silvester legal logo

Our Notable Cases

Mr. Siraj secures a mitigating of Charges for the accused in a gambling case from a custodial sentence to a nominal fine of $20,000


picture of Siraj

Siraj Shaik Aziz


“Mr Siraj managed to obtain a non-custodial sentence ($20,000 fine) for the accused, this was after the Prosecution made the initial Plead Guilty Offer of an 8-month imprisonment term before they acceded to the representations by Mr Siraj for a non-custodial sentence.”


PP v LZE (SC-911403-2018) (unreported)

[Criminal Law – Criminal Defence, charge of assisting the mastermind of a gambling ring, abetment of a provision of an illegal Singapore-based remote gambling service.] 


Mr Siraj was representing the accused against two charges, one for assisting in the carrying on of a public lottery by assisting the mastermind of the gambling ring which was an offence punishable under s 5(a) of the Common Gaming Houses Act which carried a mandatory imprisonment term, as well as one charge for the abetment by intentionally aiding one S.S Boon to provide a Singapore-based remote gambling service by assisting him in providing server hosting & maintenance services for a website knowing that the website was providing this service. This was an offence under s 109 of the Penal Code read with s 11(1) of the Remote Gambling Act 2014. 


Mr Siraj wrote representations to the two trial prosecutors, with them inviting him to make further representations. The Prosecution later acceded to these further representations to instead only proceed with the 2nd charge instead of both charges and seek a fine of $20,000 which was the mandatory minimum fine imposed by the statute. Mr Siraj highlighted in his representations that the culpability of the accused was questionable and at best, low. Mr Siraj also highlighted how the accused had co-operated with the authorities from the outset and that the fine would be sufficient to serve the needs of both general and specific deterrence. These arguments were also raised before the Court on 27 May 2021 and 9 June 2021, after which the Court imposed a fine of $20,000.

× How Can We Help You?