Imprisonment and deportation of a fraudster who seized a car for 180 thousand dirhams

The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation has rejected an appeal by a defendant to fraudulently seize a vehicle owned by third parties after deciding to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and refraining from paying the price of the car. Execution of the penalty.

The details of the case are due to the defendant's involvement with others in the fraudulent seizure of a vehicle owned by the victim, and by taking an incorrect position that would deceive the victim and get him to surrender, by agreeing with him to buy the vehicle for 180 thousand dirhams, and the illusion of paying the amount in cash, and take him With the rest of the defendants to the Traffic Department to transfer ownership of the vehicle to him, which led to the victim to transfer ownership of the vehicle in his name and then the defendant presented a check in the name of one of the defendants has no balance, and they were able to deceive the victim and get him to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and delivered to the defendant took it without paying the price.

The prosecution charged the defendant in bad faith with a check of 180,000 dirhams, which he did not have in return for a sufficient fulfillment. , Confiscation of the check and its copy attached to the papers, and obliging them to pay the fees.

The appellant appealed the verdict, and the Court of Appeal ruled that the appeals were formally accepted, and in the matter amended the appealed judgment, only confined the accused to six months of what was assigned to him, and supported him otherwise, and obliged him to pay the fees, and the accused appealed the verdict by cassation.

In its ruling, the Court of Cassation clarified that the articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure require the accused in a felony or misdemeanor punishable by a fine, to appear before the court himself, noting that the charge against the appellant is punishable by a non-fine, unless he was required to attend himself, even if he failed As is the case in the present case, where an agent attended before the Court of Appeal, the verdict against him is in fact in absentia, even if the court mistakenly described it as a presence, and the verdict can be appealed by the appeals opposition, and may not be appealed by cassation before The expiry of the date of this opposition, and ruled pain Wisdom not to appeal and the appellant obliged the fee due.