“Dubai Appeal” upheld the detention of the accused and a fine of 350,000 dirhams

A fraudster seizes a luxury car with a "fake" check

The accused used an old method to defraud the owner of the vehicle.

archival

The Dubai Court of Appeal upheld a verdict of the Criminal Court, of six months in prison and a fine of 350,000 dirhams, against a convict of fraud, using a method that spread earlier, which is to hunt those wishing to sell their vehicles through e-marketing sites, and lure them for a profitable return, then give them a check. fictitious” in exchange for transferring the ownership of the car in the name of the fraudster or one of his assistants, then later discovering that he had fallen victim to fraud.

According to the case papers, the incident occurred in 2018, and was finally judged, when the accused managed to seize a luxury Mercedes S63 car, worth 350,000 dirhams, owned by an (Arab) person, in a fraudulent manner.

The investigations of the Public Prosecution revealed that the accused communicated with the victim through the number he put last in the advertisement he published for the car, and claimed that he owns a car rental office, and wants to buy the vehicle to be used for this purpose, and he has the financial mantle and sufficient liquidity to buy it, and they agreed on a specific date for the implementation of the sale, Transfer of vehicle ownership.

On the appointed time, a person who claimed to be the accused’s brother came to him, and gave the victim a check issued in the name of the rental office for the value of the car, and he agreed to transfer its ownership in his name, relying on his trust in the accused, who claimed to be a business owner, and handed him the car, hoping to cash the check when it was opened. The bank, but later was shocked that there was not enough balance in the account on which the check was credited, and realized that he had fallen victim to fraud.

By asking the accused in the seizure report and the Public Prosecution’s investigations, he denied the accusation against him, and stated that he had bought the vehicle from the victim, and gave him a security check worth 350,000 dirhams, and informed him that his account was closed, and the amount would be paid to him in cash after a week, but the owner of the car issued a report against him after Two days after the sale.

The defendant's statements were contradicted in a later confession, as he stated that he wrote the check on the case document, but it was not cashed because the numbers differed from the letters in its value, and that he did so by mistake, and that he sold the seized vehicle to another person.

After months of investigation and consideration of the case, the misdemeanor court ruled in the first instance of litigation that the accused be imprisoned for three months, and a fine of 350,000 dirhams, the value of the seized car.

In its rationale, the court stated that the crime of fraud in accordance with Article 399 of the Penal Code requires that there be fraud committed by the accused against the victim with the intention of deceiving him and seizing his money, using fraudulent methods or taking a false name or an incorrect capacity, or by disposing of the money of others who He cannot dispose of it, as it is decided in the Court of Cassation that the assessment of facts and evidence, and the availability of the elements of the crime attributed to the accused are from the authority of the trial court.

The court confirmed that it was satisfied with the defendant's intentionality and intention to seize the victim's money.

The Court of Appeal stated that the first instance judgment adequately covered the case with all the legal elements of the crime ascribed to the accused, and stated that it was true to prove evidence derived from what it was reassured of from the statements of the victim, and what was proven from his knowledge of the photocopy of the check, and what the accused decided, and it ended with Rejection of the appeal and upholding the initial ruling.

It is noteworthy that this criminal method spread in the year in which this crime occurred, and its perpetrators took advantage of legal loopholes, but the concerned security and judicial authorities noticed it, and got the accused.

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