The Dubai Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal of a European man on charges of fraudulently seizing 450,000 dirhams from two Gulf people, who accused him of having agreed with them to sell a share of a restaurant and café he owned in Dubai, but he sold them a share in a restaurant other than what was agreed upon.
The facts of the case and the investigations of the Public Prosecution stated that the accused seized the aforementioned amount after he deceived the victims that he would sell them 25% of a restaurant located in an attractive area, intending to obtain sums of money, which created a conviction among them that he was sincere in his offer, so they paid him the money. But he did not abide by the agreement concluded between them.
The first victim said in the Public Prosecution’s investigations that there is a commercial relationship linking him to the accused, and he and the second victim agreed to buy a percentage of the shares of a company that owns a restaurant and café, which the accused owns at a rate of 25%.
He added that he and the second victim paid an amount of 850 thousand dirhams in exchange for that percentage, and it was agreed to complete the procedures for transferring the shares within a month from the date of payment, indicating that the accused did not adhere to this as they waited for him to implement the required procedure according to the agreement, but he delayed and did not register the sale. In the end, he seized the money, and later it became clear to them that he had brought them as partners into another restaurant in a completely different area, and had violated his obligations and the contract concluded between them.
He pointed out that they decided to buy the shares after they confirmed that he owned that company, and that he showed them its accounts, pointing out that he was demanding the accused for an amount of 450 thousand dirhams owed by him.
When the accused was questioned during the Public Prosecution’s investigations, he denied the accusations against him, stating that he is the owner of the aforementioned company and the one in charge of its management. Another restaurant manager came to him and informed him of the desire of his friends to enter into a partnership with him in his company that owns the restaurant and café. He agreed to that and met with the two victims and offered They have the partnership business, and the profits that the company earns from the restaurant, and a 25% share of the partnership was specified for them in the commercial license of the place, in exchange for 850 thousand dirhams, so they agreed to that, and an agreement was concluded that they signed together, and he signed it in his capacity as the owner of the company.
The accused said that he received an advance sum of 400 thousand dirhams from the victims until the completion of the procedures required to enter them as partners in the commercial license, and he actually began the official procedures and collecting the approvals for that, then he asked them for the rest of the agreed upon amount, but he was surprised that one of them handed over the rest of the required amount. 450 thousand dirhams to the manager of the other restaurant who had brought them to him at the beginning, confirming that the latter had nothing to do with his company and that he was merely a partner in that restaurant.
After examining the case, the court stated in the merits of its ruling that it was clearly clear that the case documents were free of any fraud on the part of the accused, as he was not the one who sought the two victims for the purpose of partnership, but rather they were the ones who asked him to do so, according to what was proven in his statements and the first victim.
The papers also lacked any evidence to support what the two victims claimed that he had illegally seized amounts from them. Rather, they signed an agreement regarding the percentages and profits, and then the court considers that the relationship between them is commercial based on the purchase of shares, and then decides to acquit the accused and refer the case to Civil court.
. The court found that the relationship between the partners is commercial based on the purchase of shares.
#European #acquitted #fraudulently #seizing #dirhams
