Rozana Ali Yusof J:

A. Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant/Defendant against the decision of the learned Magistrate which was delivered on 26 July 2022 where the Magistrate has allowed the Respondent/Plaintiffs claim against the Appellant/Defendant for RM70,000.00 and dismissed the Appellant/Defendant's counterclaim for RM17,134.04.

[2] The parties in this appeal will be referred to as Plaintiff and Defendant as they were known in the Magistrate Court .

B. Background Of The Case

[3] The appeal herein emanates from the Plaintiff's initial investment with the Defendant for the purchase of cryptocurrency machines, Bitcoin Miner Machine ("the Machines"), for a sum of RM140,000.00. As it was a joint investment, both parties had invested a sum of RM70,000.00 each for the purchase of the Machines.

[4] On 4 December 2017, the Plaintiff had paid a sum of RM70,000.00 to the Defendant by way of Public Bank Cheque No 549930 ("the said Sum"). The said Sum was then used for the purchase of 5 of the Machines and this was within the knowledge of the Plaintiff. On or around early 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant had agreed for the said Sum to be converted to a friendly loan for the Defendant.

[5] On or around 16 March 2020, to satisfy repayment for the friendly loan, the Defendant had repaid the friendly sum to the Plaintiff by way of 50 units Litecoins, bearing the equivalent market value of RM87,134.04 as alleged by the Defendant to the Plaintiff's Binance Wallet Account No: LMc5QriTS3vUsutzenMajV8gTbGV777JQ.

[6] However, the Plaintiff in the Magistrate case has filed claim against the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent has failed to satisfy the friendly loan amounting to RM70,000.00. The Defendant on the other hand claimed that the Defendant has paid the full loan by transferring 50 units of Litecoins to the Plaintiff's Binance Account. In fact, Plaintiff is still withholding the excess sum of RM17,134.04 which formed the basis of the Defendant's counterclaim.

C. Defendant's Case

[7] The Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff herself has admitted in evidence that she did receive the 50 Litecoins in her Binance Wallet which amounts to the repayment of the loan as the cryptocurrency is a digital asset and is universally accepted as a form of money and bears valuable consideration.

[8] This position is confirmed by the Plaintiff's during the cross-examination that the Litecoins did in fact possess the value of 412.96 each. In view that the value of the Litecoins had been admitted, it is clear that the Learned Magistrate had in fact failed to appreciate the value of the Litecoins paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff which in fact exceeds the said Sum by RM17,134.04. The Excess Sum thereafter serves as the basis for the Defendant's counterclaim which was wrongly dismissed by the Learned Magistrate.

[9] The Plaintiff also had admitted that the Defendant did teach her on how to sell her 50 Litecoins should she choose to do so. If at all the 50 Litecoins were not made as the repayment of friendly loan and the values of the coins are insufficient to return the friendly loan sum, the Plaintiff ought not to have received the 50 Litecoins and would have naturally and instantly rejected the transfer of the digital asset to her Binance Wallet.

[10] The Defendant submitted that from the Plaintiff's action is that she had received the repayment of the friendly loan sum by way of the 50 units Litecoins and that she knew that it bears valuable consideration which is sufficient to repay the friendly loan amount. The Plaintiff even requested the Appellant to teach her how to sell/ trade the Litecoins from her Binance Wallet.

[11] In totality, the Defendant submitted that the Learned Magistrate had erred in law and/or in fact by failing to appreciate and consider the following arguments:

[a] The Plaintiff had full knowledge of the payment of Litecoins into her Binance Account;

[b] The Plaintiff had full knowledge of the value of the Liteco