Khoo Moy Seen v Public Prosecutor: Remote Gambling Act Sentencing Framework

Khoo Moy Seen appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against the sentence imposed by the District Judge for an offence under s 9(1)(e) of the Remote Gambling Act 2014. Khoo Moy Seen acted as an agent for illegal 4D remote gambling. The High Court, presided over by Justice Vincent Hoong, dismissed the appeal, finding that the original sentence of eight weeks' imprisonment and a $20,000 fine was not manifestly excessive.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding sentencing for facilitating illegal remote gambling. The court upheld the original sentence of eight weeks' imprisonment and a $20,000 fine.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedWon
Chong Ee Hsiun of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Gabriel Choong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Khoo Moy SeenAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Vincent HoongJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chong Ee HsiunAttorney-General’s Chambers
Gabriel ChoongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Chia Boon TeckChia Wong Chambers LLC
Khor Zhen YanChia Wong Chambers LLC

4. Facts

  1. The appellant acted as an agent for illegal 4D remote gambling.
  2. The appellant had at least 15 punters under her.
  3. The appellant charged illegal rates for "big" and "small" tickets.
  4. The appellant managed an agent account on www.sol68.com.
  5. The appellant accepted and placed bets amounting to $12,010.40.
  6. The appellant settled bet monies with the punters.
  7. The appellant worked for the syndicate for about a year.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Khoo Moy Seen v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9279 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 98
  2. Public Prosecutor v Khoo Moy Seen, , [2022] SGMC 1

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant assisted in conduct of remote gambling
Appellant assisted in conduct of remote gambling
Appellant arrested
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Sentencing Framework for Remote Gambling Offences
    • Outcome: The court clarified and applied the sentencing framework for offences under s 9(1) of the Remote Gambling Act, adapting the framework from Koo Kah Yee.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Assessment of harm
      • Assessment of culpability
      • Application of sentencing guidelines
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] SGMC 9
      • [2021] 3 SLR 1440

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Violation of Section 9(1)(e) of the Remote Gambling Act 2014

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Gambling Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Loy Jit ChanSingapore Magistrate CourtYes[2021] SGMC 9SingaporeCited for the sentencing framework for offences under s 9(1) of the Remote Gambling Act 2014.
Koo Kah Yee v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2021] 3 SLR 1440SingaporeCited for the five-step sentencing framework for offences under s 11(1) of the Remote Gambling Act 2014, which was adapted for s 9(1) offences.
Aw Soy Tee v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2020] 5 SLR 453SingaporeCited to emphasize that a sentencing framework serves as a guidepost and is not meant to be applied rigidly.
Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 266SingaporeCited to emphasize that sentencing guidelines are a means to an end and are not meant to yield a mathematically perfect graph.
Public Prosecutor v Su Jiqing JoelHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 233SingaporeCited for the principle that the imposition of a fine to disgorge profits serves both a deterrent and retributive function.
Public Prosecutor v Goh Ah Moi (F)Malayan Law JournalYes[1949] MLJ 155MalaysiaCited for the principle that the penalty imposed should remove the desire to re-offend.
Lim Bee Ngan Karen v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2015] 4 SLR 1120SingaporeCited regarding the difficulty of detecting online gambling and considering the length of time over which illegal activities were carried out.
Public Prosecutor v Tai Li Hui MatthewSingapore District CourtYes[2022] SGDC 39SingaporeCited as an example of a case with low harm and culpability, resulting in a one-week imprisonment sentence.
Public Prosecutor v Low Jing DaSingapore District CourtYes[2017] SGDC 81SingaporeCited as an example of a case involving a master agent who created agent accounts, resulting in a nine-month imprisonment sentence and a fine.
Public Prosecutor v Ng Chuan SengSingapore Magistrate CourtYes[2020] SGMC 3SingaporeCited as an example of a case involving an agent who issued accounts for punters, resulting in a four-month imprisonment sentence and a fine.
Chen Weixiong Jerriek v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2003] 2 SLR(R) 334SingaporeCited regarding the weight given to the lack of antecedents when the illegal conduct had been ongoing for a period of time.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Remote Gambling Act 2014 s 9(1)Singapore
Remote Gambling Act 2014 s 11(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Remote Gambling Act
  • Sentencing Framework
  • Agent
  • Punters
  • Illegal Gambling
  • Culpability
  • Harm
  • Deterrence

15.2 Keywords

  • Remote Gambling Act
  • Sentencing
  • Illegal Gambling
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Remote Gambling Act90
Sentencing85
Criminal Law70
Administrative Law30
Summary Judgement20

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Gambling Law
  • Sentencing