The Dubai Court of Appeal upheld a ruling by a court of first instance that acquitted an Asian person of the charge of seizing a luxury car owned by his friend and selling it to another person, due to weak evidence. The Public Prosecution charged him with disposing of movable property, which was a vehicle worth 440 thousand dirhams, by transferring its possession to Himself, then selling it to another despite knowing that it does not belong to him.
It was proven in the police evidence report that the victim reported that he was subjected to fraud by seizing someone else’s money by his friend, as the accused contacted him and asked him to buy his “Porsche Carrera” vehicle, since he owns a showroom for buying and selling vehicles.
The victim said that he agreed to this and handed him the vehicle for the purpose of selling it. The accused contacted him after a while, asking him to come and cancel the vehicle’s number plates and leave them in his possession, in order to save the value of its insurance and license in light of the need for it to remain in the showroom for a period of time until it is sold, as he was asked to do. He obtained his Emirati ID, so he agreed to this, handed him the card, and took the required procedures.
He added that he was surprised the very next day with a message stating that the vehicle had been sold and his application had been successfully registered, so he called the accused and informed him of what had happened, but the latter reassured him by saying that the vehicle was in the showroom, but the victim later confirmed that its ownership had been transferred to another person, so he went to the showroom to retrieve it. It was learned that the accused moved it to another place, accusing him of colluding with the person in whose name the vehicle was registered.
He continued that he met the accused at the car showroom where the vehicle was located, and the latter handed him a check for the value of the car (415 thousand dirhams). He went to the relevant bank branch, and was surprised that the check was rejected due to insufficient funds, so he reported the incident.
Upon questioning the person who bought the car from the accused, he stated that he had bought from the latter a used car showroom license, and offered to buy the vehicle that is the subject of the lawsuit. He bought it from him for an amount of 415 thousand dirhams, and handed over its price to him in the form of a transfer to the account of another person, based on his request, stating that he had witnessed the transfer. He charged him with possession and ownership of the vehicle, handed him his identity card so that he could transfer possession of it to his name, and received from him the car and two keys to it. He was then surprised by the victim’s presence at the exhibition, where he informed him that he was the owner of the vehicle.
For his part, the accused denied in the arrest report and investigations of the Public Prosecution the crime attributed to him, acknowledging that he had a friendly relationship with the victim, and that he sold the vehicle for himself after handing him his identity card, and that he took these measures at the showroom, and handed him a check for the value of the vehicle, but it was returned due to insufficient balance, confirming He will settle the matter and hand over the value of the check.
Upon questioning the employee concerned with licensing, he stated that the accused and the victim came to the licensing branch and showed their identity cards, and then the electronic pledge of allegiance, signing, payment of fees and making the possession were carried out in the name of the accused. He added that the accused completed the sale of the vehicle to a third person the next day.
After examining the case and listening to the statements of its parties, the court stated that it examined the case and took into account its material circumstances and the evidence presented, and was skeptical about the validity of the elements of proof.
She said that she was not confident about the validity of the accusation against the accused, and the evidence for that was what the licensing officer decided, that the accused and the victim came to the branch, presented their cards, and carried out the sale and transfer of ownership from the second to the first.
She explained that the accused came the next day and sold the vehicle to a third person, but he was the owner of it at the time he disposed of it by selling it, and therefore the charge of selling him property owned by others is dropped, according to the text referred to the court, which makes the crime lose its elements, and accordingly, it acquitted him.
#Asian #acquitted #selling #friend39s #car #fraud
