File a claim for refund based on a bank transfer

An Asian accuses his friend of seizing 1.8 million dirhams in a fake investment

An Asian investor accused his friend of defrauding him, and seizing the amount of one million and 881 thousand dirhams, in the form of a bank transfer, after he persuaded him to buy an apartment under construction in Dubai. A fictitious investment, which prompted him to file a lawsuit before the Civil Court in Dubai, demanding payment of the amount, and the court rejected the lawsuit, stressing that the bank transfer is not a document that proves the right through it.

In detail, (Asian) filed a lawsuit before the Civil Court in Dubai, asking to obligate the defendant to pay him the amount of one million and 881 thousand dirhams, with obligating him to pay fees, expenses and attorney fees, on the basis of saying that the defendant deceived him to buy a property in the Emirate of Dubai to invest his money.

The plaintiff said that due to the existence of a friendship between them, he was convinced by his words and made a bank transfer for his benefit from his bank account, amounting to one million and 881 thousand dirhams, in exchange for a real estate investment consisting of an apartment under construction.

He added that he asked the defendant for more details about the project and the date of delivery of the housing unit, but the latter gave unconvincing justifications, and despite his repeated demands to pay the amount, he kept evading it, which prompted him to file the lawsuit.

The plaintiff submitted to the court documents containing a sample of the bank transfer issued by his own bank for the benefit of his friend, while the defendant’s lawyer requested the court not to accept the case, because the latter did not provide a support for his claim or provide evidence of the validity of its occurrence.

For its part, the court proceeded to consider the case, and it was proven to it, by examining the papers and documents, that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the existence of an investment contract concluded between him and the defendant, except through a bank transfer that does not have a document through which he proves his right to the amount claimed.

The esteemed court confirmed that the origin of the bank transfer is nothing but proof of acquittal of the litigants to the requirements of their defence, the matter with which the case is filed without a basis from reality and the law, and it must be rejected, and it ruled in my presence, and obligated the plaintiff to pay fees, expenses and attorney fees.

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