The Abu Dhabi Criminal Court upheld the Court of Appeal's conviction on the conviction of a young man and four “Asian” women on charges of running a house for prostitution, improving sin, facilitating and inciting prostitution, seducing and helping to commit it, accustomed to prostitution with men without discrimination for remuneration, and committing The crime of adultery with unknown persons, while acquitted the first accused of trafficking in human beings.

The details of the case are attributed to the prosecution of the first accused of trafficking in human beings to exploit the defendants from the second to the fourth sex to work in prostitution with others, and run a house for prostitution and to facilitate the causes of exploitation and exploitation of prostitution of the accused by preparing them a place to practice prostitution and get money for himself in addition While prosecuting the defendants from the second to the fourth charges of accustomed to prostitution with men without discrimination for a fee, and committing the crime of adultery with unknown persons and improve disobedience and indecent assault, The defendants from the fifth to the seventh were charged with defamation and complacency.

The Court of First Instance convicted the first defendant of the alleged crime of trafficking in human beings to ten years imprisonment and the crime of establishing and running a house for prostitution and exploitation of prostitution and incitement of female defendants in order to promote imprisonment for five years, and convicted defendants from the second to fourth convictions of habitual prostitution with The men were indiscriminate, indecent, and disobedience improved, in order to reinforce their association, and punished by imprisonment of each of them for five years. All of the State, after the implementation of penalties restricting the freedom provided for and the confiscation of their seizures and cash seized, and obliged them to judicial fees in solidarity among them, and ordered the closure of the house for a year.

The defendants appealed and the Al Dhafra Court of Appeal ruled in its presence to accept the appeals in form, and in this matter upheld the appealed verdict in its judgment against the appellants and obliged them to pay fees in solidarity between them. In conclusion, the Court concluded that the appeals were rejected, and the Court considered in a counseling session that the appeals were worthy of consideration and set a hearing for their consideration.

The first defendant mourned the contested verdict, did not land the case and came defective in his reasoning corrupt in his inference, as he did not investigate the evidence of the crime or not, and violated the hard papers of the defendants' statements that they engage in prostitution with their consent and that the appellant did not force him or coerced to do so. The appellant called the absence of the elements of the crime of trafficking in human beings, while the defendants from the second to the fourth called on the contested judgment to violate the law, the error in its application and interpretation, the failure to cause and corruption in the inference, the violation of the hard papers and the breach of the right of defense.

In its ruling, the court indicated that it may take the confession of the accused in all stages of the case, even if it is later amended in reinforcing crimes, when he is assured of his health and is issued by a free and chosen conscious will, and to take the testimony of an accused against a defendant. Set out in the preliminary judgment when it is sufficient, adequate and sound and convinced by the Court of Appeal to refer it and make it grounds for its judgment.
In its ruling, the court pointed out that the ruling of the first degree "on the defendants from the second to the fourth", which supports the contested verdict for its reasons, showed the fact of the lawsuit, including all the legal elements of the offenses used to practice prostitution with men without discrimination and defamation of consent and improve the sin that was condemned and punished. The appellants shall be punished with a reinforcing penalty and cited their evidence against them as plausible evidence that would lead to what they had arranged, taking into account their acknowledgment of the evidentiary record and the investigations of the Public Prosecution and witnesses witnessed by the investigative personnel after taking the oath. Seventh, and thus become Tonhn on the basis of rejection is the subject is appointed.

During the hearing of the appeal filed by the first accused, the Court noted that it was reassured by the statements of the second and third defendants and their confessions of the Public Prosecution's investigation that the first defendant offered them to work in prostitution and prostitution in return for having prepared a shop that he had run himself and gives each amount of 40 dirhams for a meeting. Each of them with a man and was paid 100 dirhams in advance and that he used to exploit the accused sexually and incitement to prostitution and had been allocated separate rooms with curtains to receive the men inside, as witnessed by witnesses from the investigation and the implications of the Fetish of getting things and tools used in the sexual exploitation indicated by the first defendant to exploit housing in acts of prostitution.

The court pointed out that the crime of trafficking in human beings through exploitation in prostitution legally prescribed papers, including the records of investigations, seizures and searches where there is no certainty of evidence of the perpetrator of the crime of trafficking in human beings and the availability of a special criminal intent to prove, where the defendants admitted the appellants in all stages of the case They are engaging in prostitution with their consent and the appellant has not compelled them to do so.

The court rejected the appeals of the defendants from the second to the fourth and charged them with the legally due fees, and in the appeal filed by the first accused to overturn the partially contested verdict in the conviction of the appellant for the crime of trafficking in human beings, and to acquit the innocence thereof. The amount of five thousand dirhams of attorney fees for each of the attorneys assigned to him from the treasury of the Judicial Department.