Gambling On Credit - A Dangerous Precedent?
Published: Friday, July 08, 2005 Online-Casinos.com
GAMBLING ON CREDIT - A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT?
Malaysian judge denies UK gambling order
Grabbing headlines in many publications this week was the story of a court ruling
in Malaysia that could set a dangerous precedent in regard to international
gambling debt recovery in that country.
A Malaysian court in Kuala Lumpur quashed a London land casino’s bid to
recover a gambling debt of more than 7 million ringgit (Euro 1.47 million) accrued
by a senior politician in the country’s ruling party.
Osu Sukam, a former chief minister of Sabah state, chalked up the debt when
the Ritz Hotel Casino in London allowed him to gamble on credit. The casino
later obtained a judgment from a British court to recover the debt.
Subsequently, the casino applied to a Malaysian court to enforce the British
court order on Osu.
But Malaysia’s High Court Judge Ian Chin in his judgment said the British
court order cannot be enforced in Malaysia, saying, “Malaysians must be
protected from being enticed to gamble on credit.”
“The only way to discourage this entrapment is to prevent such foreign
judgment founded on gambling on credit from being registered and from being
enforceable in Malaysia,” Chin said in his judgment published on the court
website.
“What is offensive and totally unfair is for the casino to allow someone
to gamble on credit in order to make him lose not only his pants, but the livelihood
of his wife and children as in this case,” Chin said.
The recalcitrant gambler did not escape unscathed, however. Chin also had some
harsh words for him, saying the former chief minister, who is a Muslim, did
not deserve to be awarded costs for the hearing as he had engaged in an activity
his religion frowned upon.”
As Online-Casinos.com & InfoPowa went to press further reports indicated
that Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd and R.H.C Ltd have 30 days to appeal against the
decision.
A Kuala Lumpur-based lawyer for the two companies, Rueben Mathiavaranam, said
he had informed his clients of the court’s decision.
“It is now up to them to decide if they still want to pursue the matter
in the Court of Appeal,” he said.
