This case was regarding the charges of:
One charge for assisting in the carrying on of a public lottery by assisting the mastermind of the gambling ring, an offence punishable under s 5(a) of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1961 which carried a mandatory imprisonment term.

One charge for abetment by intentionally aiding the mastermind of the gambling ring to provide a Singapore-based website gambling service by assisting him in providing server hosting & maintenance services for a website while being aware of the offences, this is an offence under s 11(1) of the Remote Gambling Act 2014 read with s 109 of the Penal Code 1871. This offence is punishable with the imposition of either a fine or an imprisonment term.
Siraj as the Defence, discussed with the two trial Prosecutors and made further representations to which the Prosecutors acceded to. This led to their decision to only proceed on the second charge for abetment and only seek a fine of $20,000 which is the mandatory minimum fine prescribed by the statute.
Essentially, the representations highlighted the low and questionable culpability of the accused, that the accused had co-operated from the beginning and also that the mandatory minimum fine of $20,000 was sufficient to serve the sentencing principles of general and specific deterrence. These arguments were also made before the Court.