Al Ain Court of First Instance acquitted a company representative of the charge of embezzling 181 thousand dirhams of the company’s revenues, and the court ruled to reject the case and obligated the plaintiff to pay the expenses
In the details, she filed a lawsuit against a former employee of her, in which she demanded that he be obligated to pay her an amount of 181,300 dirhams and to compensate for the delay in paying an amount of 20 thousand dirhams, in addition to fees, expenses and attorney fees, noting that the defendant was working for her as a representative and was responsible for collecting revenues. However, he illegally seized her money and revenues, and was convicted by a penal verdict, and she asked him to return the embezzled amount, but he refused to return the amount.
During the consideration of the case, the defendant stated that the penal judgment had been challenged with acquittal, and requested that the case be dismissed, while the present on behalf of the plaintiff submitted a copy of the “To Whom It May Concern” certificate issued by the Public Prosecution stating that the appeal ruling was not appealed through cassation and submitted a memorandum commenting on the case, which was repeated at the end In his previous requests, he also attached a copy of the mathematical experience report.
For its part, the court confirmed, in the merits of its judgment, that the court established from the review of the penal judgment that the defendant had been acquitted of this accusation, according to the evidence of the appellate judgment, after the criminal court assigned an expert in the case, who did not confirm that the defendant committed the act attributed to him, as It concluded that it was not possible to prove the existence of sums of money seized by the defendant, and that among the tasks of the latter’s work, the financial returns were collected, as well as the payment of the expenses of the complaining party – the plaintiff – and therefore the court did not prove to the court that the defendant is preoccupied with the plaintiff with any amounts claimed, especially And that the plaintiff did not present any document conclusively stating that the defendant had embezzled the claimed amount, and therefore this ruling has its conclusive evidence regarding these facts that it was decided upon, and it participates with the civil lawsuit, where the penal judgment was separated in the event of the absence of the embezzlement offense from the defendant, the court ruled The case was dismissed and the plaintiff was obligated to pay the costs
Al Ain Court of First Instance acquitted a company representative of the charge of embezzling 181 thousand dirhams of the company’s revenues, and the court ruled to reject the case and obligated the plaintiff to pay the expenses
In the details, she filed a lawsuit against a former employee of her, in which she demanded that he be obligated to pay her an amount of 181,300 dirhams and to compensate for the delay in paying an amount of 20 thousand dirhams, in addition to fees, expenses and attorney fees, noting that the defendant was working for her as a representative and was responsible for collecting revenues. However, he illegally seized her money and revenues, and was convicted by a penal verdict, and she asked him to return the embezzled amount, but he refused to return the amount.
During the consideration of the case, the defendant stated that the penal judgment had been challenged with acquittal, and requested that the case be dismissed, while the present on behalf of the plaintiff submitted a copy of the “To Whom It May Concern” certificate issued by the Public Prosecution stating that the appeal ruling was not appealed through cassation and submitted a memorandum commenting on the case, which was repeated at the end In his previous requests, he also attached a copy of the mathematical experience report.
For its part, the court confirmed, in the merits of its judgment, that the court established from the review of the penal judgment that the defendant had been acquitted of this accusation, according to the evidence of the appellate judgment, after the criminal court assigned an expert in the case, who did not confirm that the defendant committed the act attributed to him, as It concluded that it was not possible to prove the existence of sums of money seized by the defendant, and that among the tasks of the latter’s work, the financial returns were collected, as well as the payment of the expenses of the complaining party – the plaintiff – and therefore the court did not prove to the court that the defendant is preoccupied with the plaintiff with any amounts claimed, especially And that the plaintiff did not present any document conclusively stating that the defendant had embezzled the claimed amount, and therefore this ruling has its conclusive evidence regarding these facts that it was decided upon, and it participates with the civil lawsuit, where the penal judgment was separated in the event of the absence of the embezzlement offense from the defendant, the court ruled The case was dismissed and the plaintiff was obligated to pay the costs
Al Ain Court of First Instance acquitted a company representative of the charge of embezzling 181 thousand dirhams of the company’s revenues, and the court ruled to reject the case and obligated the plaintiff to pay the expenses
In the details, she filed a lawsuit against a former employee of her, in which she demanded that he be obligated to pay her an amount of 181,300 dirhams and to compensate for the delay in paying an amount of 20 thousand dirhams, in addition to fees, expenses and attorney fees, noting that the defendant was working for her as a representative and was responsible for collecting revenues. However, he illegally seized her money and revenues, and was convicted by a penal verdict, and she asked him to return the embezzled amount, but he refused to return the amount.
During the consideration of the case, the defendant stated that the penal judgment had been challenged with acquittal, and requested that the case be dismissed, while the present on behalf of the plaintiff submitted a copy of the “To Whom It May Concern” certificate issued by the Public Prosecution stating that the appeal ruling was not appealed through cassation and submitted a memorandum commenting on the case, which was repeated at the end In his previous requests, he also attached a copy of the mathematical experience report.
For its part, the court confirmed, in the merits of its judgment, that the court established from the review of the penal judgment that the defendant had been acquitted of this accusation, according to the evidence of the appellate judgment, after the criminal court assigned an expert in the case, who did not confirm that the defendant committed the act attributed to him, as It concluded that it was not possible to prove the existence of sums of money seized by the defendant, and that among the tasks of the latter’s work, the financial returns were collected, as well as the payment of the expenses of the complaining party – the plaintiff – and therefore the court did not prove to the court that the defendant is preoccupied with the plaintiff with any amounts claimed, especially And that the plaintiff did not present any document conclusively stating that the defendant had embezzled the claimed amount, and therefore this ruling has its conclusive evidence regarding these facts that it was decided upon, and it participates with the civil lawsuit, where the penal judgment was separated in the event of the absence of the embezzlement offense from the defendant, the court ruled The case was dismissed and the plaintiff was obligated to pay the costs
Al Ain Court of First Instance acquitted a company representative of the charge of embezzling 181 thousand dirhams of the company’s revenues, and the court ruled to reject the case and obligated the plaintiff to pay the expenses
In the details, she filed a lawsuit against a former employee of her, in which she demanded that he be obligated to pay her an amount of 181,300 dirhams and to compensate for the delay in paying an amount of 20 thousand dirhams, in addition to fees, expenses and attorney fees, noting that the defendant was working for her as a representative and was responsible for collecting revenues. However, he illegally seized her money and revenues, and was convicted by a penal verdict, and she asked him to return the embezzled amount, but he refused to return the amount.
During the consideration of the case, the defendant stated that the penal judgment had been challenged with acquittal, and requested that the case be dismissed, while the present on behalf of the plaintiff submitted a copy of the “To Whom It May Concern” certificate issued by the Public Prosecution stating that the appeal ruling was not appealed through cassation and submitted a memorandum commenting on the case, which was repeated at the end In his previous requests, he also attached a copy of the mathematical experience report.
For its part, the court confirmed, in the merits of its judgment, that the court established from the review of the penal judgment that the defendant had been acquitted of this accusation, according to the evidence of the appellate judgment, after the criminal court assigned an expert in the case, who did not confirm that the defendant committed the act attributed to him, as It concluded that it was not possible to prove the existence of sums of money seized by the defendant, and that among the tasks of the latter’s work, the financial returns were collected, as well as the payment of the expenses of the complaining party – the plaintiff – and therefore the court did not prove to the court that the defendant is preoccupied with the plaintiff with any amounts claimed, especially And that the plaintiff did not present any document conclusively stating that the defendant had embezzled the claimed amount, and therefore this ruling has its conclusive evidence regarding these facts that it was decided upon, and it participates with the civil lawsuit, where the penal judgment was separated in the event of the absence of the embezzlement offense from the defendant, the court ruled The case was dismissed and the plaintiff was obligated to pay the costs