Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation has upheld a one-month jail sentence for the owner of an Arab company after he was found guilty of embezzling 55,000 dirhams from a Gulf Arab woman after she was accused of taking part in a project to buy and rent cars, and refused to return the money. .
The Public Prosecutor has charged two defendants with wasting a cash amount owned by the victim and handed over to them for use in a specific order for the benefit of the owner, which is to terminate the proceedings of a business, for embezzling themselves to harm the victim, and requested that they be punished according to the articles of the Federal Penal Code.
The details of the case are due to the victim (Gulf) filing a complaint against the defendants, because they are the illusions of a project to buy and rent cars in the state, and transferred to the account of the second defendant 55 thousand dirhams through one of the banks operating in the state, and after receiving the amount closed their phone and refused to communicate with them, and decided to The first defendant was working with her as a driver, and she had nothing to do with the second, and that she knew him through the first defendant, and that the complainant against them did not buy cars for the project, nor returned her money, and that the second defendant who told her about the project and convinced her.
The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance acquitted the two defendants of the charges against them, rejected the civil lawsuit and obliged the plaintiff to pay the expenses. The Public Prosecution appealed the verdict. Convicted and punished by imprisonment for a month for what was attributed to him, and obliged judicial expenses, and refused to appeal and uphold the appealed verdict on the innocence of the first accused, and the second accused appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and filed a memorandum containing the reasons for the appeal, The Court of Cassation issued a memorandum of opinion, which ended in rejecting the appeal.
The appellant mourned the contested verdict that he was deficient in causation, corruption in inference, and error in the application of the law, for the absence of the elements of the crime he condemned. It describes the crime, which is in fact a conflict and a purely civil relationship, which is flawed and requires revocation.
The Court of Cassation, in its ruling, pointed out that the understanding of the reality in the case and the assessment of its evidence from the authority of the trial court, as long as it did not rely on an incident without support, and established its judgments on the grounds just enough to carry it, which is not obliged to track the adversaries in their various statements, arguments and requests, and respond independently to Any statement or argument or request raised by it, and may take the words of the victim at any stage of the proceedings, in the field of proving the crimes of the reinforcements and to take the rest assured.
The court clarified that the contested verdict contains the legal elements of the crime for which the appellant was convicted. The account of his company, and the evidence of the experience report and the acknowledgment of the accused to receive the amount in the account of his company, which is authorized by the original owner to manage its affairs and accounts, and has full authority in this, and he refused to re-complete the project under false pretexts, and refused to return the amount to the victim, confirming his intention to Esti The court ruled that the appeal should be rejected and the appellant obliged to pay the due fee and refund the security deposit.
The victim decided that the first defendant was working with her as a driver, and had nothing to do with the second.