The court was not satisfied with the conviction of the second accused and overturned the judgment of the first instance
The "appeal" condemns an accountant for embezzlement of 463 thousand dirhams and acquits his manager
Muhammad Al-Awami: "The communication against the second accused was based on statements sent that were not based on any evidence."
picture
The Dubai Court of Appeal upheld a ruling by a court of first instance convicting and imprisoning an (Asian) accountant for a period of three months, followed by deportation on charges of embezzlement over a period of nearly a year and a half, and the Court of Appeal decided to fine him 463 thousand and 473 dirhams for the value of the money accused of embezzlement, and at the same time revoked Judging by another accused in the same case, he was the defendant's manager, and he was acquitted of the embezzlement charge.
In detail, the Dubai Public Prosecution referred two defendants: the first (Asian) accountant, and the second (Arab) director, to the Criminal Court, on charges of embezzlement of 463 thousand and 473 dirhams, over a period of nearly a year and a half, indicating that the defendants betrayed the trust granted to them. The first collected the proceeds of the daily sales of the institution in which he worked, and instead of depositing the entire proceeds in the bank account of the institution, he embezzled part of it over a period of several months, and the second accused covered it up.
The owner of the victim institution said in the investigations of the Public Prosecution that one of the tasks of the first accused is to receive daily revenues from the cashier's employees, then he checks them and then sends them, accompanied by a delegate to the bank, and subsequently prepares a report and delivers it to the second accused charged with auditing those reports and comparing them with the invoices. Issued by the cashier employee, pointing out that the manager began to procrastinate in preparing the reports required of him about the performance of accountants, to cover up the first accused, then he submitted his resignation from the institution but his request was rejected until the audit of the financial revenues was completed, so he resorted to filing a labor lawsuit and the judgment was in his favor His involvement in the embezzlement of the Foundation's funds was later discovered in collusion with the first accused.
A witness from Dubai Police stated that the accused admitted to him that he embezzled sums of money from the institution and used the money that he embezzled in his personal expenses, but he did not know anything about the money embezzled by his manager, and the accused repeated his confessions before the Public Prosecution, but he denied them later during his trial, while the second accused did not represent (Director) before the court of first instance.
Based on the above, the Dubai Criminal Court ruled to imprison the accused for three months, followed by deportation from the state, but the Public Prosecution appealed before the Appeal Court to neglect the first ruling to fine the defendants of the value of the money accused of embezzlement, while the two defendants appealed against the verdict, demanding innocence.
The defense attorney for the second accused "director", lawyer Muhammad Al-Awami Al-Mansouri, sought the innocence of his client, basing his defense on the absence of elements of the crime of embezzlement as proof of his failure to receive or possess him or his responsibility to receive any money in the interest of the victim institution, according to the evidence of the experience report.
He emphasized that despite the confirmation of the experience report that his client did not receive any money from the institution or from the first accused, the expert made mistakes, including the indication that his client, the second accused, assumed duties related to the administration, which is incorrect, because he was not at any time a director or assistant to the director Or he has any tasks related to preparing accounting reports, and that the complaint subject of the lawsuit is nothing but a malicious report according to sent statements that are not based on any evidence.
After examining the appeals, the Court of Appeal reassured that the second defendant had not embezzled any money during his tenure with the victim institution, so the first instance court overturned the judgment and ruled his innocence of the charges against him, confirming that the case papers were devoid of any evidence proving his guilt except the statements of the owner of the institution and the testimonies of Others do not reassure the court.
Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news