The Court of Appeal of Abu Dhabi today began the trial of employees working in the management of customer service in a government agency, accused of forgery in the official editors and embezzling the amount of 958 thousand dirhams the value of financial irregularities on clients, and decided to hold the case to rule on January 14.
The details of the case are based on the two defendants canceling and postponing the offenses to be paid to them and their relatives and friends and deporting them to the other side. They were charged with intentional damage to their employer, embezzlement and forgery of electronic documents. The court sentenced them to five years' imprisonment and ordered them to pay the sum of 958 thousand dirhams A similar amount.
During the hearing, the defendants denied all the charges against them and confirmed that they had not embezzled any funds, that the said violations were paid through credit cards, and that they had not received any material money from the clients and indicated that they had not committed any fraud.
The defense of the first defendant, attorney Nasser Al-Shamsi, sought to cancel the appeal issued by the Court of First Instance, due to an error in the application of the law to the initial judgment and similar shortcomings and violation of the rights of the accused. He pointed out that the statements confirmed in the case are attributed to his client, 166 thousand dirhams, while the accused attributed 2372 transactions worth 958 thousand dirhams, and therefore can not be punished for an indictment did not commit.
He pointed out that the examination committee set up to investigate the facts and submit the report was not neutral, since all of its members are working in the complainant's body, seeking from the court the order to form a new committee that is neutral and outside the defendants' work.
Al-Shamsi did not accept the crime of embezzlement, because the defendants did not embezzle any money, but they transferred their violations and their relatives to another party to postpone the payment process only. He pointed out that irregularities that have not been canceled are still present and are due to be paid in addition to the absence of any official editor Changed or manipulated his statements, sought the patent for his client, and use maximum leniency reserve.
The defense of the second defendant indicates that the crime punishable by his client and his colleague does not amount to a crime or misdemeanor, and does not constitute more than one administrative violation. He pointed out that the accused does not work in the violations section of the victim, There is no document in the case papers whether paper or electronic that can be referred to as a forged document, in addition to the absence of embezzlement where there is no transfer of ownership from public money to private property, demanding the verdict and acquittal of his client until the formation of an impartial committee to settle the charges assigned to him .