.png)
A LANDMARK ruling by Malaysia’s Federal Court has led to a tour agent’s unsuccessful attempt to recover RM6.7 million (approximately US$1.5 million) in gambling-related debt from a businessman, affirming that gambling debts cannot be enforced under the country’s laws.
The New Straits Times reported today, in a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel at the Federal Court, headed by Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Sebli, the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, concluded that the credit extended by the tour agent for gambling was part of a gaming contract and, therefore, void under Malaysian legal provisions.
The judgment was delivered with the full agreement of fellow judges Datuk Nordin Hassan and Datuk Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil.
Court documents reveal that Ting Siu Hua, a tour agent and junket operator affiliated with Huang Group, had facilitated a casino trip to Naga Casino in Cambodia for Datuk Ting Ching Lee, a businessman, and his associates a decade ago.
As a junket operator, Siu Hua’s responsibility was to bring players to casinos, earning commissions based on the gambling amounts spent by those he arranged to visit.
Siu Hua had offered Ching Lee a line of credit worth US$1.5 million, given their longstanding relationship of over 20 years.
This arrangement was not the first of its kind, as Siu Hua had previously extended similar credit lines for Ching Lee’s gambling activities.
However, after returning from the trip, Ching Lee failed to repay the debt, prompting Siu Hua to publicly accuse him and his associates of owing money through a notice published in a local Chinese newspaper and on social media platforms.
In response, Ching Lee filed a defamation lawsuit against Siu Hua, while the latter countered with a claim to recover the unpaid gambling debt.
Initially, the High Court dismissed both the defamation suit and the counterclaim, ruling that gambling debts are unenforceable by law.
However, in a subsequent appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision, contending that the credit extended to Ching Lee constituted a loan, not a gambling debt, and was thus recoverable under Malaysian law.
The Federal Court disagreed with this interpretation, emphasising that the credit extended to Ching Lee was, in reality, part of a gambling transaction and could not be legally recognized as a legitimate loan.
The court affirmed the High Court’s ruling, underscoring that gambling credit facilities cannot be disguised as loans to bypass legal restrictions.
“This court cannot accept the credit facilities granted to the appellant as pure loans and as legitimate transactions,” stated Datuk Nordin Hassan, delivering the court’s judgment.
“The guise of legitimate transactions in whatever terms used should not shackle the long arm of the law to have its effect.
“The reality is that it was a gaming or wagering transaction, and without credit facilities, the appellant could not gamble at Naga Casino.”
Nordin added, “The term loans in reference to the credit facilities to the appellant is actually a gambling debt unenforceable under Malaysian law.”
The Federal Court also reaffirmed Malaysia’s strict legal stance on gambling debts, citing Sections 24 and 31 of the Contracts Act 1950, as well as Section 26 of the Civil Law Act 1956. These provisions explicitly declare all gambling and wagering agreements as null and void.
In his judgment, Nordin also noted the negative public perception surrounding gambling activities and reiterated the country’s legal position on such matters.
“Public perception of gambling is also without doubt that gambling activities are something bad and should be discouraged,” he said.
“I also wish to dispel any thoughts that the present law is only favourable to gamblers who lose in their gambling activities.
“The law applies to all parties involved in the gaming transactions. It also applies to the winner of any wagers as they also cannot enforce their claim under Malaysian law.
“The debt arising from gambling activities is a debt of honour and not a legal debt.”
The court further awarded RM200,000 in legal costs to Ching Lee, marking a significant conclusion to a long-standing dispute over gambling debt and its enforceability under Malaysian law.
Lawyers Datuk Shankar Ram and Datuk Bong Ah Loi represented Ching Lee, while Lim Heng Choo acted for Siu Hua. – February 27, 2025
