A predictable redemption for former New Zealand Cricket captain Martin Crowe has occurred with today's release of New Zealand Cricket's inquiry into allegations made against Crowe by Indian bookmaker Mukesh Gupta.

All Gupta's claims have been thrown out unceremoniously by the inquiry which found no record of Gupta ever having entered New Zealand.

Making matters all the more frustrating for Crowe was the realisation that despite the fact, which he used in his defence, he was to have been paid $US3000 for newspaper articles in India, he never received a cent.

"Martin Crowe's incorrect assumption, that he had been paid when the story broke in November 2000, was understandable," the inquiry said.

"The issue had not arisen between 1992 and 2000, so far as he was concerned. Only then did he check to see if any bank credit could be identified as had been agreed with the "journalist". That enquiry, carried out by chartered accountants, revealed no sum approximating that which he agreed, or Gupta alleged. He could have avoided any such inquiry, simply by asserting a cash payment, or denying payment, had he something to hide," it said.

Crowe's insistence on facing up to the charges, despite the lack of supporting evidence to Gupta's claims made to the Indian police, won credit from the New Zealand inquiry of Sir Ian Barker and Nick Davidson.

"Martin Crowe would have been entitled to refuse to come before the Inquiry," their report said.

"The Inquiry would have accepted that decision without criticism and it would have left Gupta's allegations as unsubstantiated except to the extent Martin Crowe acknowledged contact with him.

"However, Martin Crowe still sought to tell his story, and have his credibility assessed.

"This was much to his credit.

"He was prepared to give his evidence under oath, but as there was no jurisdiction for this Inquiry to administer such an oath, he made a statutory declaration, to record the truth of his statements. The interview took place on 4 July 2001 in Auckland," they said.

There was scope for the Inquiry to treat the allegations as unproven.

However, the inquiry would have been a proper conclusion and fair to Martin Crowe.

"He chose however to have his credibility assessed, despite that fact. Readers of this Report should recognise the significance of that stance, and the finding of credibility in his favour.

"By this Report, Martin Crowe is cleared of any wrongful practice. His reputation should stand untarnished," they said.

The inquiry reported that Crowe explained to the Inquiry that when he learned after one or two calls that the person with whom he was speaking by telephone was not a journalist but a bookmaker attempting to fix matches, he reacted with shock and disgust. He spoke crudely and forcibly to this person and ended the conversation and all contact.

"Crowe said he immediately spoke with Mark Greatbatch while in a state of shock, and told him what had occurred.

"Mark Greatbatch confirmed what Martin Crowe had said. He remembered vividly Martin Crowe's shocked state at the time, and the reason for it," the report said.

New Zealand Cricket chairman, Sir John Anderson, said the NZ Cricket board fully accepted the Inquiry findings and thanked the Inquiry team for their detailed and thorough investigation of the issues and their clear and concise conclusions.

"The Board fully accepts the principal findings of the Inquiry: that former New Zealand cricket captain, Martin Crowe, was unfairly accused, and there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part.

"The Board believes the 'name and shame' approach of the initial Indian CBI report offended principles of natural justice.

"Martin Crowe can hold his head high in the knowledge that he has been exonerated by this rigorous and independent Inquiry. The Board accepts the allegations of corruption against Martin were without substance and considers the matter now closed," Sir John said.

By way of explanation of their approach to the inquiry Barker and Davidson backgrounded their modus operandi.

"The Inquiry had no powers to compel any attendance before it, or indeed provision of any information. It relied on co-operation," they said.

"Martin Crowe responded to the Report at the time by acknowledging he received money from a person whom he now understood to be Gupta, without realising he was a bookmaker. Martin Crowe said he thought he was to be paid for writing articles from a captain's perspective, relevant to the 1992 World Cup, for syndication in India.

"From the outset, Martin Crowe through his Counsel, David Howman, said he would co-operate with the Inquiry and attend for interview.

"There was some public criticism of him, for stating as a condition that Gupta first come forward with his evidence, so that it could be tested in full. The Inquiry does not share in that criticism. Martin Crowe's stance was entirely proper. Having been accused of associating with a known bookmaker for money, he was entitled to require that person to come forward before he gave his own evidence.

"There were from the outset essential differences between the public statement Martin Crowe made, after publication of the CBI Report, and Gupta's 'statement', they said.

These were:

• Martin Crowe denied that he knew the person with whom he dealt (assumed to be Gupta) was a bookmaker, until he was asked to fix a match. He said he was approached by a person whom he believed to represent a newspaper, to write articles for syndication in India.
• He denied that Gupta had ever been to his home and that of his (then) wife Simone Crowe, as Gupta alleged.
• He denied that he was introduced to Gupta by Arvinda de Silva of Sri Lanka.
• He denied being paid US$20,000 in cash, in an envelope, but said he agreed to a fee of US$3,000, for provision of information for newspaper articles.

The New Zealand Inquiry attempted to interview Gupta through their counsel assisting the inquiry, Tim Gresson, of Timaru. He visited India in December 2000 with Anti Corruption Unit representatives and met with the Indian Bureau of Investigation. Efforts to interview Gupta failed.

The Inquiry also conducted an exhaustive serach of New Zealand immigration files to see if Gupta visited New Zealand in 1991 and 1992. While Gupta reportedly left India in September 1991, there was no record of him entering New Zealand.

The Inquiry also worked with the Sri Lankan inquiry into allegations made against Aravinda de Silva and Arjuna Ranatunga and De Silva denied introducing Gupta to Crowe, as Gupta claimed.

"Because Simone Crowe was implicated in the narrative of Gupta's allegations, the Inquiry asked her to come before it. Despite being encouraged by Martin Crowe, she chose not to do so and gave reasons which the Inquiry accepted.

"She provided a written statement which denied the allegations made by Gupta," the Inquiry said.

© 2001 CricInfo Ltd