Dubai Criminal Court acquitted the accused for not being satisfied with the evidence

An Arab accuses his partner of embezzling 6 million dirhams

• Dubai Criminal Court based its ruling on the report of the delegated expert.

  archival

• Mohammed Al-Awami.

  From the source

picture

A partnership between two friends from an Arab country ended in the courtyard of the Criminal Court in Dubai, after one of them accused the other of embezzling six million and 255,000 dirhams belonging to a heavy equipment company they share. from the plaintiff.

In detail, the Dubai Criminal Court has started the trial of an (Arab) businessman who was accused by his partner of the same nationality of embezzling six million and 255,000 dirhams from the company's account.

The prosecutor said in the investigations of the Public Prosecution that he and the accused are partners in a heavy equipment and spare parts company, and that his friend manages the company’s accounts, and that he took advantage of that and seized an amount for himself by withdrawing cash payments, or using money in purchases for his personal benefit using the direct debit card in his possession, as well. He was making bank transfers through the electronic transfer service from the company's account to personal accounts in different banks within the country, in addition to issuing checks in his favor.

In his testimony, the plaintiff relied on the report of an accounting expert who had summoned him to audit his partner's business, and concluded that he had seized the amounts deposited in the company's bank account.

By questioning the defendant in the investigations of the Public Prosecution, he denied the accusation, denying that he had embezzled any money belonging to the company, pointing out that everything stated in the accounting report was incorrect.

He said that he founded the company in 2015 and the plaintiff joined him two years after the establishment of the company, and they agreed to appoint an accounting audit office to resolve any financial alliances between them, and to audit the sums of money that the complainant received from the company and did not acknowledge, and he evaded attending the auditor’s meetings.

He added that the plaintiff withdrew money from the company's account and used it to establish two other companies, and also seized an amount of 600,000 dirhams given to him by an investor who wanted to enter as a third partner, and he refused to return it to him.

While lawyer Muhammad Al-Awami Al-Mansoori, the legal representative of the defendant, stated that there were financial disputes between the two partners, which prompted his client to file a civil claim against the complainant, and the court decided to assign an accounting expert to look into the papers submitted by both parties.

After examining the case, the court found that the accusations against the accused were not worthy of reassurance and did not rise to the rank of evidence considered in the conviction, pointing out that it is sufficient for the trial court to question the validity of attributing the accusation to the accused in order to rule his innocence.

And she explained in the merits of the ruling, that the case papers were devoid of any evidence that would reach the conviction of the court to the level of certainty and certainty, as the accusation against him came from the beginning and throughout the stages of the case based on statements sent aggregate and unknown, and what was mentioned in the accounting report that the complainant used is what is Except for a repetition of the latter's statements, which was refuted by the delegated expert's report, which the court reassured and turned to with regard to the accusations leveled.

She pointed out that both the plaintiff and the accused are authorized to deal with the company's bank accounts, and in the absence of accounting records for it, the experience cannot show the validity of the claim or not.

It stated that the accused submitted some documents related to the disbursement of the amounts in question and in light of the absence of accounting records, the experience cannot show the validity of the claim, and accordingly the court ruled that the accused was acquitted and referred the civil case to the competent court.

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