The Federal Supreme Court rejected a defendant's appeal against an appeals judgment, which he sentenced to punish him with another, by promoting counterfeit currencies, rejecting his defense that his statements in the records of inference and the Public Prosecution were taken without a legal translator.

In the details, the Public Prosecution referred two defendants to trial, on charges of promoting counterfeit money in the state, and that they themselves entered the counterfeit currency with the intention of offering it for circulation with their knowledge of counterfeiting.

The Public Prosecution charged the third suspect with a third charge, which is the seizure of 4010 dirhams owned by an exchange house, using a fraudulent method by giving the store employee fake coins to exchange them for correct currencies in the UAE currency, and was able to obtain the amount and deceive the victim.

The Court of Appeal ruled to imprison the first accused for a period of three years and fined him 200 thousand dirhams, and to imprison the second six months, and to fine him 200 thousand dirhams from what was assigned to them, and to deport them from the state after carrying out the punishment and confiscating the seized counterfeit currencies, and by obliging them with judicial expenses.

The Federal Supreme Court rejected the first accused's appeal against the verdict, that his statements were taken without a legal interpreter, and he is not fluent in the Arabic language and no translator has been provided who speaks his language, which nullifies his confessions.

The court said in the merits of its ruling, that the invalidity of the trial procedures for the absence of an interpreter is one of the mixed legal defenses in the reality, so it is not permissible to raise it before this court for the first time unless it was submitted to the trial court, noting that the constant of the appeals judgment that the accused did not raise This payment before the trial court, as it is unacceptable as a new reason related to a reality that was not previously presented to the trial court, and therefore it is not permissible to raise it before this court.

She supported the findings of the appeal judgment, as she stated that he had taken note of the facts of the case and its implications, including all the legal elements of the crimes of which the accused was convicted, and provided evidence that he had valid evidence that would lead to what was ordered by the judgment.

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news