PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal yesterday ruled that online gambling is an offence under the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953.
This follows the unanimous decision of the three Court of Appeal judges, chaired by Datuk Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, who rejected the legal question posed by former gambling house operator Roseaini Johor, 49, and retired police officer Rashid Mahmud, 62, as the appellants.
The legal question was whether an online computer gambling premise without any physical equipment falls under the definition of a Common Gaming House under Section 2(d) of the said act.
Justice Vazeer Alam, who sat with Justices Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim and Datuk S.M. Komathy Suppiah when making the decision, said the Court of Appeal agreed with the findings of the High Court in Melaka that there is no requirement in the law for the equipment (gambling machines) to exist physically on the premises.
“We also agree with the findings of the High Court judge, where he provided a detailed explanation of the definition of a common gaming house and gambling machines. The judge concluded that there is no requirement in the law for the equipment to exist physically on the premises,” said Justice Vazeer Alam.
Justice Vazeer also dismissed the appeal of the two appellants to set aside their convictions and sentences.
“A committal warrant was issued against the appellant (Roseaini), and her five-month prison sentence was reduced by four days, making her serve a sentence of four months and three weeks,” the judge said.
Roseaini and Rashid, who were also fined RM5,000 each, had paid the fines.
In 2020, the Melaka Magistrate’s Court sentenced Roseaini to five months in prison and fined her RM10,000 after finding her guilty of managing online gambling using two mainframe computers and 26 laptops in a house on Jalan Syed Abdul Aziz, Melaka, on December 11, 2017, under Section 4B(a) of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953.
Rashid, meanwhile, was sentenced to one month in prison and fined RM3,000 after being found guilty of online gambling using a laptop on the same date and place under Section 6(1) of the same act.
The Melaka High Court upheld Roseaini’s five-month prison sentence but reduced her fine to RM5,000, while Rashid’s one-month prison sentence was set aside, and his fine was increased to RM5,000.
Earlier, lawyer Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali, representing the two appellants, argued that online gambling would be a violation of the law if there were roulette wheels, roulette balls, and roulette betting boards as listed under the Second Schedule of the Gambling Act.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Nahra Dollah, however, argued that any gambling method, whether online or through physical equipment, was a gambling offence under Act 289.
“What’s more, in this case, computers and laptops are considered ‘gaming machines.’ Even though technology is advancing, Act 289 is applicable to any form of more sophisticated equipment in line with technological progress.
“In conclusion, premises for online computer gambling without any physical equipment fall within the definition of a ‘common gaming house’ under Section 2(d) of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953,” she said. — BERNAMA
