Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation upheld an appeal against a European sentenced to three years in prison and a fine of one million dirhams, and deported from the state after the execution of the sentence, for convicting him to obtain confidential information, especially on a government economic facility via the information network, and copy it and send it to his e-mail.
The details of the case are due to the use of a European employee working in an economic facility, an information technology, in order to obtain confidential information about the facility, which had previously applied for it, but his application was rejected, so he accessed the company's system, and obtained a copy of confidential information , Including the headquarters software used and others, through the computer, copied and sent via the Internet to his e-mail, and kept for himself.
The court of first instance ruled that the defendant should be sentenced to 10 years in prison, a fine of one million dirhams, and deported from the state. Suffice it to three years imprisonment, support other than that, and obliged him to judicial fees, and the verdict did not receive the satisfaction of the convicted, and he appealed against the cassation, while the Court of Cassation submitted a note of opinion, which ended in the rejection of the appeal. The Court held that the appeal was worthy of consideration and a hearing was scheduled.
The appellant mourned the violation of the law, the error in its application, and the breach of the right of defense. These papers lacked the identification of what those confidential data and information are not allowed to access, and relied in his conviction on incomplete reports that did not detail the key points related to the confidentiality of information, and contradict with the proven documents submitted, and the result reached, and based on the certificate of the company's employees Complainant.
The defendant in his appeal that the verdict contested omitted to listen to the witnesses of the exile, despite the substance of their testimony, which came a decisive in the non-confidentiality of files.
The Court of Cassation held that the appealed judgment in support of its reasons for the contested judgment included the fact that the accused had requested from his employer to obtain an electronic copy of the information recorded in the company's computer, but his request was rejected. The company, access to e-mail and copy confidential information, included steps and correspondence between the company and contractors, work steps and manual of production engineering, security, safety and maintenance, steps of contracts and map of operations site, and study of security, safety and environment, and copy them by computer and sent over the network. Alomatah to his e-mail, surpassing the company's instructions, contrary to the signing of the employee's commitment to the Convention by mail, and non-disclosure or tampering with its content for his personal benefit or another, or any other hand work, and remain the exclusive ownership of the company.
The Court of Cassation held that the contested sentence punished the appellant with three years' imprisonment. When the appeal is submitted by the appellant wholly on an unfounded basis, it must be rejected on the merits, and ruled to reject the appeal, oblige the appellant the legally due fee, and refund the security deposit.