“Dubai Court” obliged the bank and the accused to pay the amount

A woman and a man transfer 1.9 million dirhams from a company account with forged documents

The Dubai Court of First Instance ruled to compel one of the banks, and other defendants (a man and a woman), to jointly pay an amount of one million and 925,000 dirhams, which was seized from a company account through two forged transfer requests, which the two accused (the man and the woman) used to deceive the bank and withdraw the amount from it, and I supported it Court of Appeal that the bank bears responsibility for default and breach of its contractual obligation to protect the victim's company funds.

In detail, the company (the victim) filed a civil lawsuit on the basis of saying that it was subjected to a fraud and theft of its money, as it discovered the transfer of one million and 925,000 dirhams from its account with the bank (the defendant) to an account in another bank, so it reported the incident to Dubai Police.

By investigating the report, it was found that a woman and a man (the defendants) forged two transfer requests bearing the name of the company, and took them to the bank, and succeeded in transferring the amount of one million and 160 thousand dirhams, in one payment, and 765 thousand dirhams based on another forged request, to a return account. The woman then transferred 350,000 dirhams to the account of the other accused in a third bank.

The Public Prosecution referred the accused (the man and the woman) to the Criminal Court in the penal section, and the court ruled that they be imprisoned and deported, and later fined them the amount seized.

Accordingly, the victim company filed a civil lawsuit, in which it demanded that the bank be included in the list of plaintiffs, and demanded that it, along with the other defendants, return the seized amount, and a solidarity compensation of one million and 500 thousand dirhams for the period during which its funds were embezzled, and its inability to benefit from it in its commercial business. Relying on that, the mistake attributed to the bank is its failure to verify the authenticity of the signature on the two transfer requests, so it will be responsible for the damage incurred.

After considering the case by the civil court of first degree, it ruled obligating the bank and the other defendants to pay an amount of one million and 925 thousand dirhams, in addition to compensation of 100 thousand dirhams for the plaintiff company, and interest at the rate of 5% from the date of the debt claimant and the judgment becoming final, and the court of first degree rejected the lawsuit Subsidiary submitted by the defendant bank, to hold the bank to which the money was transferred part of the responsibility.

The judgment of the first degree was not accepted by the defendant bank, so he appealed against it before the Court of Appeal, demanding its cancellation, rejecting the case, and appointing him a banking experience to examine the request to enter the bank to which the funds were transferred to clarify its fate, indicating in his appeal that the judgment was flawed in causation, Corruption in the inference, to oblige him to pay the amount jointly with the other defendants, even though his responsibility for the transaction was not proven, and the amount of compensation awarded to the victim company was refused, because the damage was not proven.

While the victim company, in turn, appealed against the ruling of the first degree, demanding a ruling for the amount of compensation that it demanded, because the amount that the court ruled was not commensurate with the amount of damages it suffered due to the embezzlement of funds from its account.

After considering the appeals, the Court of Appeal ended in rejecting the plaintiff’s request to stop the case, confirming that the initial ruling coincided with the correctness of the law and proven in the papers about the bank’s responsibility for the plaintiff company’s request to return the amount transferred from its account, as it breached its contractual obligation to protect its funds deposited with it, for lack of certainty. From the authenticity of the signature attributed to her on the two transfer requests, despite the fact that the transferred amount is not small, so she supports the obligation of the defendant bank and the other defendants to jointly pay the amount.

Regarding the victim’s company’s challenge to the small amount of compensation decided by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeals held that the damage was fixed because the money exited the bank by forgery, but it supports the amount decided by the Court of First Instance.

• The Criminal Court convicted the man and the woman in the penal section, and decided to imprison them and deport them from the state.

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