All well and good, but CAS is an arbitration court for settling disputes, not a criminal court governed by national legislation and a constitution that guarantees rights. AFAIK, sporting disputes tend to go this route before national courts will hear them, unless there has been a clear, prejudicial breach of process. If there is insufficient evidence the players should be exonerated. Nobody could disagree with that. But even circumstancial evidence can be damning if there is enough of it. And the point I've been trying to make is that the FAI/CAS route has a lower threshold of evidence than criminal law (beyond reasonable doubt) - something like 'the preponderance of evidence' which simply means that
in all probability the evidence is true. I rather think it would suit the PFAI to have criminal trials as we have a lousy record of prosecuting corruption here and acquittals are more likely, whereas the sports court route is far more risky for those charged.
And neither do any of us here, I'll wager (if that's not an unfortunate turn of phrase!) But that's why there are organisations like Federbet who use actuarial analysis of betting patterns -
http://federbet.com/match-fixing/ . They seem fairly clued-in for boffins -
http://federbet.com/about-us/ - you'd hope that the FAI would have their number on file somewhere! (I know, hope and FAI in the same sentence...)
I'd be genuinely interested if somebody could give a bit of background on it. I'd agree with Mr A that it's unlikely the players had accounts helpfully named Swag deposit A/C and Bribes current A/C in the local AIB!