Obligation of a bank to refund 4.9 million dirhams, which were stolen by an employee from a customer’s account

The Court of First Instance in Dubai ruled to oblige a local bank to return 4.9 million dirhams to a Gulf customer, whose account balance was completely seized by a bank employee, in association with another defendant fraudulently, and obliged the bank and the defendants to pay the fees and expenses.

Investigations of the Public Prosecution and case hearings revealed that the plaintiff opened an account with the bank in 2015, deposited four million and 916 thousand dirhams in it for the purpose of real estate investment, then stopped his project, leaving the amount in his account, and over time the account was frozen according to the usual banking procedures for dormant accounts that No activities or transactions are carried out for specific periods, and after about two years the customer went to the bank to withdraw the money, but he was surprised that his balance was zero, and that someone seized the money.

Investigations indicated that a customer service employee was behind the incident of seizing the funds, as he requested the customer’s file without reason from the competent employee, and copies of his personal identity, then went to the branch manager at the bank, and informed him that the customer wanted to close his account and withdraw the amount deposited in him, so the manager requested an attempt to dissuade him from that However, the defendant confirmed the victim’s insistence that he would not reside in the country, then brought the required documents, and the request was transferred to the relevant department to reactivate the account, with a disbursement form, but note that there is only a copy of the identity card only and is not indicated according to what it says is true .

The director of the branch said in the investigations of the Public Prosecution, “An argument occurred between the accused employee and his cashier's colleague at the bank, because the latter insisted on providing the original identity, but the accused told him that there was no need for that, because he saw the origin of the identity himself, and that the fake customer who came to withdraw the money, which is The second suspect in the case, was forced to give it to his wife, and the problem ended with the fraudulent employee signing the ID card, pledging that he had seen the original himself.

Investigations showed that the bank employee used the second accused, an African person who looked like a bank customer in color, to play the role of the victim, came to the bank and obtained the money.

According to internal investigations, the bank issued a report against its employee and the other accused, and was referred to the Public Prosecution and from there to the Criminal Court, which sentenced them to three years imprisonment.

According to the judgment of the criminal court, the client, the owner of the account, filed a civil lawsuit, asking the bank to compensate him for the damage he was subjected to, especially since the first defendant was an employee of the bank, and identified in the case three defendants, the bank, the employee, and the other defendant.

The bank tried to evade responsibility, indicating in a response note to the lawsuit that he took immediate action against the employee convicted of seizing the money of others, and the other accused, and a criminal sentence was issued against them, so the bank is not responsible for compensating the victim.

For his part, the defense attorney for the plaintiff’s right to the case, lawyer Mohamed Al-Awami Al-Mansoori, said in the lawsuit, that “the criminal court ruled to convict the bank employee, after realizing that he committed the crime, whether by obtaining without reason the customer’s data and a copy of his card”, confirming that he took advantage of his position And his work with the bank in the seizure of the client's money, and had it not been for him working in the bank he would not have been able to commit his crime, so the bank is obligated to return the amount, as long as he is entrusted with the plaintiff’s money.

After examining the case and reviewing all the documents, the Court of First Instance in Dubai ruled to require the bank to show solidarity and solidarity with the other defendants to return the amount to the plaintiff, while obliging them to pay the legal interest estimated at 12% of the amount from the date of opening the account until the full payment.