Dubai Criminal Court sentenced him to 6 months in prison, a fine and deportation

A worker impersonates an “engineer” and seizes 56 thousand dirhams from a bank

An Asian worker impersonated an engineer in one of the major institutions, submitted forged documents and a salary certificate to an international bank, according to which he obtained a credit card and withdrew from it an amount of 56 thousand and 500 dirhams, before he was arrested with another accused of complicity, and he was referred to the Public Prosecution and from there to the Criminal Court, which It ruled to imprison the worker for six months, a fine of 56 thousand and 500 dirhams, and deportation on charges of committing a felony of forgery in an official document and its use, and a misdemeanor of fraud to seize the money of others, while it acquitted the second accused.

The (Arab) director of the bank said in the investigations of the Public Prosecution, that one of the accused had applied to open a personal account and obtain a credit card, and by checking the documents he submitted, it was found that the salary certificate attributed to a well-known institution was incorrect, as this institution was addressed and confirmed that it is not from However, the account was opened and the card issued, and an amount of 36,650 dirhams was withdrawn from the card, and 19,900 dirhams were overdrafted, in cooperation with another accused.

The accused worker was presented to the representative of the bank who conducted the transaction, and the latter recognized him, confirming that he had handed him the forged certificate.

For its part, the Public Prosecution appealed the acquittal ruling against the second defendant before the Court of Appeal, noting that the ruling did not examine the evidence in the case, although it leaves no room for doubt that he was involved in the crime with the first defendant, calling for the acquittal to be rescinded and the punishment to be tightened against him.

For its part, after examining the case, the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the first degree regarding the conviction of the first accused and the innocence of the second, stressing that it is sufficient for the court to question the attribution of the charge until it decides the innocence of the accused, in addition to that the statements of the first convicted accused were contradictory regarding the role of the second accused, stating that That he tried to implicate him and raises doubts about the sincerity of his statement.

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

Keywords: