A couple acquitted of fraudulent AED 8 million seizure charge

Ajman Misdemeanor Court acquitted two (Arab) couples of fraud and seizing eight million dirhams, for lack of sufficient evidence, as the victim had accused them of defrauding him and signing one complaint, worth three million dirhams, and another five million dirhams, to buy a cement factory.

The details of the incident came when a report was received from the victim stating that a man and his wife (Arabs) accused him of the existence of a cement factory offered for sale for an amount of eight million dirhams, and after his conviction in the deal, he wrote two checks for the amount, pointing out that the two spouses had opened a report against him because there was no sufficient balance to cash the checks. To open a report against them of fraud.

The court heard the statements of the victim, who confirmed that he had known the first accused in 2019, and deluded him that he worked for the owner of a well-known cement factory in one of the Emirates, and told him that he was a broker to sell the factory, and he asked him to write checks without a date in his name as a guarantee, indicating that after a short period of time He was surprised by a call by the police informing him that the accused’s attorney had opened a report against him with two checks and demanded their value.

He added that he opened a complaint against them and told the police the true story behind the checks, pointing out that the wife of the first accused submitted the report with the two checks at his agency.

The court confronted the two spouses with the charges against them, so they denied the accusation, and the first accused confirmed that he had a court ruling against the complainant to issue checks without balance, and the court of appeal confirmed him, while the second defendant confirmed that she had no knowledge of the subject matter of the case except that she had an agency to file a case against the complainant in order not to Paying checks due to lack of balance in his bank account.

The court held that the subject matter of the invitation created a shadow of suspicion in the mind of the court that these facts do not smell of the elements of a criminal case, and that the purpose of the order is that the complainant handed the defendant checks and the accused could not cash them due to the lack of sufficient balance, and the complainant was tried according to the judgments issued and presented by him. Defense, and if there is a dispute regarding the eligibility of the complainant in the factory, it is considered a commercial relationship based on commitment between the two parties and governed by the terms of the contract and points that have been agreed upon, and there is one of the parties violating his obligation towards the other and this obligation is decided by the civil court with the original jurisdiction.

She added that the defendant did not prove any role except that she was the attorney of the first accused in facing the complainant, who was convicted by checks under her agency, and the case was devoid of certain evidence that the two defendants had committed the accusation against them, which made the court rule on their innocence of the charges against them.

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