WebAug 25, 2024 · Foong Cheng Leong & Co. About; Legislations; FAQ; Tag: Robert Ong Thien Cheng v Luno Pte Ltd & Anor. Foong’s Malaysia Cyber, Electronic Evidence and Information Technology Law. I am happy to announce that my book “Foong’s Malaysia Cyber, Electronic Evidence and Information Technology Law” is available for pre-order. This is my third book. WebMay 21, 2024 · 21 May 2024 The High Court, in the case of Robert Ong Thien Cheng v Luno Pte Ltd & Anor [2024] 3 AMR 143, ruled on appeal that Bitcoins fall within the ambit of the …
First cryptocurrency case in Malaysian Courts - LinkedIn
WebJan 24, 2024 · Brief facts of the case : - The Appellant, Robert Ong, is a customer of the 1st Respondent, Luno Pte Ltd. As a customer, he was allocated a 'Luno wallet' by the 1st Respondent. The 1st... WebMalaysia.1 Nonetheless, the High Court in the case of Robert Ong Thien Cheng v Luno Pte Ltd & Anor [2024] 1 LNS 2194 (“Luno”) recognised that Bitcoin was a ‘thing’ or commodity. Therefore, Bitcoin could be returned where paid by mistake under section 73 of the Malaysian Contracts Act 1950 (“the Contracts Act”). sherburn trailer sales
Tag: Luno Pte Ltd & Anor v Robert Ong Thien Cheng
WebApr 19, 2024 · In the case of Robert Ong Thien Cheng v Luno Pte & Anor 2024, the Shah Alam High Court had held that cryptocurrency is a form of commodity. In this case, the court was of the view that the word “anything” pursuant to Section 73 of the Contracts Act 1950 includes cryptocurrency and that although it is not regarded as “money” from a ... WebIn Robert Ong Thien Cheng v Luno Pte Ltd & Anor [2024] 1 LNS 2194, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court which held that Section 73 of the Contracts Act 1950 (which requires a person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it) is wide enough to cover Bitcoin, the … WebSep 6, 2024 · However, there is a Malaysian decided case involving cryptocurrencies, Robert Ong Thien Cheng v Luno Pte Ltd & Anor (unreported), whereby the Respondents filed an action against the Appellant to claim for a return of 11.3 Bitcoins (amounting to approximately RM300,000.00) which was transferred by mistake to the Appellant. sherburn \\u0026 rillington practice