A 314-page document prepared by Sports Resolutions – an independent and not-for-profit dispute resolution service – provided detail of the case.
A range of information – from former West Ham manager David Moyes’ views on the yellow cards to conversations Paqueta’s hairdresser mother Cristiane had in a salon back in Brazil – is covered by the commission’s written findings.
The FA claimed 542 bets totalling £46,758.83 were staked by 253 different bettors with a collective return of £213,703.81, reflecting a net profit of £166,944.98.
However, the commission noted that the FA’s case rested “entirely on circumstantial evidence” and the decision to tender evidence on the betting data from one of its own employees, betting integrity investigator Tom Astley, was an “oddity” and “an obvious flaw”.
“In the commission’s view, on what the FA has accepted was the most important element of its case, it simply did not call independent expert evidence,” the commission said in the written findings.
“Instead, it relies on the evidence of its integrity investigator and asks the commission to accept that he has shown the impartiality that would have been expected of an independent expert.”
In his evidence, Astley said the betting on Paqueta “appears highly orchestrated”.
The commission said the FA’s legal counsel subsequently disagreed with Astley’s assessment and was “thus abandoning, without further explanation, its case on orchestration”.
The FA said 27 of the 253 bettors could be linked to the player, but Paqueta maintained he only had a real relationship with five of the people.
He said he did not speak to the five regularly, and even then, rarely about football.
The commission concluded that an analysis of the betting data was not “illustrative of a spot-fix” and added it was “in many respects inconsistent with a spot-fix, but consistent with alternative explanations”.
Nick de Marco, part of Paqueta’s legal team, said: “I remain delighted for my client Lucas, cleared of all the serious charges of spot-fixing.
“The decision is understood to be the longest sports-related judgment ever issued in the world – a reflection of how serious the case was, the amount of evidence deployed in what was the biggest case in the FA’s history.”
