Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Common gaming houses act 1953

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2025

1. ) WONG SEIK TEIK 2. ) TAN KHOON HEANG 3. ) PHUN MEI CHAN 4. ) NG SENG WAH 5. ) ONG AH HOCK 6. ) TOH CHIN ANN

Citation

AB-83-827-11/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AB-83-827-11/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court held that the statutory definition of 'gaming' in s2 of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953 is wide and inclusive; the First and Second Schedules are not exhaustive. Mahjong, though unlisted, may constitute 'gaming' if it is a game of chance or mixed chance and skill played for money or money's worth; such factual determinations must be made at trial. Consequently, the charge is not unknown to law and the DNAA application under s173(g) CPC is dismissed.
14 Oct 2024

1. ) YEO TECK WAH 2. ) CHIEW CHIN FAH 3. ) E KIM LAM 4. ) HEN KAI YANG 5. ) EE SIAU LI

Citation

MC-83-270-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-83-270-06/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove the seized monies were used or intended for gambling; photographic and witness evidence did not establish a nexus between the seized sums and the gambling offence, reconstruction of the scene was prejudicial, and alternative innocent inferences (salaries/celebration funds) were at least as probable; therefore forfeiture was not justified and the monies must be returned to the respective accused.
14 Oct 2024

1. ) LOH WEI KIANG 2. ) ONG TIAN YONG 3. ) ANG KONG TEA 4. ) TEY CHING AIK

Citation

MC-83-450-06/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

MC-83-450-06/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove on the evidence that the monies seized from the nine accused were used or intended for gambling; staging of the scene and gaps in seizure documentation undermined the prosecution case; accordingly the court ordered the monies returned and refused forfeiture to the government.
7 Dec 2020

ANG LYE AUN

Citation

PA-41S-21-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-41S-21-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed convictions because the Treasure Frog simulator was a gaming machine involving elements of chance and an expectation/prospect of money or money's worth via an E-Token credit and the entertainment centre was a public place; expert SP3's unchallenged evidence established the mechanism and expectation of winnings so actual payment need not be proved; however, the custodial sentence was disproportionate for first-time non-violent offenders and was set aside and substituted with a reduced fine of RM1,500 in default one month imprisonment.
7 Dec 2020

LEE LYE POH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

PA-41S-19-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-41S-19-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court affirmed conviction because unchallenged expert evidence and the raiding officer's observations established that the "Treasure Frog" simulator was a gaming machine (game of chance/mixed skill) played for money or money's worth via credit on E-Token cards and that the entertainment centre was a public place; actual payment need not be proved where an expectation/prospect of payment exists; however the imprisonment sentences were inappropriate for first offenders and were set aside with fines reduced to RM1,500 each (default 1 month).
7 Dec 2020

LIM MUI CHOO

Citation

PA+41S-20-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA+41S-20-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Trial court's findings that appellants were playing the 'Treasure Frog' simulator, that the machine is a gaming machine (mixed chance and skill) played for money or money's worth (credit points on E-Token cards) and that the premises were a public place were supported by eyewitness and uncontested expert evidence; conviction was therefore affirmed but sentence was excessive and modified: imprisonment set aside and fine reduced to RM1,500 each in default one month imprisonment.
5 Nov 2019

PENDAKWARAYA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR LAI KAE HAUR

Citation

83-2235-03/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

83-2235-03/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The magistrate found the offence to be of lesser gravity (a revenue-type offence not mala per se), no evidence of widespread prevalence, and substantial mitigating factors (first offender, sole breadwinner, ill dependent mother, low income). Balancing public interest and the accused's circumstances, section 294 CPC was properly applied to bind the accused over rather than impose immediate punishment; therefore a good behaviour bond of RM8,000 for two years with one surety was appropriate.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) WONG SEIK TEIK 2. ) TAN KHOON HEANG 3. ) PHUN MEI CHAN 4. ) NG SENG WAH 5. ) ONG AH HOCK 6. ) TOH CHIN ANN

1. ) YEO TECK WAH 2. ) CHIEW CHIN FAH 3. ) E KIM LAM 4. ) HEN KAI YANG 5. ) EE SIAU LI

1. ) LOH WEI KIANG 2. ) ONG TIAN YONG 3. ) ANG KONG TEA 4. ) TEY CHING AIK

ANG LYE AUN

LEE LYE POH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

LIM MUI CHOO

PENDAKWARAYA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR LAI KAE HAUR