ONE MORE STEP INTO A CRYPTO FUTURE
Posted on 22nd July 2026
The name Miliangos [1] might ring a bell with older lawyers. Until the English House of Lords abandoned the judicial practice of awarding judgments only in sterling, it remained unclear whether judgment in a foreign currency could be enforced. Miliangos was celebrated for breaking the mould by taking a pragmatic approach. The House of Lords held that where an obligation was properly denominated in a foreign currency, judgment could be given in that currency in the interest of fairness. The decision in Miliangos was thus driven by commercial reality and the need to avoid injustice caused by currency fluctuations.
Malaysian Courts since the 1980s have taken a similar approach, occasionally citing Miliangos in support[2].
Therefore, the same impulse can be seen in Lee Ee Foong v Ong Seow Lee [2025] 10 MLJ 230. Although the court was not concerned with foreign currencies, it was confronted by a similar question: must repayment necessarily occur in conventional fiat money, or can the law recognise other forms of value accepted by commercial actors? The court chose the latter progressive approach to digital assets, holding that cryptocurrency is a digital asset that possesses market value and therefore constitutes valuable consideration.
The dispute itself was relatively mundane ie whether a friendly loan of RM70,000 had been repaid when the borrower transferred 50 Litecoins into the lender’s Binance wallet. The parties had originally entered into a joint investment in Bitcoin mining machines, each contributing RM70,000. Subsequently, the respondent’s contribution was converted into a friendly loan to the Appellant. In March 2020, the Appellant transferred 50 Litecoins to the Respondent’s Binance wallet, which allegedly had a market value of approximately RM87,134 at the time. Notwithstanding receipt of the cryptocurrency, the Respondent later commenced proceedings seeking repayment of the RM70,000 loan in cash.
The Magistrates’ Court held that the loan had not been repaid. On appeal, however, the High Court reversed that finding. Rozana Ali J held that the transfer of the Litecoins constituted repayment of the loan. The court emphasised that cryptocurrency is a digital asset possessing market value and that the Respondent had accepted the transfer without objection. Consequently, the debt had been discharged. Her reasoning exhibited a similar sensitivity to commercial reality by recognising cryptocurrency as a legally significant store and medium of value rather than insisting upon repayment solely through conventional fiat currency.
The most obvious significance of the decision is its express recognition that cryptocurrency constitutes valuable consideration capable of satisfying contractual obligations. Both Miliangos and Lee Ee Foong represent a conscious movement away from legal formalism and towards commercial reality. In that sense, Lee Ee Foong may ultimately come to occupy in digital asset jurisprudence a position analogous to that occupied by Miliangos in the law of foreign currency obligations.
Lessons for Practitioners
Lawyers drafting agreements involving digital assets should expressly address valuation mechanisms, timing of valuation, wallet details, and the consequences of cryptocurrency transfers. The volatility of digital assets means that ambiguity can generate disputes.
Litigators now have authority for the proposition that a debt may be discharged through cryptocurrency where acceptance and value can be established. Future disputes are therefore likely to focus on blockchain records, exchange-wallet evidence and proof of market valuation.
The decision strengthens the broader recognition of digital assets as legally cognisable property interests within Malaysian law. This development has implications extending beyond contract law into insolvency, trusts, secured transactions and enforcement proceedings.
Conclusion
For that reason, Lee Ee Foong may ultimately be remembered as Malaysia’s first significant step towards a jurisprudence of digital value[1], occupying a role analogous to that played by Miliangos in the development of foreign-currency obligations: a judicial acknowledgment that commercial reality evolves, and that the law must evolve with it.
Loong Caesar LL.M Efa Sakinah, LL.B
[1] The decision did not go as far as to make crypto currency legal tender.
[1] Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd [1976] AC 443
[2] Lee Tai Hoo & Anor v Lee Swee Keat & Anor [1984] 2 MLRH 311; The Ship “Gang Cheng” (No 2) [1998] 6 MLJ 492 (HC); New Kok Ann Realty Sdn Bhd v Development & Commercial Bank Ltd New Hebrides (In Liquidation) [1986] 1 MLRA 520.