In exchange for a false promise of marriage, a young man deceives a girl and seizes 540 thousand dirhams

Al Ain Court of First Instance ruled to oblige a young man to return to a girl the amount of 540,260 dirhams, who had deceived her with a false marriage promise, and claimed that he needed funds to establish a marital home, and the girl transferred the money to him in good faith, but he refused to return it.

A girl filed a lawsuit, in which she demanded that a young man and a girl be obligated to pay her in solidarity and solidarity an amount of 848 thousand and 222 dirhams with a delayed interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the judicial claim until full payment with an obligation to jointly and severally compensate her in the amount of 100,000 dirhams for material damages And the literary one that followed her, indicating that she had a friendly relationship with the first defendant, and he deluded her of his desire to be associated with her, and persuaded her to lend him some money to prepare the marital home, and accordingly, over the course of 6 years, she transferred sums of money to him as a loan, and the total value of the remittances amounted to Banking through money exchange amounted to 98 thousand and 160 dirhams, and the total bank transfers from her bank account to the defendant’s account amounted to 82 thousand and 100 dirhams.

The plaintiff indicated that the defendant defrauded her after deluding her of his ability to sell the owned car, whose price is 652 thousand and 962 dirhams. They were transferred to them, and the first defendant submitted a memorandum of request at the conclusion of which the case was rejected, and the second defendant failed to appear and it was found that her announcement had been received.

During the consideration of the case, the judge decided to refer the case to the investigation to prove to the plaintiff that the defendants owed her the value of the transfers and what indicated that she had delivered the vehicle. Through the bank, in addition to the presence of audio recordings of the defendant acknowledging these amounts. Investigations showed that the defendant sold the car for 360,000 dirhams, and did not deliver the amount to the plaintiff, while the defendant insisted on denying all the allegations and requesting the rejection of the case.

The court decided to direct the complementary oath to the complainant, so I swore to her in the following form: “I swear by God Almighty that the sums transferred to the defendant’s account, totaling 180,260 dirhams, were for personal loan, and the amounts were not like gifts and gifts, and that he owed me the value of those transfers, and the defendant is He did not hand me the price of the vehicle that he sold, and God is a witness to what I say.)

For its part, the court clarified in the merits of its ruling, that the evidence from the papers is that the plaintiff demands the first defendant for the value of the bank transfers and the price of the car, and she maintained that the amounts transferred to his account were for a personal loan after he deluded her of his desire to be associated with them, and inferred that by submitting copies of the transfers Bank transfers, and a copy of a conversation via WhatsApp, and the plaintiff also brought two witnesses who confirmed that the first defendant was impersonating the plaintiff’s husband when he sold the car, and he wrote an acknowledgment in his handwriting that included receiving the check for the car on behalf of his wife.

The court confirmed the availability of evidence in the lawsuit that the plaintiff deserved the amount of 180,260 dirhams, the value of bank transfers and transfers, in addition to the amount of 360 thousand dirhams for the price of the vehicle, with a total of 540,260 dirhams, and the lawsuit within the limits of this amount is correct and fixed before the first defendant and the plaintiff must answer to her request and to judge her against the first defendant for the aforementioned amount.

The court rejected the plaintiff's request to obligate the second defendant to the amount of 15,000 dirhams of the value of the bank transfer, noting that the plaintiff is in charge of the legal burden of proof and did not provide evidence that the transfer was for a loan, especially since what she stuck to by submitting a bank statement stating the transfer is not It is considered sufficient evidence to prove the indebtedness, and it is not carried as an obligation, and therefore you have been unable to prove that the second defendant is owed to her by any amounts, which necessitates the rejection of the case against her.

Regarding the request for compensation in the amount of 100,000 dirhams, the court indicated that the mistake of the first defendant was proven by his unlawfully seizing the amount owned by the plaintiff and not fulfilling his promise to her, and she was harmed in the form of lost earnings and losses due to her not benefiting from the mentioned amount. And then the court estimated the compensation due to it at the amount of 40 thousand dirhams, noting that the complainant did not provide evidence that the defendant was preoccupied with the amount of 15 thousand dirhams. and dismissing the case against the second defendant.

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