Gold, perfume, shoes and cash
A fake engagement costs a young man 666 thousand dirhams of gifts
The Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims rejected a lawsuit filed by a young man who demanded that a woman and members of her family pay him an amount of 666 thousand and 819 dirhams, the value of gifts and cash money obtained by the first defendant after she and the rest of the defendants deluded him with the existence of a courtship project between them, and the court obligated the plaintiff with expenses.
In the details, a young man filed a lawsuit against a woman and 4 others of her relatives, in which he demanded to oblige the defendants to return him his money in kind, estimated at 431,484 dirhams or its value, and to oblige the defendants to pay the amounts transferred to them, amounting to 235 thousand and 335 dirhams, and obligate them to legal interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the claim until full payment, in addition to obligating the defendants to pay an amount of 500,000 dirhams in compensation to Jaber for material and moral damages, with the provision of the expedited enforcement ruling, and obligating the defendants to pay fees and expenses.
The plaintiff indicated that the first defendant had seized cash and a sample of it with the help of the defendants, after he was accused of a draft betrothal between them. He was charged with unlawful sums of money in the form of cash and in-kind, and it was later found to him that he had fallen prey for the purpose of seizing his money, which confirms that what he paid was not due.
He confirmed the existence of letters between them containing an explicit request from the defendant in the amount of 15,000 dirhams as a loan and advances, and he transferred an amount of 20,000 dirhams, and sums of money worth 25,000 dirhams to treat her mother and to change her car tires, and during that period he sent gifts in kind and cash to her, which caused him damage. materially and morally, pointing out that the second defendant was helping the first defendant to introduce fraud and deceit and make him believe that the betrothal project exists and that he has become a member of the family, and that the third defendant confirmed the engagement project, which encouraged him to send gifts to the first defendant.
He pointed out that the fourth defendant, "the brother-in-law of the first defendant", was constantly talking about the courtship project to complete the fraud, and that the fifth defendant was responsible for his transferring sums of money to the first defendant, which confirms her participation in the process of seizing his money. The plaintiff, the defendants from the second to the fourth, deliberately concealed that the first defendant had previously married and divorced, as she had previously engaged to another person and left him after seizing his money
. Between the plaintiff and the first defendant, an account statement from one of the banks in the country with the amounts transferred to it, in addition to a list of the purchases that the defendant received as gifts, while the plaintiff’s attorney decided that there were no witnesses for them and stuck to a request to delegate expertise.
For its part, the court clarified, in the merits of its ruling, that the plaintiff’s request to return the gifts in kind that the first defendant had received unjustly, and that she had seized them, so all of them were sent statements, as it was not proven to the court that the first defendant had seized them or had done things to seize those items presented. From the plaintiff, it was indicated that she received it as a gift, and the court referred the case for investigation to prove the facts of his claim and decided that there were no witnesses with whom the court believes that the items that were handed over to the first defendant were as gifts, especially since they are consumer gifts consisting of gold, perfume and shoes, and were presented with the intention of getting closer and courtship to The first defendant, and the court did not prove the fact of the seizure, and his statements were sent in this regard. Therefore, the plaintiff's request is unfounded, and the court decides to reject it.
She indicated that the plaintiff's request to obligate the defendants to pay the transferred amounts of 235 thousand and 335 dirhams, the decision according to the Federal Evidence Law is that the plaintiff must prove his right and the defendant has to deny it, pointing out that the origin of the reason for the bank transfer is the payment of the debt and that the burden of proof is contrary to this The presumption falls on the one who finds this presumption invalid, and the conversational messages submitted by the plaintiff that the court did not find out from it, except the transfer of funds to parties without explaining the reason, and his statements were sent about the reason for those transfers.
The court rejected the plaintiff's request for compensation for material and moral damages in the amount of 500,000 dirhams, as the court did not prove the fact of the seizure and the plaintiff's statements were sent in this regard, noting that with the collapse of the corner of the error, the rest of the pillars of responsibility collapse with him, and the court ruled to reject the case and obligated the plaintiff to pay the expenses.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news