He used an agency to withdraw the amount unlawfully

Obliging an embezzled employee to return 3 million dirhams to a company owner

The criminal court convicted the employee of breach of trust and embezzlement.

archival

The Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Cases obligated an employee convicted of embezzlement of three million and 44 thousand dirhams to refund the amount, and to pay the owner of the company 100 thousand dirhams in compensation.

In detail, the owner of a company filed a lawsuit against the company's agent and another employee, who demanded that they be obliged to jointly and jointly pay him three million and 44 thousand dirhams and the legal interest, and oblige them to pay him two million dirhams in compensation for the damages that befell him, indicating that he acted as an agency for the first defendant, except that he He took advantage of the power of attorney, and made a power of attorney for the second defendant, according to which they unlawfully withdrew sums of money from the company's account, and they were convicted under a criminal ruling.

The first defendant demanded that the lawsuit be dismissed, and decided that he did not have a check book, nor signature authorization, and that he had nothing to do with the lawsuit, because the problem occurred with the second defendant, and he did not have a name in the commercial license, and the judgment issued against him was acquitted, while the defendant did not appear The second.

In the merits of the ruling, the court stated that, according to the decision of the Civil Transactions Law: “It is not permissible for anyone to take the money of another without a legitimate reason. The court, that the employee embezzled three million and 44 thousand dirhams, and then the court is reassured of what was previously mentioned, and considers it sufficient evidence for conviction, and the criminal court decided that the accusation against the second defendant was proven, and that the incident constitutes a crime of breach of trust, embezzlement and waste of money.

The court indicated that the evidence in the case is the statements of the complainant, and the expert report prepared by the complaining company, which has nothing to do with computational expertise, and the court was not reassured by it, because it was contrary to the conclusion of the expertise delegated by the court, which did not prove the existence of the first defendant. By disposing of any amounts owned by the plaintiff, since he does not have the right to deal in that account, while the second defendant did not appear, and did not pay the lawsuit by paying or defending or submitting evidence that he paid this amount.

The court ruled obliging the second defendant to pay the plaintiff three million and 44 thousand dirhams and delayed interest at 5% annually from the date of the claim until full payment, while obligating him to pay 100 thousand dirhams in compensation for material and moral damages, and obliging him to pay the fees and expenses of the lawsuit.

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