Non Raceday Inquiry – Written Penalty Decision dated 17 February 2025 – Ashvin Mudhoo

INTRODUCTION:

(1) This is a Written Penalty Decision arising as a result of issue of Information No. A16878, which outlined a breach of Rule 801(1).

Particulars of the resultant charge are:

That on the 18th November 2024, Ashvin Mudhoo, forged trainer Ilone Kelly’s signature to withdraw funds from his brother’s, Ayush Mudhoo, NZTR Apprentice Jockey Account.

(2) This constitutes an offence under Rule 801(1)(m) which provides:

A person commits a Serious Racing Offence within the meaning of these rules who: (m) commits a dishonest or fraudulent act connected within racing or betting associated with racing.

 (3) The Penalty for this offence arises under Rule 801(2) which provides:

A person who commits a Serious Racing Offence shall be liable to:

(a)  be disqualified for any specific period or for life; and/or

(b)  be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or

(c)  a fine not exceeding $50,000.

(4) The Adjudicative Committee was provided with an Authority to Charge dated 8th January 2025 issued pursuant to Rule 903(2)(d). In addition, provided was associated pertinent documentation, including the Information (unsigned), Summary of Facts etc.

(5) A telephone conference was convened on 16th January 2025. The Respondent acknowledged receipt of all necessary documentation and confirmed admission of the breach. A Minute was issued by the Adjudicative Committee, seeking submissions as to penalty by 31st January 2025. A written submission was received from the Informant. A hearing was subsequently scheduled for, and held on, 13th February 2025.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Salient details are as follows:

(6) The Respondent at the time of the incident was a Trackwork Rider based in Otaki.

(7) On the 23rd December 2024, NZTR reported that Ashvin Mudhoo had forged the signature of his ex-employer Ilone Kelly.

(8) On 18th November 2024, Apprentice Jockey Ayush Mudhoo submitted a request to NZTR to withdraw funds from his Apprentice Jockey Account. As per NZTR policy requirements, the employer, in this instance, Ms Ilone Kelly, must approve such requests from Apprentices. NZTR forwards all such requests to employers for their records.

(9) Ms Kelly informed NZTR that the request submitted by Ayush Mudhoo included a forged signature on her behalf and that she did not authorize this request to be actioned.

(10) She further advised that she recognised the writing on the form as belonging to Ayush’s brother Ashvin Mudhoo, who worked for her during his apprenticeship and whose handwriting she recognised.

(11) Ayush advised NZTR that his brother, Ashvin Mudhoo, was attempting to secure a new visa to remain in New Zealand. Ashvin filled out the request for Ayush to withdraw $6,500 from his apprentice fund to assist with his visa application. Ayush advised he felt under significant pressure to support his brother.

(12) Ashvin Mudhoo admitted to using Ms Kelly’s signature without her consent, although he argued he located and submitted an old form which she had previously signed. He advised that his brother had submitted the form willingly to access funds and denied placing him under any pressure. He also advised that he was under significant pressure and in desperate need of the work visa to enable him to begin working as a Jockey.

(13) After careful consideration, Ayush was issued with a warning.

(14) No money from the apprentice fund was released.

(15) Ashvin Mudhoo has no previous history with the RIB.

DECISION:

(16) As the charge has been admitted, it has been found proved.

SUBMISSION AS TO PENALTY – INFORMANT

(17) A written Penalty Submission was provided by Ms Georgina Murrow, on behalf of the Racing Integrity Board.

(18) The RIB submitted the penalty in this case, should be a fine of no less than $1,500, with consideration be given to a short period of suspension.

(19) In support of the aforementioned, the submission referred to those principals established in RIU v L (May 2019), in addition to which there was identified, that precedent established in RIB v Fredrickson (March 2023) and RWWA v Mullany (October 2017).

(20) The submission outlined mitigating factors, including that the Respondent had been cooperative and respectful throughout the process. He had admitted the breach and had been under significant pressure.

(21) Aggravating factors noted, were that the Respondent has had a long involvement in the industry and should be conversant with the Rules and required expectations. When interviewed, Mr Mudhoo had sought to minimise the offence, advising he used a form already signed by Ms Kelly. The money sought was not his own. Forging a signature to gain pecuniary advantage is a criminal offence.

SUBMISSION AS TO PENALTY – RESPONDENT

(22) A written Penalty Submission was not provided by the Respondent.

HEARING:

Pertinent detail from the hearing is as follows:

(23) Mr Mudhoo provided detail around that period leading up to the incident. He had been home to Mauritius. Due to circumstance, he was away for an unintended extended period.  During his absence, there were a series of emails for his attention, which he not seen, because they went to his junk mail. Ultimately, as a result, his visa was ‘cancelled’. Upon his return, he was unable to reestablish himself as a self employed Class A Jockey. He was issued with a visa, which enabled employment as a Trackwork Rider only. This situation contributed to significant pressures and endured until such time as a suitable Jockey’s Licence was obtained.

(24) Mr Mudhoo asked that the Adjudicative Committee, when determining penalty, considers a fine rather than a suspension. He has support from Trainers and is now  starting to secure regular race day rides. Imposition of a suspension would add to pressures.

PENALTY DETERMINATION:

(25) In determining appropriate penalty, the Adjudicative Committee is required to suitably deliberate upon the agreed Summary of Facts, respective submissions along with precedent.

(26) In referencing precedent, it is accepted that in each case, penalty was set dependent upon individual circumstance. There is limited precedent, with those of best interest being RIB v Frederickson (2023) – $750 fine, RWWA v Mullany (2017) – $1,200 fine and RIU v Teeluck (2016) – $2,000 fine. Fredrickson and Mullany related to the signing of transfer documents (Greyhound) on behalf of a third party, without explicit consent. It is accepted that in both instances, the ‘breach’ reflected naivety, rather than any intent to gain a pecuniary advantage. This differs from the current breach. Teeluck related to the placing of bets on the Jockeys Challenge (a number of Jockeys including himself), of which he was part.  Although not ideal, these do provide some guidance as to expectation as to penalty. All, in the view of the Adjudicative Committee, remain less serious than the current breach.

(27) It is contended by Mr Mudhoo, that he utilised an old form with Ms Kelly’s signature in place. This is at odds with the RIB’s evidence, where it is asserted that Mr Mudhoo forged the signature. It is immaterial which is factually correct, as using the document/signature represents the breach.

(28) Mr Mudhoo has asked that any penalty, be by way of a fine, rather than a suspension. To be clear, penalty determination is not a negotiation. To favor one means over another, the Adjudicative Committee must be satisfied the penalty adopted (type and size), does satisfy those principals outlined in L ie: a proportionate balance between the public interest, interests of the offending member and industry in question, seriousness of the offending whilst acknowledging aggravating and mitigating factors.

(29) Mr Mudhoo’s explanation did provide context around that period leading up to the offence. However, it does not excuse his actions, which represent a very serious offence.

(30) Aggravating/mitigating factors as contended within submission, are noted.

PENALTY AND COSTS:

(31) Upon careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding Mr Mudhoo’s breach of the Rules, the Adjudicative Committee decided to impose a fine of $2,500, rather than suspension of his Licence. This decision takes into account both the severity of the offence and Mr Mudhoo’s circumstances. The gravity of the offence cannot be understated. Forging a signature to gain pecuniary advantage, is a serious offence that undermines the integrity of the Racing Industry. However, the Adjudicative Committee has also taken into consideration, Mr Mudhoo’s current situation. Whilst this does not excuse his actions, it does provide context. In light of these circumstances, a fine rather than a suspension, is the most appropriate penalty.  The RIB has not sought costs. Given the hearing took place on a race day, there is no order as to costs.