The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the First Instance Court, by imprisoning the owner of an supplies company and an assistant of nationality for an Asian country, and an employee of an “Arab nationality”, for 6 months and deporting them from the state, after convicting them of seizing cash owned by a contracting company where the third defendant, who works An employee of the victim’s company, by awarding supply contracts to the company owned by the first accused, at prices exceeding market prices by about 230% in exchange for financial amounts amounting to about 10 million dirhams.
The Public Prosecution assigned the defendants the charge of seizing cash owned by a contracting company by using fraudulent methods, that the third defendant, as responsible for the electricity department and who is authorized to choose the tenders, submit fake price offers to award tenders to one of the companies owned by the first defendant where the first defendant as owner The beneficiary company, by supplying the third accused with bogus offers, with the help of the second accused, which led to the deception of the victim contracting company, and carried them to adopt tenders and hand over the cash amounts to the accused.
The complainant decided, "the owner of the victim contracting company" that he had approved the tenders and delivered the cash amounts to the complainant against them, and it was later revealed that he had been defrauded, and as a result, he submitted a report to the Public Prosecution, which ordered his referral to the judiciary, while the defendants all denied the accusation against them.
According to the case papers, the technical experience report demonstrated that there is a discrepancy in prices between the average market price and the prices provided by the accused company, by 230%, and the complainant submitted an internal investigation record that includes a declaration from the third accused, of receiving a sum of money personally from the accused company, and that He obtained an amount of up to 10 million dirhams in exchange for his assistance in awarding contracts, in addition to helping the first and second defendants of the third accused by providing mock quotations higher than the price of the accused company, so that the prices offered by the latter be the lowest price in the offers and the project bids them.
The first instance court ruled in presence of the convict, convicting the defendants and punishing them with a six-month imprisonment with the order to deport them outside the state and obliging them to pay the expenses due, and in the civil case to accept the case in form and in the matter by referring the case to the competent court, based on what was stated in the report of the expert on the case who ended It is proven that the third defendant, "as the director responsible for the electricity department and empowered to purchase from the company in which the first and second defendants work, refers to purchase orders at prices that are unjustifiably above market prices."
The court of the first degree did not find acceptance by the convicts, so they appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the defendants' defense presented a defense memorandum attached to a document portfolio, at the end of which it requested the court to acquit the appellants from the charge against them and, as a precaution, to refer the case to a tripartite committee of department experts.
While the Court of Appeal indicated in its ruling that the appealed judgment surrounded the incident, its circumstances and its circumstances, and provided evidence of the evidence against the defendants, which the Court of First Instance reassured, the law was corrected on the incident, and it dealt with the response to the defense of the appellants, in addition to what was proven in the report of the managing expert In the case, which the court reassures and takes.
The Court of Appeal ruling noted that the appellants filed a memorandum challenging the report of the appointed expert, and the court returned the papers to the expert, to discuss the objections and responded to them with a supplementary report that reassured the court, as well as assured the integrity of the grounds on which it was established, and for these reasons the court ruled to reject the appeal and support the ruling and obliged the appellants Judicial fees.