Clear Law. Real Cases
Ong Seow Lee lent RM70,000 to a friend. The friend repaid him in Litecoin — 50 units, then worth about RM87,000. Ong accepted the crypto, then sued for cash. The Court of Appeal said no: a creditor who knowingly accepts cryptocurrency as repayment cannot later demand the same debt in cash. The decision confirms that digital assets can validly settle contractual obligations — and that you cannot keep the crypto while also claiming the ringgit.
Harjinder Singh bought a strata unit at a court auction, only to be handed a bill for nearly RM270,000 in arrears from a previous owner. The High Court ruled that auction buyers are not “successors-in-title” and cannot be forced to pay historical strata debts.
When K Anuradha, a widow with two children, borrowed RM44,000, she was charged 7 percent monthly interest and made to sign a sale‑and‑purchase agreement for her house. The Court of Appeal has now affirmed that the agreement was a sham to mask an illegal moneylending transaction, and ordered the house returned.
Trinity Advance Sdn Bhd sued Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd for RM9 million after its debt collection contract was terminated — but the High Court found it had submitted recycled letters and photographs from previous years as proof of current work. The suit was dismissed, and the court allowed Indah Water’s counterclaim, ordering Trinity Advance to pay RM806,925 instead.
A wood‑based company was caught tampering with its electricity meter. The court ordered it to pay TNB RM476,000 for the unmetered consumption.