Borrow all you want to gamble, the law does not recognise the recovery of such debts

Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia

No News Is Bad News

 NagaCorp operates NagaWorld, a casino in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. (Photo by NagaCorp). For image info, go to https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/712279 

Borrow all you want to gamble, the law does not recognise the recovery of such debts

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 27, 2025: In what must be a landmark decision here, the Federal Court has ruled that the recovery of gambling debts is not legally enforceable.

The apex court ruled that transactions premised on gambling activities were against public policy and were illegal, null and void.

The court allowed an appeal by Bintulu-based businessman Ting Ching Lee, and struck out a counterclaim brought by tour agent Ting Siu Hua to recover a gambling debt of about RM6 million.

The court also ordered Siu Hua to pay Ching Lee RM200,000 in costs.

The apex court decision is thus a slapped and just punishment to those who promote gambling and the sin habit.

No sympathies for Siu Hua and others who promote gambling, but this is not to say that gamblers like Ching Lee are saints - far from that.

Is this decision going to stop loans for gamblers? Also, what about the violent illegal loan sharks or Ah Longs? Those who resort to borrowing for gambling or from loans sharks deserve the consequences of violence and threat to life from the illegal lenders.

No News Is Bad News reproduces below a news report on the landmark apex court decision:

Gambling debts not legally enforceable in M’sia, Federal Court rules

V Anbalagan

-27 Feb 2025, 02:43 PM

The apex court rules that transactions premised on gambling activities are against public policy and are illegal, null, and void.

The Federal Court struck out a counterclaim of around RM6 million brought by Ting Siu Hua against businessman Ting Ching Lee, on grounds that public policy prohibits the recovery of gambling debts via legal suits.

 

PUTRAJAYA: A gambling debt is not legally enforceable in Malaysia on grounds of public policy, the Federal Court has ruled.

In delivering the unanimous judgment of the court, Justice Nordin Hassan noted that the government had repeatedly and firmly voiced its stance against gambling in Parliament on grounds that the public derives no benefit from it.

He said the intention of the legislature is clearly stated in various statutes, including Sections 24 and 31(1) of the Contracts Act 1950 and Section 26 of the Civil Law Act 1956.

“Public perception of gambling is also without doubt that such activities are something bad and should be discouraged. Thus, gambling activities and their transactions are against public policy,” he said.

In its decision, the Federal Court allowed an appeal by Bintulu-based businessman Ting Ching Lee, and struck out a counterclaim brought by tour agent Ting Siu Hua to recover a gambling debt of approximately RM6 million.

Also on the bench hearing the appeal were Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abdul Rahman Sebli and Justice Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil.

The court ordered Siu Hua to pay Ching Lee RM200,000 in costs.

In a 44-page judgment published online yesterday, Nordin noted that gambling premises were operating in the country, licensed and regulated under specific laws.

“That does not mean that gambling is not against public policy.

“The negative effect of gambling activities resulted in the government policy to curb gambling activities and enact laws that nullify any gaming contracts and make any claim for recovery of gambling debts unenforceable,” the judgment read.

Nordin also sought to dispel thoughts that the ruling only favours gamblers. He said the law applies to all parties involved in the gaming transactions, including those who win wagers as they cannot enforce their claim under Malaysian law.

“The debt arising from gambling activities (in this case) is a debt of honour and not legal,” he added.

Nordin said that despite the terms or labels used in the suit, the sum owed by Ching Lee was in reality a gambling debt which arose at the Naga Casino from the credit facilities granted to him to gamble.

He said a reading of Siu Hua’s pleaded case confirmed beyond doubt that he was claiming the recovery of a gambling debt.

The facts of the case revealed that Siu Hua was appointed as a promoter for Huang Group and was tasked with bringing players to gamble at casinos.

Under the arrangement, Siu Hua was to be paid a commission based on collections received by Huang Group from the players he introduced.

On March 1, 2014, Huang signed a business agreement with Naga World Limited in Cambodia to bring a pool of players to the Naga Casino to gamble.

In January 2015, Siu Hua arranged a trip for Ching Lee and several others to the casino, where he was granted credit facilities of approximately RM6 million.

Ching Lee and two others later brought the lawsuit against Siu Hua, alleging that he had defamed them via statements published in a Chinese daily.

Siu Hua in turn filed a counterclaim against Ching Lee seeking the recovery of the gambling debt.

At the High Court, Ching Lee and his co-plaintiffs failed in their defamation suit. The High Court also dismissed Siu Hua’s counterclaim.

However, the Court of Appeal allowed Siu Hua’s appeal, giving rise to the present appeal which restored the High Court’s decision.

Lawyers Shankar Ram, Bong Ah Loi, Lai Wong Hui, and Boston Ho represented Ching Lee while Lim Heng Choo, Roger Chin, and Analissa Lim acted for Siu Hua.