Abu Dhabi Cassation Upholds the Appeal Judgment
A fine of 3 million dirhams for a company that hires 60 workers without its sponsorship
The prosecution assigned the company to employ workers without adhering to the conditions and demanded that it be punished by the Federal Penal Code. Archives
The Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi upheld an appeals ruling that imposed a fine of three million dirhams for a company for employing 60 workers without its sponsorship, without adhering to the terms and conditions established for the transfer of sponsorship.
The details of the case indicate that the Public Prosecution office assigned to the company accused of employing workers without its guarantee without adhering to the terms and conditions established for the transfer of bail, and demanded that it be punished according to the articles of the Federal Penal Code.
The Court of First Instance ruled that the appellant company fined it three million dirhams for the charge against it and obligated it to pay the due fee, so it appealed the judgment, and the Court of Appeal decided to accept the appeal formally, and on the matter to reject it, uphold the appealed judgment, and oblige the appellant to pay the due fee.
The judgment was not accepted by the accused company, so it challenged it by way of cassation, and indicated in its appeal that the judgment issued against it was tainted by failure to cause and a breach of the right of defense, and that it was formulated in general terms that are outlined and vague, and it did not indicate the evidence on which the conviction relied and its performance. It is noteworthy that it has no criminal intent, despite the absence of the elements of the crime, which defects the judgment and necessitates its revocation, while the prosecution deposited a memorandum, at its conclusion it decided to revoke the contested judgment.
The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, explaining that the law did not draw a special form or pattern in which the judgment states the statement of the incident that deserves the punishment and the circumstances in which it occurred, and that whether or not the criminal intent was established is one of the substantive issues on which the trial judge is independent, and it is not necessary to speak about it independently, as long as the facts are Cited by the court stating its availability.
She indicated that what the appellant raises about the absence of the elements of the crime, the absence of the status of the employer from him, and the absence of the papers from certain evidence before him from the objective aspects of defense that do not deserve a response, as long as the response to it is based on the evidences mentioned by the judgment.
The court affirmed that the crime of employing a foreigner on the sponsorship of others stipulated is based when a person uses a foreigner without his sponsorship without adhering to the conditions and conditions established for the transfer of sponsorship, and the term “foreigner employment received” was absolute without specifying the type of work or its duration, and the divorced person proceeded to release it.
It indicated that it is not permissible to hire a foreigner who works on sponsorship of others except by fulfilling the legal conditions for transferring sponsorship, and it does not preclude that the work performed by the foreigner is by choice or experience, or that the employer has gone through the procedures for transferring sponsorship, but rather it must be fulfilled. All the legal conditions and procedures for transferring the bail before employing the foreigner who works under the sponsorship of others, and that the company is the one who contracted with the other defendants while they are not on its guarantee.
She explained that what the appellant raises regarding the absence of the seizure reports from the place of seizure, and the situation in which the accused violators were in the event of their arrest, and the translator's signature on the record of collecting inference is a regulatory action when the purpose of it is achieved, then what the appellant raises regarding all of this will be incorrect.
- It is not permissible to employ a foreigner who works to sponsor others on the basis of experience, except after fulfilling the conditions.