The court decided to reduce a court ruling against a Gulf businessman, from a fine of 30,000 dirhams to a fine of 3,000 dirhams, on charges of giving three checks without balance in bad faith to his friend (his former partner), and the man did not surrender, and he insisted on appeal to his conviction that he was the right holder, and that he gave His partner paid all the sums due in the amount of 280 thousand dirhams, and he did not prepare the checks for his trust in his friend, and at the end of the judicial dispute, the Appeals Court ruled the eye in his favor, and acquitted him of the charge.
In detail, the Public Prosecution Office assigned Al Ain to an investor with the charge of giving three checks without a balance of 280 thousand dirhams, and referred him to the misdemeanor court, which ruled in absentia a fine of 30 thousand dirhams. AED.
However, the investor stuck to his right, and his agent, Advocate Mohamed Al-Awami Al-Mansouri, paid the court of appeal an acquittal of any sums in favor of the victim in the case, and submitted a detailed note of the mechanism of repaying the money owed to him by the latter.
The Court of Appeal reported on the merits of the judgment that the defendant attended the appeal hearing, admitted to signing the checks in question, handed them over to the victim, and submitted that he paid the checks.
She explained that the appellant and the victim have an old partnership relationship in the mobile phone trade, and the former remained reimbursed to the victim of the partnership profits, until they agreed to break it, provided that the investor returned the victim the original amount in installments.
According to the defense note, the accused committed to return the payments, but the victim did not return the checks and argued that they were lost, and then filed a lawsuit against him according to the checks that he claimed were lost.
The defense attorney for the accused confirmed that the latter returned part of the checks amounts through bank transfers directly to the victim’s account, returned other amounts in cash in the presence of witnesses, deposited money through the ATM machines, and asked his part to assign an expert to review the deposits made in the plaintiff’s account, and summon him to an alliance Right on the facts of the dispute, demanding the innocence of his client.
In the merits of the ruling, the court stated that it had seconded an expert to review the papers, and to determine whether the appellant paid the full value of the checks or not, indicating that the expert concluded that the total of checks was 280 thousand dirhams, and that the appellant paid the amount of 203 thousand and 500 dirhams, through Bank transfers, direct deposit and cash delivery.
The expert pointed out that there were cash deposits that appeared in the plaintiff’s account, amounting to 76 thousand and 500 dirhams, but the expert was unable to confirm the identity of the applicant, as he was unable to obtain his copy from the surveillance cameras at the ATM, due to the passage of 180 days after the deposit.
The court made it clear that during the time the case was reserved for the verdict, the victim requested that she be sent back for pleading, but the court dismissed his request, because he is not a party to the lawsuit, since he did not file an appeal against the preliminary ruling.
The court clarified that the basis for criminal trials is the judge’s conviction based on the evidence presented to him, and there is no requirement for conclusive evidence in every part of the case, noting that the total amount confirmed by the expert is 203 thousand and 500 dirhams, while confirming that there is an amount of 76 thousand and 500 dirhams , It was deposited in the plaintiff’s account from an ATM, and he could not prove that the appellant was the one who deposited it, and given that this amount is equal to the remaining amount of the total value of checks 280 thousand dirhams, the failure to see the cameras to verify the identity of the depositor does not mean The appellant deposited the amount, so the court is reassured that it was blocked D checks are complete, so I decided to cancel the ruling of the court of first instance, and ruled that the criminal case for payment be terminated.