Court of Appeal rules online gambling an offense under Common Gaming Houses Act 1953

A three-member bench of Malaysia's Court of Appeal ruled on October 17, 2023 that online gambling is an offense under the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953, dismissing appeals by two convicted appellants¹. The bench was led by Justice Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, sitting with Justices Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim and S.M. Komathy Suppiah¹. The decision was reported on October 19, 2023¹.

The court rejected the legal question posed by former gambling house proprietor Roseaini Johor, 49, and retired police officer Rashid Mahmud, 62: whether operating online computer gambling premises without any physical equipment falls under the definition of a common gaming house under section 2(d) of the Act¹. Justice Vazeer said the court agreed with the Malacca High Court's finding that the law does not require gambling machines to exist physically on the premises¹.

The case dates to December 11, 2017, when Roseaini was found to have managed an online gambling outlet using two mainframe computers and 26 laptops in a house on Jalan Syed Abdul Aziz, Malacca, under section 4B(a) of the Act¹. Rashid was convicted of online gambling using a laptop at the same date and place under section 6(1)¹. The sentences moved through the courts as follows¹:

Both appellants paid their RM5,000 fines¹. A committal warrant was issued against Roseaini¹. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the appeals to set aside the convictions and sentences¹.

What it means for players

The ruling confirms that in Malaysia, premises used for online gambling can be treated as a common gaming house under section 2(d) of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953, even when no physical gambling machines are present¹. The court held there is no requirement in the law for equipment to exist physically on the premises¹. The prosecution argued that computers and laptops count as gaming machines and that Act 289 applies to more sophisticated equipment as technology advances¹. The defense had argued that online gambling would only breach the law if items such as roulette wheels, balls and betting boards listed under the Second Schedule of the Gambling Act were present¹. The court rejected that argument¹. The decision concerns the definition of premises and equipment, not the legal status of individual players betting from their own devices, which the report does not address¹.

What happens next

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals and issued a committal warrant against Roseaini, whose sentence was reduced by four days to four months and three weeks¹. Both fines have been paid¹. No further steps are reported¹.

For the wider legal picture across the region, see Gambling Laws in Asia: What Is Legal in 12 Jurisdictions and Online Gambling in Asia: The Law for Players in 12 Jurisdictions. The ruling turns on how a jurisdiction defines a common gaming house and what counts as gambling under Asian law, and it sits alongside other crackdowns on offshore online gambling hubs in Asia.