FIDE-politics-watchers will recall that this involved a secret agreement between Kasparov's camp and Mr Leong by which the Kasparov Chess Foundation paid the ASEAN Chess Academy (controlled by Mr Leong) a very large sum of money in return for his securing Asian votes for Kasparov in the then-upcoming FIDE Presidential election. This agreement was made public in the New York Times, controversy followed and so did the Ethic Commission hearing.
Leong was evidently displeased with the verdict, took it to CAS who subsequently pronounced their verdict. Their judgement was then published on FIDE's website, perhaps unsurprisingly since it is very favourable to FIDE's original verdict and very, very unfavourable to Ignatius Leong, and by extension, to Garry Kasparov.
I strongly recommend that you read the whole thing (there's a fair bit of verbiage towards the start, but it gets easier) but you may find, as I did, that paragraph 53 leaps out at you. The expression "he sold his vote" can have this effect.
He sold his vote. And to whom did he sell his vote?
The Appellant sold his vote to Garry Kasparov.
Talking of leaps out at you, let's have a look at that last bit again:
no possible legitimate purpose could be served by a confidential agreement providing for prior payment of monies to a corporate vehicle controlled by one elector."No possible legitimate purpose." That's not FIDE's wording, that's not the wording of Garry Kasparov's political opponents or critics, that's the wording of an independent judicial tribunal whose judgement was sought by Mr Kasparov's ally.
"No possible legitimate purpose."
The actual, illegitimate purpose, was to attempt to obtain elected office by making improper payments to an influential individual. This is the sort of conduct that - if you tried it in an election in a democratic country with a robust legal system - would put you in the dock. It would constitute conduct not just unethical and improper, but seriously illegal too.
So now that CAS have expressed, in eyewateringly strong terms, their opinion of this conduct, it is surely long overdue that people ceased to give political support to Garry Kasparov under the pretence that he is some kind of ethical and democratic alternative to Kirsan (which would be a very good idea). That's the impression he likes to give, but it falls apart at the slightest inspection. Kasparov, like his friends and allies, rarely receives this in the English-speaking press, chess or otherwise. This would be a good time for that to change.
- - - - - -
FOOTNOTE: a petty point, perhaps, but while I was putting the above together, I happened to see this from Phil Ehr, whose inglorious part in the election debacle involved issuing political statements without consultation with his colleagues, and then flying to Tromsø to be by Kasparov's side. I'm glad to see that Phil is still interested in questions of ethics. I wonder if he will ever learn that the louder you shout about them, the more obvious it becomes if you ignore them when it comes to the team you're supporting.