Dato’ Ting Ching Lee v Ting Siu Hua [2025] 2 MLJ 295

Federal Court (Putrajaya)

Contract — Illegality — Gaming or wagering

1. The Appellant, Dato’ Ting Ching Lee, is a businessman from Bintulu, Sarawak. The Respondent, Ting Siu Hua, is a tour agent and a junket (promoter) for the Huang Group, a company involved in arranging gambling trips to casinos.
2. In December 2014, the Respondent received a request from one Ting Sing King to organize a gambling trip to Cambodia for the Appellant and four other individuals. The Respondent made arrangements for the group, including securing credit facilities to enable gambling at Naga Casino.
3. During the trip from 8 to 10 January 2015, the Appellant was granted two lines of credit, USD1 million on 8 January and USD500,000 on 9 January and a rolling rebate of USD193,800 on 10 January 2015. These credit facilities were provided by Huang Group and were used exclusively to obtain casino chips for gambling.
4. After returning to Sarawak, the Appellant and two others alleged that the Respondent had defamed them by causing defamatory statements to be published in a local Chinese-language newspaper (Sin Chew Daily) and via a WeChat post, alleging they owed debts to Huang Group and must settle within a week or face legal action.
5. As a result, the Appellant and two others filed a defamation suit at the High Court against the Respondent, seeking damages and injunctive relief. In response, the Respondent filed a counterclaim to recover the USD1.5 million and USD193,800 given as credit and rolling rebate.
6. The High Court dismissed both the defamation claim and the counterclaim—ruling that defamation was unproven, and the credit claim was an attempt to recover a gambling debt, which is unenforceable under Malaysian law.
7. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the defamation suit but allowed the Respondent’s counterclaim, holding that the credit was a legitimate loan and not a gambling debt. Dissatisfied, the Appellant obtained leave to appeal to the Federal Court, which then re-examined whether such a credit arrangement was enforceable under the law.

1. Whether credit facilities granted specifically for gambling activities constitute a loan recoverable under law, or an unenforceable gambling debt under Malaysian law?

(1)  Whether credit facilities granted specifically for gambling activities constitute a loan recoverable under law, or an unenforceable gambling debt under Malaysian law?

(a) The Federal Court answered this question in the negative—credit facilities granted for the sole purpose of gambling form part of a gaming or wagering agreement and are unenforceable. The Federal Court held –

“The reality is that granting the credit facilities to the appellant was gaming or wagering transactions. To conclude otherwise is to allow parties to get around the law and indirectly defeat the law.” (para [43])

(b) The Court emphasized that under section 26 of the Civil Law Act 1956 and sections 24 and 31 of the Contracts Act 1950, any agreement by way of gaming or wagering is null and void, and any recovery of such debt is prohibited. The Court stated –

“Gambling debts are unenforceable under Malaysian law, even if structured as a loan.” (paras [34], [46])

(c)  The Court rejected the argument that the credit facilities were a pure loan, and instead found that they were inseparably linked to gambling, and thus illegal –

“The credit facilities could not be termed as a genuine loan independent of the appellant’s gaming activities at Naga Casino.” (para [41])

(d) The Federal Court also dismissed reliance on the case of Wynn Resorts (Macau) SA v Poh Yang Hong, holding that it did not properly consider the true nature of the transaction –

“The mere signing of a credit agreement did not make the transaction lawful and enforceable.” (para [73])

(e)  Finally, the Federal Court underscored that the law requires Courts to look at the substance and reality of the transaction, not just its form. Structuring gambling credit as a “loan” cannot override the statutory prohibition –

“False labelling of gambling debt as a loan cannot derogate it from the gambling debt. A rose is still a rose no matter what you call it.” (para [47])

(f)   Therefore, the Court held that the Respondent’s counterclaim was for recovery of a gambling debt and was unenforceable under Malaysian law.

1. The Federal Court unanimously allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision on the counterclaim, and restored the High Court’s ruling, holding that the credit facilities were part of a gambling transaction and unenforceable under Malaysian law.

1. The Courts will look at the substance of a transaction, not merely its form, calling a gambling debt a “loan” does not make it lawful.
2. Gambling debts are unenforceable under Malaysian law, even if structured through credit facilities.
3. Public policy strongly disfavors the enforcement of any agreement related to unlicensed gambling activities.
4. The decision clarifies the limits of recoverability in gaming-related transactions and reaffirms the principles of contract illegality.
5. Earlier cases such as Wynn Resorts are no longer good law where they failed to reflect the transactional reality.