The Public Prosecution contended that they took advantage of the trust of employees responsible for processing such transactions by dictating fabricated details. They presented a divorce certificate and an official notification certificate, misleading officials into believing the ex-husband still had legal standing; thereby, enabling them to obtain social assistance using the altered documents.

Furthermore, the prosecution argued that the defendants used official documents that were no longer legally valid; specifically, the divorce contract and the official notification certificate. The woman allegedly submitted these expired documents to misrepresent her marital status, as their validity lapsed due to her remarriage and her failure to disclose this to continue receiving benefits from the Ministry of Social Affairs. The ex-husband purportedly knowingly participated, intending to give the false impression that the documents were still legally in force. Attorney Enaam Haider, lawyer for the defendant, argued that the essential elements of forgery and the use of legally invalid documents were not present. She asserted that the investigations were superficial, inconsistent and without merit and that the documents lacked definitive proof of any crime.