A bank employee fraudulently seized the balance

Dubai discrimination requires a bank to return 5.5 million dirhams to a customer

  • Muhammad Al-Awami: “Had it not been for the employee's work in the bank, he would not have been able to commit his crime.”

picture

The Dubai Court of Cassation closed the case on the seizure of an amount of 4.9 million dirhams from a (Gulf) client's account, and upheld a ruling by the Commercial Court of First Instance obliging the bank to return the amount of 5.5 million dirhams, in proportion to the original amount that was embezzled by a bank employee, in conjunction with another defendant in a manner. Fraudulent, in addition to compensating the victim for the period he was deprived of his money, as well as obliging the bank and the accused to pay fees and expenses.

The Public Prosecution investigations revealed that the plaintiff opened an account with the bank in 2015 and deposited four million and 916 thousand dirhams with it for the purpose of real estate investment, then his project was stopped, leaving the amount in his account, and with the passage of time the account was frozen, according to the usual banking procedures for dormant accounts that do not It conducts activities or transactions for specific periods, and after about two years the customer went to the bank to withdraw cash, but he was surprised that his balance was zero, and that someone had seized the money.

The investigations reported that a customer service employee was behind the money seizure incident, as he requested the client's file without reason from the competent employee, and took pictures 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 with him, so the manager requested an attempt to dissuade him from that However, the accused confirmed the victim's insistence not to reside in the country, then he brought the required documents, and the request was transferred to the relevant department to reactivate the account, along with a disbursement form, but note that there is only a copy of the identity card only, and it is not indicated that it is true copy.

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

The investigations showed that the bank employee used the second defendant (African), who resembles the bank's customer in color, to play the role of the victim, and he came to the bank and obtained the money.

Based on internal investigations, the bank wrote a communication against the employee and the second accused, and they were referred to the Public Prosecution, and from there to the Criminal Court, which sentenced them to three years in prison.

And based on the judgment of the criminal court, the customer who owns the account filed a civil lawsuit, demanding the bank to compensate him for the damage he suffered, especially since the first accused is a bank employee, and three defendants (the bank, the employee, and the second defendant) were identified in the case.

The bank appealed the first instance ruling before the Court of Appeal, but the latter supported it with reducing the sentenced amount to five million and 115 thousand dirhams, so it appealed to the Court of Cassation that upheld the primary judgment, and the compensation amount was returned to 5.5 million dirhams, as a legal benefit estimated at 12% on the amount from The date the account was opened until the payment is completed.

The attorney for the plaintiff’s right in the case, lawyer Muhammad al-Awami al-Mansoori, said in the lawsuit’s statement that “the criminal court ruled to convict the bank employee, after it was certain that he had committed the crime, for having obtained without reason the customer’s data and a copy of his card,” affirming that he used his job and work with The bank is in seizing the client’s money, and had it not been for his work 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 it is trusted with the plaintiff’s money.

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