A bank can recover payments made by mistake even if negligence is involved, provided the recipient cannot prove a change of position in good faith.

[1] Ng Seang Heng went on a million ringgit gambling spree, not with his own, but someone else's money. Specifically, money from an innocent company's bank account using forged payment instructions. By the time the bank discovered the forged forms based on which it remitted monies to the gambler via a junket operator's account, funds were gone. The junket operator claims it dealt bona fide - immediately putting incoming monies into more casino chips given to Ng. Hence the bank's hopes of recovery hit a blank wall. Now the bank wants the money repaid - but the junket operator says it cannot pay back what it no longer has. The dispute turns on whether the junket operator can be held liable to repay the funds it received due to the bank's mistake. The court will have to determine who will bear the cost of Ng's lavish spending escapade: the bank or the junket operator?

Background Facts

[2] The plaintiff, RHB Bank Berhad ('RHB'), is a licensed bank in Malaysia. The defendant, Richland Leisure Group Sdn Bhd ('Richland'), is a junket operator that has been authorised by Genting Malaysia Berhad ('Genting') since January 2010 to operate a Local Group Casino Rebate Programme ('Casino Rebate Programme') at Genting's casino. Under this programme, individuals are enrolled by agents like Richland to participate in the rebate programme when they gamble at Genting's casino. Richland earns a commission from Genting based on the rebate structure for every player it brings in.

[3] The dispute arose from three outward telegraphic transfer transactions executed by RHB to remit sums totaling RM1,031,000.00 from its customer Fujikura (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd's ('Fujikura") bank account ("Fujikura's Account') to Richland's bank account with Malayan Banking Berhad (Maybank) ("Richland's Account') over the period of 11 September 2020 to 18 September 2020.

[4] The first transaction occurred on 11 September 2020 when RHB remitted RM286,000.00 to Richland's Account based on a remittance application form dated 11 September 2020 submitted to RHB. This form on its face reflected Fujikura as the applicant and authorised the remittance to Richland. It bore a company stamp purporting to be Fujikura's stamp as well as an authorised signatory's signature.

[5] The second transaction occurred on 14 September 2020, three days later. On this occasion, RM357,000.00 was remitted following a remittance application form dated 14 September 2020 submitted to RHB, again showing Fujikura as the applicant authorising remittance to Richland, with a similar company stamp and authorised signature.

[6] The third transaction occurred on 18 September 2020, four days after the second transaction. This time RM388,000.00 was remitted based on a remittance form dated 18 September 2020 reflecting the same application details as the previous two forms.

[7] Altogether, RHB remitted RM1,031,000.00 over these three transactions to Richland's Account based on Fujikura's apparent authorisation per the remittance forms submitted. RHB processed the forms as they bore signatures and stamps that matched its records for Fujikura at that time. RHB would also call Fujikura's authorised personnel, per RHB's standard procedures, to confirm each transaction before remitting the moneys. RHB did accordingly receive confirmation from Fujikura's authorised representatives before making each of the three payme