2012 act in breach of Rule (A)36.1 in that he communicated directly or indirectly to one or more Betting Exchange account holders for material reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind, information relating to the prospects of some or all of the named horses which was or included Inside Information knowing such information was Inside Information?
And/or
3. Did WILLIAM HINGE between 1 January 2011 and 1 July 2012 in respect of some or all of the named horses act in breach of Rule (E)92.2 by:
a. Laying a horse with a Betting Organisation to lose a race, and/or
b. Instructing KEITH YOUNG and/or DAVID VIVASH to place a lay bet his behalf, and/or
c. Receiving the whole or any part of the proceeds of such a lay bet.
Keith Young
The issues for Inquiry are:
1. Did KEITH YOUNG between 1 January 2011 and 1 July 2012 act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with WILLIAM HINGE and/or DAVID VIVASH to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice in relation to racing by using information to place lay bets on some or all of the named horses and/or communicating information directly or indirectly to Betting Exchange account holders relating to the prospects of some or all of the named horses which was or included information (i) obtained in from WILLIAM HINGE in his capacity as an Owner of the named horse and (ii) which was not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case and knowing that such information would or might be used to gain an unfair advantage in the betting market?
And/or
2. Did KEITH YOUNG between 1 January 2011 and 1 July 2012 act in breach of Rule (A)37 in that he encouraged, assisted or caused WILLIAM HINGE to act in breach of:
a. Rule (A)36.1 by offering to provide or providing a reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind to WILLIAM HINGE in return for the provision by WILLIAM HINGE to him of Inside Information in relation to some or all of the named horses, and/or
b. Rule (E)92.2 by placing lay bets for and/or on behalf of WILLIAM HINGE in relation to some or all of the named horses knowing that WILLIAM HINGE was the Owner of the named horse or horses.
David Vivash
The issues for Inquiry are:
1. Did DAVID VIVASH between 1 January 2011 and 1 July 2012 act in breach of Rule (A)41.2 in that he conspired with WILLIAM HINGE and/or KEITH YOUNG to commit a corrupt or fraudulent practice in relation to racing by using information to place lay bets on some or all of the named horses which was or included information (i) obtained in from WILLIAM HINGE in his capacity as an Owner of the named horse and (ii) which was not publicly available or authorised for such disclosure by the Rules of Racing (‘Inside Information’), knowing that (i) and (ii) were the case and knowing that such information would or might be used to gain an unfair advantage in the betting market?
And/or
2. Did DAVID VIVASH between 1 January 2011 and 1 July 2012 act in breach of Rule (A)37 in that he encouraged, assisted or caused WILLIAM HINGE to act in breach of:
a. Rule (A)36.1 by offering to provide or providing a reward, gift, favour or benefit in kind to WILLIAM HINGE in return for the provision by WILLIAM HINGE to him of Inside Information in relation to some or all of the named horses, and/or
b. Rule (E)92.2 by placing lay bets for and/or on behalf of WILLIAM HINGE on some or all of the named horses knowing that WILLIAM HINGE was the Owner of the named horse or horses.
