Read on Twitter
93 pages. This should be fun. https://twitter.com/Sportslaw_Asser/status/1288128956428820491
The CAS panel starts by rejecting any potential objections that the leaked e-mails were either not authentic/reliable or not admissible
On the admissibility question, it notes that the prior Portuguese ruling would not bind CAS and that UEFA neither participated in the illegal hacking nor used anything other than publicly available information
The CAS panel next rejects MCFC's contentions that (1) the process was flawed b/c it was referred to the investigatory chamber before the related party question was resolved and (2) the investigatory chamber was not impartial. Any defects were cured by the de novo posture of CAS
Next, CAS rejects MCFC's contention that the issues were already decided in the previous settlement agreement and cannot be relitigated
Having cleared away the underbrush, CAS gets to the dispositive issues. First, are some or all of the claims time-barred? This goes to when the 5-year period started. MCFC says 5 years before date of sanction (ie 2/14/15). UEFA says 5 years before investigation begun (ie 2/7/14)
CAS didn't agree with either side, noting that the key date is when the prosecution started, which it found was the referral date of 5/14/19, which sets the limitation date as 5/14/14
This doesn't substantially change the original information that can be considered, but it raises the question of whether historic information before the limitation period can be considered as part of new submissions w/n the limitation period. CAS says no, siding w/ MCFC
The impact of this decision is to exclude the alleged disguised equity funding through Etisalat, which occurred in 2012/2013 and was referenced in subsequent financial submissions
It also excludes part, but not all of the alleged disguised equity funding through Etihad, which went on longer than Etisalat
So, for the time-barred UEFA claims, the issue wasn't that they had trouble counting to 5, but rather that they thought they could win the legal argument that each new submission of financial info that contained the prior disguised equity funding extended the limitation period
UEFA's argument is not completely illogical. As the CAS Panel acknowledged, it might have been appropriate if MCFC had been charged with violation of the break-in req based on a three year period, but that was not what the current charges were based upon
The next issue is whether UEFA proved its charges that weren't time-barred. As is often true, this comes down to standard of proof. The Panel agrees that the standard is "comfortable satisfaction," but agrees with MCFC that the more serious the allegations, the higher the bar
A majority of the panel didn't find that the leaked e-mails were sufficient by themselves to provide direct evidence of wrongdoing b/c they didn't prove that the arrangements discussed were actually executed
Another issue is that the leaked e-mails were between MCFC people, not the alleged third party funders. The one exception was Simon Pearce, who had ties to both. The Panel, however, found his denials credible
UEFA would have buttressed its case if it had found anything to corroborate its claims that Pearce could have facilitated the disguised equity funding, but the CAS Penal insufficient evidence to corroborate the claims in light of Pearce's denial
A majority of the Panel also did not find sufficient evidence relating to Etihad payments
This effectively meant that UEFA didn't meet the standard of proof, as heightened by the severity of the allegations
On the accounting evidence, the expert reports of both sides had too much uncertainty for a majority of the Panel to accept either, but since UEFA bore the burden of proof, that left the majority of the Panel concluding those allegations should be dismissed
