She claimed to have been recruited and hired before she fled... and the "court" rejects the case

A businesswoman registers a company in the name of an employee and accuses her of embezzling 14 million dirhams

The Court considered the case without the presence of the defendant or her legal representative.

archival

An Asian woman paid the price for her attempt to manipulate corporate licensing systems, and accused an employee of her of seizing 14 million dirhams from the account of a company she established and registered in the name of that employee, who was receiving a salary of 2500 dirhams per month, before turning into a company owner, and seizing those funds - according to what he said. The plaintiff - who filed a civil case with the Dubai Courts, but the court rejected her claim, and imposed on her the fees and expenses.

In detail, an Asian businesswoman filed a civil lawsuit in which she demanded that an employee of hers pay an amount of 14 million dirhams with a legal interest of 5% from the due date, on the basis of saying that the defendant was working for the plaintiff for a monthly salary of 1500 dirhams, after she paid her estimated costs of residence. In the amount of 12 thousand dirhams, and fixing it on the guarantee of one of the companies owned by the plaintiff’s friend as a second party.

The plaintiff indicated that according to an agreement, she decided to register one of her companies in the name of the defendant employee, without charging any government fees, and that it be fictitiously added to the license, while the real ownership of the plaintiff remained.

The terms of the agreement included that all the money in the bank account be in the name of the company, and the defendant is not allowed to see the company’s accounts, and it is not entitled to apply for amounts or credit cards in the name of the company.

Last January, the businesswoman had to travel to her home country, and assigned her brother to run the company’s business until her return, but the defendant went to the bank during the plaintiff’s travel, and transferred 14 million dirhams from the company’s account to her personal account, in the form of bank transfers and bank checks. Without a face, the documents and documents that indicate this were erased from the computer, with the participation of another person, and they fled, which prompted the plaintiff to file the lawsuit, and attached a copy of the agreement in addition to pictures of bank statements, checks and transfers, and pictures of correspondence via the “WhatsApp” application.

For its part, the court considered the case without the presence of the defendant or her legal representative, and decided to reserve it for judgment, noting that it is scheduled to judge that the plaintiff is charged with proving his claim.

She explained in the rationale for her ruling that the evidence from the papers that the lawsuit was filed based on an agreement between two companies affiliated with the plaintiff as a party, and the defendant as a second party, stipulates that the latter is not allowed to view withdrawals from the company’s bank accounts, and that the defendant breached its obligations, and transferred the amount from the company’s account , then ran away.

The court indicated that it is established that the plaintiff’s statements were sent and vague and not supported by any evidence to prove its seriousness, especially since the account statements and checks are unknown source, return or content, and the exchanged conversations between the two parties do not prove what the plaintiff claims, which confirms to the court that the lawsuit Another fact that the papers did not disclose, and that the plaintiff was not successful in presenting and presenting evidence and data to prove her claim, and in light of the fact that the court is not charged with directing the litigants to the requirements of their defense, it evaluates its judgment based on the documents submitted to it.

The court concluded that the case was instituted without a valid basis from fact and law, and decided to reject the case, and obligated the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.

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