CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/11103 — Al Gharafa Sports Club v. SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA

"Al Gharafa v. FCSB" · CAS upheld FIFA PSC's order that Al Gharafa pay EUR 5,000,000 transfer fee plus EUR 1,000,000 penalty after paying a fraudulent Vietnamese bank account instead of FCSB's Romanian account.

What happened in Al Gharafa v. FCSB

Al Gharafa Sports Club (Qatar) agreed to purchase Romanian player Florinel Coman from FCSB for a net transfer fee of EUR 5,000,000, payable by 31 July 2024, with a EUR 1,000,000 penalty for late payment. The Transfer Agreement specified FCSB's Romanian bank account and required any amendments to be in writing and signed by both parties. On 15 July 2024, an email sent from FCSB President Argăseală's legitimate email address (which the panel found was likely hacked or compromised) directed Al Gharafa to pay to a Vietnamese bank account, enclosing a clumsily amended Transfer Agreement still dated 1 July 2024 and bearing no new signatures. On 31 July 2024, Al Gharafa paid EUR 5,000,000 to the Vietnamese account. FCSB never received the funds. FIFA PSC ordered Al Gharafa to pay EUR 5,000,000 plus EUR 1,000,000 penalty. CAS dismissed Al Gharafa's appeal, holding that the purported amendment was invalid for lack of signatures, that Al Gharafa failed its due-diligence obligation by ignoring multiple red flags (TMS showing the Romanian account, different font in the amended agreement, unexplained Vietnamese bank), and that the EUR 1,000,000 penalty — representing 20% of the transfer fee and proposed by Al Gharafa itself — was not excessive under Swiss law. The case is significant for confirming that a debtor club bears the due-diligence risk when paying to a fraudulently substituted bank account, even where the fraudulent instruction originates from the creditor's own compromised email address.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/11103

On 12 August 2024, FCSB filed a claim before the FIFA Players' Status Chamber (FIFA PSC) seeking the unpaid transfer fee and contractual penalty. Al Gharafa submitted its reply on 10 October 2024. On 5 November 2024, the single judge of FIFA PSC rendered the Appealed Decision, notified to the parties on 10 December 2024, ordering Al Gharafa to pay EUR 5,000,000 net as outstanding transfer fee and EUR 1,000,000 as contractual penalty, plus USD 25,000 in procedural costs. Al Gharafa filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 30 December 2024 under Article R48 of the CAS Code, within the 21-day deadline. Al Gharafa filed its Appeal Brief on 30 January 2025; FCSB filed its Answer on 3 March 2025. A hearing was held on 28 May 2025 in Lausanne, including expert testimony from forensic consultant Darren Mullins of HKA Global Limited. CAS was asked to set aside the Appealed Decision in its entirety and dismiss all of FCSB's claims.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/11103

• The purported amendment to the Transfer Agreement enclosing a Vietnamese bank account was invalid because the amended document was still dated 1 July 2024 and bore no new signatures, failing the requirement in Article 5.1 that modifications be made in writing and signed by both parties.
• Al Gharafa breached its contractual obligation of due diligence by failing to verify the legitimacy of the Vietnamese bank account despite multiple red flags: the TMS transfer report showed FCSB's Romanian account, the amended agreement had text in a different font obviously pasted over the original, and there was no apparent reason for FCSB to hold a Vietnamese bank account.
• FCSB's President Argăseală's confirmation of receipt of the payment screenshot on 31 July 2024 did not constitute acceptance of performance without reservation under Article 160 SCO, and therefore did not extinguish FCSB's right to claim the contractual penalty.
• The EUR 1,000,000 penalty, representing 20% of the EUR 5,000,000 transfer fee and proposed by Al Gharafa itself, was not excessive and did not constitute a massive imbalance warranting reduction under Article 163(3) SCO.
• Because neither party appealed the FIFA PSC's decision not to award interest, that aspect of the Appealed Decision was final and binding, placing it beyond the Panel's power of review.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The panel first established that the Transfer Agreement validly required payment to FCSB's Romanian bank account and that amendments required written signatures from both parties. Although the HKA forensic report confirmed the 15 July 2024 email directing payment to Vietnam was sent from Argăseală's legitimate email address — suggesting his account was hacked — the panel held this did not relieve Al Gharafa of its due-diligence obligation. The panel identified three independent red flags Al Gharafa ignored: (1) FCSB's TMS transfer report, uploaded on 11 July 2024, showed the Romanian account; (2) the amended Transfer Agreement was clumsily executed with the Vietnamese bank details in a different font, obviously pasted over the original text, and still dated 1 July 2024 without new signatures; and (3) there was no apparent connection between FCSB and Vietnam. The panel rejected Al Gharafa's argument that formal amendment requirements could be informally waived, noting Article 5.1 itself required any waiver to be in writing and signed. On the penalty, the panel applied the pacta sunt servanda principle and CAS precedent holding that reduction under Article 163(3) SCO is reserved for exceptional cases of massive imbalance; a 20% penalty proposed by the debtor itself did not meet that threshold. The majority also rejected the Article 160 SCO argument, finding Argăseală's 'Thanks' reply was merely an acknowledgment of receipt, not an unconditional acceptance of performance.

Why Al Gharafa v. FCSB matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award establishes that a debtor club cannot discharge its payment obligation by paying a fraudulently substituted bank account, even when the fraudulent instruction is sent from the creditor's own compromised email address, if the debtor ignored clear due-diligence red flags including inconsistent TMS data and an obviously altered amendment document. It also confirms that TMS bank-account entries serve a fraud-prevention function and that a 20% penalty proposed by the debtor itself will not be reduced as excessive under Article 163(3) SCO.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/6796 CAS 2020/A/7442 CAS 2012/A/2847 CAS 2015/A/3909 CAS 2018/A/5697

Frequently asked questions about Al Gharafa v. FCSB

Did Al Gharafa have to pay the transfer fee again after being scammed into paying a fake Vietnamese bank account?

Yes. CAS confirmed the FIFA PSC ruling that Al Gharafa must pay FCSB EUR 5,000,000 net because it failed its due-diligence obligation. The panel found that multiple red flags — including the TMS transfer report showing FCSB's Romanian account and the clumsily altered amendment document with text in a different font — should have prompted Al Gharafa to verify the Vietnamese bank account before paying.

Was the EUR 1,000,000 penalty clause enforceable even though Al Gharafa was the victim of a fraud?

Yes. The panel held that Al Gharafa's failure to pay the transfer fee to the correct bank account by 31 July 2024 triggered the Penalty Clause under Article 3.5 of the Transfer Agreement. The penalty, representing 20% of the EUR 5,000,000 transfer fee and originally proposed by Al Gharafa itself, was not considered excessive or a massive imbalance under Article 163(3) SCO, so no reduction was warranted.

Did FCSB President Argăseală's 'Thanks' reply on WhatsApp on 31 July 2024 constitute acceptance of performance without reservation, extinguishing the penalty?

No. The majority of the panel held that Argăseală's WhatsApp reply and email confirmation on 31 July 2024 were simply acknowledgments that he had received Al Gharafa's message confirming payment had been made. They did not constitute an unconditional acceptance of performance without reservation under Article 160 SCO, and therefore did not extinguish FCSB's right to claim the contractual penalty.

Can a football club validly amend bank account details in a transfer agreement by email alone, without a newly signed document?

Not under this Transfer Agreement. Article 5.1 required any modification, amendment or waiver to be made in writing and signed by both parties, and the panel held that this formal requirement could not itself be waived informally because Article 5.1 expressly required any waiver also to be in writing and signed. The purported amendment sent on 15 July 2024 was still dated 1 July 2024 and bore no new signatures, so it was legally ineffective.

Topics: Transfers, agents, TPO & sell-on clauses at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.