The Dubai Court of Appeal upheld a ruling by the Civil Criminal Court to reject a lawsuit filed by an Arab person against his partner, demanding that he be obliged to pay six million and 250 thousand dirhams in compensation for funds he embezzled from the company during the period of their partnership together.
The details stated that the plaintiff based his lawsuit on the basis of the statement that he partnered with the defendant in a company for heavy equipment and its spare parts. Due to the latter's embezzlement of the company's funds, a criminal report was filed against him, accusing him of transferring a large portion of the company's funds to his personal account, and another portion to external accounts that have no connection to the institution that brings them together.
The plaintiff said in the Public Prosecution’s investigations into the criminal case that the accused seized the aforementioned amount in various ways, including direct transfers, and through checks that he wrote for his personal benefit, as he is a director of the company and authorized to deal with the bank account.
Upon questioning the accused partner in the investigations, he denied the embezzlement charge, pointing out that there was an accounting audit office charged with resolving disputes between him and his partner, and it prepared a comprehensive report on the company’s financial situation, but the plaintiff was avoiding attending the auditor’s meetings and stating the amounts he received from the company’s accounts and clients. He used it to establish two other companies, pointing out that the plaintiff was seizing money for his personal benefit, and refused to return it to the company later.
After examining the case by the criminal courts, they acquitted the accused due to their lack of confidence in the evidence of incrimination, or the report of the plaintiff’s consulting expert, which was refuted by the assigned expert. The court then saw that the dispute between the two parties constitutes, in fact, a commercial dispute between the two parties, which the civil court will consider.
In addition, the plaintiff filed his lawsuit before the Civil Criminal Court in Dubai, demanding compensation for the aforementioned amount, and the court concluded, after examining the lawsuit, that what was proven in the papers was that the plaintiff had previously filed a criminal lawsuit before the Dubai Criminal Court, for the charge of embezzlement, and the defendant obtained An acquittal was ruled because he was not proven to have committed this crime, and therefore the civil court may not rely on the same act that was denied by the criminal ruling to prove the element of error based on the fact that the charge against him was not proven, which requires the judiciary to reject the case.
For his part, the plaintiff continued his litigation journey by appealing the initial civil ruling before the Court of Appeal, demanding the inclusion of a new adversary in the lawsuit, which is the company, while the defendant requested that the lawsuit not be accepted because it was filed by someone without standing, and rejected it for lack of validity and proof, and after considering the requests of both parties, the court concluded The appeal states that the final criminal ruling ruled on the embezzlement incident, and upheld the defendant’s acquittal of what was attributed to him, denying that he embezzled the aforementioned amount, which makes the res judicata valid in the civil lawsuit, considering that it is a common and fundamental issue between the criminal and civil lawsuits, and therefore the appellant may not It was brought up again before the civil court, even with new evidence, and the Court of Appeal ruled to uphold the initial ruling and reject the case.
The defendant confirmed that the plaintiff was evading attending meetings of the accounting audit office charged with resolving disputes between them.
#man #accuses #partner #embezzling #million #dirhams
