High Court orders Rosmah to pay Lebanese owner RM67.4m in missing jewellery suit

High Court orders Rosmah to pay Lebanese owner RM67.4m in missing jewellery suit



Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor was ordered by the High Court to pay RM67.4 million to Global Royalty Trading SAL over 43 missing jewellery pieces delivered to her in 2018. — File picture by Sayuti Zainudin

Wednesday, 10 Jun 2026 10:20 AM MYT


KUALA LUMPUR, June 10 — The High Court today ordered Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor to pay RM67.4 million — the estimated value of 43 jewellery pieces delivered to her in February 2018 — to their Lebanese owner.

High Court judge Quay Chew Soon granted the suit filed by Global Royalty Trading SAL against her, which sought to recover the 43 jewellery items or their claimed value of US$14.6 million after the items were seized during a police raid at Pavilion Residences in 2018.

Quay said the court found Rosmah liable for the missing jewellery pieces.

“After a full trial, I allowed the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant.


“I ordered the defendant to pay the sum of RM67,461,027.37 to the plaintiff within one month from the date hereof,” he said when delivering his decision.

Quay said the court also dismissed Rosmah’s claim for indemnity against PDRM, which was brought in as third parties in the proceedings.

Global Royalty filed the suit in 2023, seeking the return of the items or payment for their value after claiming the items were supplied to Rosmah on a consignment basis but were never returned.


Court’s finding

Quay said the case was ultimately governed by four interrelated legal principles, namely the law on admissions under the Evidence Act; the legal effect of prior pleaded positions and inconsistent conduct in judicial proceedings; the law governing consignment arrangements and continuing proprietary interests; and the law of bailment under Part IX, Sections 101 to 134, of the Contracts Act.

“When those legal principles are applied to this matter, the defendant’s liability becomes inevitable,” he said.

Quay said this was because Rosmah’s own pleadings, previous positions taken in court and oral testimony established four central and undisputed facts.

“The 44 pieces of jewellery were delivered to and received by her; the jewellery was entrusted to her for viewing under a consignment arrangement; she neither purchased nor paid for the jewellery; and she failed to return 43 of the pieces.

“Those facts are decisive,” he said.

He said that once delivery, possession and non-return were established, the legal burden no longer rested on the plaintiff to speculate about what happened while the jewellery was in the defendant’s custody.

Instead, the law placed that burden on the defendant because the jewellery’s handling, movement and alleged disappearance were matters within her exclusive knowledge, he added.

The court also found that Rosmah failed to account for the plaintiff’s jewellery while it was in her custody, holding that the evidential burden shifted to her to show that the loss and non-return were not due to negligence or a breach of the required duty of care.

“I find that the defendant failed to discharge the duties and obligations imposed upon her.

Quay said Rosmah could not discharge the burden by merely asserting that a police raid occurred, that items may have been seized, that bodyguards handled the bags or that the police took possession of certain items.

“The defendant’s attempt to shift focus onto speculative explanations concerning the raid and seizure by the PDRM is untenable.

“The fact remains that the defendant failed to return the remaining 43 pieces of jewellery and cannot satisfactorily account for their fate. In law, that constitutes prima facie negligence,” he said.

Furthermore, the judge noted that Rosmah failed to call key witnesses involved in handling and moving the jewellery and other items from Seri Perdana to Unit 45 of the Pavilion Residences.

He said a critical aspect of Rosmah’s defence failed because she did not call the witnesses who were allegedly directly involved in handling and moving the jewellery.

“The defendant attempted to rely on unnamed security, bodyguards, staff and a butler to explain how the jewellery was packed, how the bags were locked, and how the jewellery was transported and safeguarded at Pavilion 45.

“However, none of those material witnesses were called to testify at the trial. Therefore, such an omission erodes the defendant’s case,” he said.

As Rosmah’s entire defence ultimately rested on the assertion that the jewellery was seized during the 2018 PDRM raid, Quay said the evidence showed only that one item was later identified in forfeiture proceedings and returned to the plaintiff, with no proof that the remaining 43 pieces were ever seized.

“The defendant’s allegation that the jewellery was seized by the PDRM is a positive defence raised to answer her failure to return the jewellery.

“The defendant therefore cannot discharge her burden merely by pointing to a raid by the PDRM and inviting the court to assume that the plaintiff’s jewellery must have been seized.

“The law requires proof and the defendant has failed to prove it,” he said.

Quay also said Rosmah did not deny signing the consignment note, and that her liability arose independently from her admitted acceptance of possession of the jewellery.

Lawyer Datuk David Gurupatham appeared for Global Royalty, while Rajivan Nambiar represented Rosmah.

Senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin appeared for the PDRM.

***

Tough luck Rosmah, though I tend to agree with the late RPK's opinion that things could have "happened" during the police raid and seizure - wakakaka.