Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation has upheld a one-month prison sentence for the owner of an Arabi company after he was found guilty of embezzling 55,000 dirhams from a Gulf woman after she was accused of taking part in a project to buy and rent cars, and refused to return the money. Due.

The Public Prosecutor has charged the 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 enterprise, for embezzling themselves damages to 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's "Gulf" filing a complaint against the defendants as the illusions of a project to buy and rent cars in the country and that it will generate profits and transferred to the account of the second defendant amount of 55 thousand dirhams through one of the banks operating in the state, and after receiving the amount closed their phone and refused She decided that the first defendant was working as a driver and had nothing to do with the second and that she identified him through the first defendant and that the complainant did not buy cars for the project and refused to return her money and that the second defendant told her about the project and convinced her.

The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance acquitted the defendants of the charges against them, rejected the civil lawsuit and obliged them to pay their expenses. The Public Prosecution appealed the verdict, and the Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal ruled in its presence to accept the appeal in form. Imprisonment for a month for the charges attributed to him, compulsory judicial expenses, refusal of appeal and confirmation of the appealed judgment in the acquittal of the accused against the first, the second accused appealed against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and filed a memorandum containing the reasons for the appeal The cassation memo concluded with the opinion at the end of the rejection of the appeal.

In its ruling, the Court of Cassation indicated that the contested verdict had all the legal elements of the crime for which the accused “convicted” had been convicted, and stated that it had proven his prima facie evidence in the papers, on the basis of the victim's statement that it had transferred and handed over to the accused the amount of the charge. Reinforcing her statements in the form of transferring the amount to his company's account and what is proved by the experience report and the defendant's acknowledgment of receiving the amount in his company's account, which, under the authorization of the original owner, manages its affairs and accounts and has full authority in that and he refused to re-complete the project under false pretexts and refused to return the amount to the victim including He confirmed his intention to seize him, and the court ruled that the appeal was rejected and the appellant was obliged to pay the due fee and refund the security deposit.