New Delhi: Tainted former IPL commissioner Lalit Modi today accused his bete noire and current ICC chairman N Srinivasan of “shielding” the three players who are from Chennai Super Kings in the wake of his allegation that they were bribed by a business tycoon.
Modi, who is at the centre of a controversy over his British travel documents that has dragged External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje, also targeted the Enforcement Direct rate(ED) and challenged it to provide evidence regarding the money laundering allegations against him.
The former cricket administrator, who has made London as his base, said he will return to India as and when he feels there will not be any threat to his security and that he will not go by any assurances from the government.
“What is the anti-corruption (ICC Chairman) N Srinivasan doing to shield the three players that are from Chennai Super Kings…I want to know that question and India wants to know,” Modi told India Today TV channel in London.
“If he is not credible, God save the country, God save Cricket, God save sports.” The ICC yesterday confirmed that it had received a letter from Lalit Modi in 2013 in which the former IPL Commissioner alleged that three players were bribed by a business tycoon. Srinivasan was the owner of CSK at that time as he has now given up the ownership.
“The ICC confirms that Mr Modi’s confidential e-mail, which was received in June 2013, and which has recently been published on Twitter, was provided to the ACSU at the time. The ACSU handled that information in accordance with its standard operating procedures, which included sharing it with the BCCI’s anti-corruption unit,” an ICC statement said. ACSU is ICC’s Anti Corruption and Security Unit.
Modi alleged that the email was leaked by the BCCI perhaps due to some “internal politics” in the cricket board. Modi also claimed he was being hounded by politicians and media.
On the allegations that he laundered money amounting to over Rs 700 crore, today said the ED has no proof in this regard and challenged it to provide evidence.