Malaysian High Court bars bankruptcy claims over gambling debts
Malaysia’s High Court has ruled that gambling debts cannot be used as the basis for bankruptcy proceedings, reinforcing the country’s long-standing position that gambling-related debts are not legally enforceable, even if they were incurred and recognised overseas.
The decision was delivered by High Court Judge Moses Susayan of the Ipoh High Court in Perak, Malaysia, who set aside bankruptcy proceedings against 75-year-old Malaysian businessman Lee Fook Khuen after concluding that the debt arose from a gambling-related credit facility that is considered void under Malaysian law.
The case centred on debts Lee accumulated while gambling at Resorts World Sentosa in Singapore. He had been granted a casino credit facility of S$10 million ($7.8 million) and eventually owed approximately S$5.93 million ($4.6 million).
Ruling after RWS initiated proceedings
A Singapore court recognised the debt in 2018, and the judgment was later registered in Malaysia under the country’s reciprocal enforcement framework for foreign judgments. Lee unsuccessfully challenged that registration through the Malaysian courts.
Following that, Resorts World Sentosa initiated bankruptcy proceedings against him in Malaysia. A senior assistant registrar initially approved the application, but Lee appealed the decision before the Ipoh High Court.
In overturning the bankruptcy order, Judge Moses quoted the landmark 2025 Federal Court ruling in Ting Ching Lee v Ting Siu Hua, which held that gambling-related credit facilities are part of a gambling contract rather than a separate loan agreement. The Federal Court had ruled that such arrangements are void from the outset under Malaysian law and therefore cannot be enforced.
Building on that precedent, the High Court found that an unenforceable gambling debt cannot be recovered indirectly through bankruptcy proceedings, even if it has already been recognised by a foreign court.
Examine nature of the debt
Judge Moses also rejected arguments that the casino credit facility should be treated differently from the underlying gambling activity. Simply describing the arrangement as a credit facility, he said, does not change its legal nature.
The High Court also reinforced Malaysia’s long-standing position that gambling debts cannot be enforced through its legal system. Judge Moses said that although foreign court judgments can be recognised under Malaysia’s reciprocal enforcement laws, that does not automatically make them enforceable if the underlying transaction goes against Malaysian law.
He added that Malaysian courts are still entitled to examine the nature of the debt before allowing any enforcement. In this case, using bankruptcy proceedings to recover a gambling debt would effectively allow parties to achieve indirectly what the law clearly does not permit directly.
No legal costs were awarded, with the court stating that it should not assist disputes arising from transactions that conflict with public policy.
The decision represents another significant development in Malaysia’s legal approach to gambling-related financial claims. While the 2025 Federal Court ruling established that gambling-related credit facilities themselves are unenforceable, the latest judgment extends that principle by confirming that those debts also cannot be used to trigger bankruptcy proceedings.
The case, however, is not yet over. Resorts World Sentosa has already filed an appeal against the High Court’s decision, which means the dispute will now move to Malaysia’s appellate courts. If upheld, the ruling could further strengthen Malaysia’s legal position on the treatment of overseas gambling debts and future cross-border recovery attempts.
Not every journey changes your business, but this one will. From 30 Nov to 02 Dec 2026, SiGMA South Asia lands in Colombo, bringing together 3,500+ delegates and 150 exhibitors. The room is waiting.
