Sports fraud and IT forgery: what are the legal consequences of manipulating competitions?

In modern sports law, the boundaries between ethical misconduct and criminal offenses are becoming blurred. Manipulating match results via digital systems not only leads to disciplinary sanctions, but can also result in severe criminal convictions for IT forgery and fraud. Moreover, this opens the door to substantial damages based on the doctrine of ‘loss of a chance’.

The facts and legal context

This case revolves around a large-scale fraud case within 3×3 basketball, with the aim of collecting enough ranking points to qualify for the Tokyo Olympics. Between August and November 2019, those involved registered 27 fictitious 3×3 basketball tournaments on the digital platform of the International Basketball Federation (FIBA).

By entering non-existent matches and results via a fictitious account (‘Frank Devos’), the world rankings were artificially influenced. This moved Belgium up from 37th to 14th place, which was crucial for qualifying for the Olympic qualifying tournaments.

The public prosecutor's office prosecuted those involved (players and a federation employee) for:

• IT forgery (Articles 193 and 210bis of the Criminal Code): Entering false data into a computer system, thereby altering its legal scope.
• Fraud (Art. 496 Criminal Code): The use of cunning tricks (fictitious tournaments) to obtain an unlawful advantage (participation in qualifying tournament/Olympic ticket).

The decision

In its ruling of 4 December 2025, the Court of Appeal in Antwerp confirmed the criminal liability of the parties involved..

In criminal law: The Court ruled that the federation employee (B. Bogaert), although he may have distanced himself later, played an essential role by providing the “blueprint” for the fraud and giving instructions on how to mislead FIBA (for example, by making tournaments ‘invitation only’).He was sentenced to 240 hours of community service and a fine of €8,000.

In civil law: The Court made important rulings on compensation:

1. The BOIC: Was awarded damages of more than €27,000. This covers the costs incurred for the Olympic participation (flights, clothing, medical staff) and crisis communication costs, as the team had qualified through fraud.
2. Hungarian players: The Hungarian team, which lost the final of the qualifying tournament to the Belgian team, was recognized as the victim. The Court awarded them provisional damages and appointed an expert to assess the damage caused by the “loss of a chance” to participate in the Olympics.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling demonstrates how criminal law intervenes in digital manipulation in the world of sports. Several key legal points deserve special attention:

1. Co-ownership and the ‘blueprint’

The Court confirms a strict interpretation of complicity (Art. 66 Criminal Code). Even if a person does not perform all the acts of execution themselves (such as actually entering all the scores), they are still guilty of criminal participation if they knowingly and willingly provide the necessary assistance. In this case, providing the methodology (“how to manipulate the FIBA software”) and setting up the first fictitious tournaments was sufficient to be convicted as an accomplice, even if the person concerned claimed not to have been active after September 1, 2019. A mere intention to distance oneself without taking active steps to stop the crimes does not exempt the perpetrator from liability.

2.IT forgery as sports fraud

The qualification of IT forgery is important. Changing data in a sports database (FIBA ranking) does indeed have legal implications, as these rankings entitle teams to participate in official competitions and receive associated subsidies. This sets a precedent for e-sports and other digitally managed competitions: tampering with data is not a game, but a crime.

3. The concept ‘loss of a chance’

From a civil law perspective, the decision regarding the Hungarian players is particularly interesting. The Court applies the doctrine of “loss of a chance”.

• The reasoning: Without the fraud, Belgium would not have been allowed to participate in the qualifying tournament. Hungary would then have played against a different team or had a better chance. Although it is not certain that Hungary would have gone to the Games otherwise, they were deprived of that opportunity.
• Damage: The damage is not the value of Olympic participation per se, but the economic value of the probability that they had qualified. This includes potential bonuses, sponsorship deals, and market value. The appointment of an expert to calculate these hypothetical damages demonstrates that courts take such economic sports interests seriously.

What this specifically means

This ruling has consequences for various actors in the sports world:

• For athletes and staff: The argument “everyone does it” or “it was necessary for the ranking” is not a valid defense. Digital manipulation of results leads to a criminal record, which can jeopardize a future career (even outside of sports).
• For federations: Federations have a heavy responsibility to monitor digital integrity. When fraud is discovered, they can (as the BOIC did here) successfully recover the costs incurred from the cheating athletes.
• For aggrieved parties (opponents): This ruling paves the way for damage claims from competitors. If you miss out on a selection or prize money because an opponent committed fraud (e.g., doping, match fixing, digital fraud), you can claim compensation for the loss of the chance to win.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions

Is creating a fake profile on a sports website a criminal offense?
Yes, if this is done with the fraudulent intent to enter, modify, or delete data and thereby change the legal significance of that data (for example, influencing an official ranking), it constitutes IT forgery (Art. 210bis of the Criminal Code).

Can I claim damages if I lose to an opponent who is cheating?
Yes. Belgian case law accepts “loss of a chance”. You do not have to prove that you would definitely have won, but you do have to prove that the fraud deprived you of a real chance of winning (and the associated benefits).

Am I liable if I only gave advice on how to commit fraud, but did not do it myself?
Yes. Anyone who provides necessary assistance or gives instructions that enable the crime to be committed is considered an accomplice or accessory. You risk the same penalties as the perpetrators.

Conclusion

The ruling of the Court of Appeal in Antwerp on December 4, 2025 marks an important moment in the fight against sports fraud. It confirms that digital manipulation of competitions in Belgium is being tackled harshly through criminal law and that the financial consequences for the perpetrators can be enormous, ranging from reimbursement of costs to the BOIC to compensation for missed opportunities by foreign opponents.