A fraudster succeeded in deceiving a young man and seizing the amount of 40 thousand dirhams after he deluded him that he was the owner of a car showroom, and agreed with him to sell three cars to him and obtained the amount from him, while the Abu Dhabi Family and Civil Cases Court ruled that the defendant should pay the plaintiff an amount of 65 thousand dirhams.
And a young man filed a lawsuit against another, in which he demanded the termination of the agreement concluded between him and the defendant, obliging the latter to return to him the amount of 40 thousand dirhams and obliging him to pay him the amount of 51 thousand dirhams as material and literary compensation with interest at the rate of 12%, and obliging him to pay fees and expenses and in return for attorney’s fees with the inclusion of The judgment of expedited enforcement, indicating that the defendant deluded him that he had a car showroom, and accordingly he paid a total amount of 40 thousand dirhams to the defendant at intervals, in exchange for buying three used cars, and after receiving the amount, he did not hand over the cars subject to the contract, and after that it became clear to the plaintiff that the plaintiff He did not have an exhibition, and he defrauded him, so he filed a complaint against him and he was criminally convicted.
For its part, the court clarified in the reasons for its ruling that it is legally established that the judgment issued in criminal matters is authoritative in the civil lawsuit before the civil courts whenever it has decided a necessary chapter on the occurrence of the act that constitutes the common basis between the criminal and civil lawsuits and in the legal description of this act and its attribution. To its perpetrator, noting that the evidence from the criminal judgment is the conviction of the accused (the defendant) for the charge of appropriating the sum of money indicated in the judgment and owned by the victim (the plaintiff), and then the judgment has acquired the authority of the ruling in what was decided before the civil court and is not permissible with him Re-examination of the elements of liability, and then the element of error has been provided by the defendant and proved conclusively against him, and it was clear that this error was the cause of damages to the plaintiff.
Regarding the plaintiff’s request to compel the defendant to return to him the seized amount of 40,000 dirhams, it is established in the Civil Transactions Law that “in contracts binding on both sides, if one of the contracting parties does not fulfill what was required of him in the contract, the other contracting party may, after notifying the debtor, demand the execution or termination of the contract. It is also legally established that “it is not permissible for anyone to take someone else’s money without a legitimate reason, and if he takes it, he must return it.” Noting that what is proven from the criminal ruling is that the defendant appropriated an amount of 40 thousand dirhams owned by the plaintiff after he deluded him that he owned a car showroom. He was offered to sell cars to him, and then the court proves the validity of what the plaintiff claims in this regard and obliges the defendant to return this amount to the plaintiff.
Regarding the plaintiff’s request to oblige the defendant to pay him an amount of 51 thousand dirhams as material and moral compensation, the court pointed out that it is established that the defendant seized the amount of 40 thousand dirhams from the plaintiff, and it resulted in material damage represented in depriving him of benefiting from the seized amount in addition to what he suffered. Moral and moral damages represented in the feeling of grief and sorrow that befell him. The court considers that compensation to the plaintiff for all material and moral damages is sufficient in the amount of 25 thousand dirhams, and the court ruled obligating the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 65 thousand dirhams and obligated the defendant to pay fees and expenses.
The court obligated the defendant to pay the plaintiff 65 thousand dirhams, fees and expenses.
#fraudster #seizes #thousand #dirhams #young #man