A person of Asian nationality seized $9,970 (about 36.5 thousand dirhams), which was transferred to his account from a bank by mistake, and spent it on his personal needs, refusing the bank’s request to return the amount.
The Public Prosecution in Dubai charged him with seizing property owned by others that he had acquired by mistake or by force majeure, with his knowledge of that. It referred him to the misdemeanor court, which convicted him and ruled that he be imprisoned for a month, fined him 36,600 dirhams, and deported from the state, but he appealed. The ruling before the Court of Appeal only overturned the deportation measure, and upheld the ruling otherwise.
The details of the case, according to what was established in the court’s confidence and reassured its conscience, stated that the accused was a client of the aforementioned bank, and on the day of the incident, the bank deposited $9,970 by mistake into the accused’s account, and the latter withdrew the amount and disposed of it, and when he was asked to return the money, He refused, which prompted the bank to open a report against him.
When he was arrested, the accused admitted in the police evidence report that he had deposited the amount in his account, and that he had withdrawn and spent it and asked for a delay in payment, but he denied the charge assigned to him in the Public Prosecution’s investigations, stating that he had a savings account in the bank in the currency of the dollar, and when the amount was deposited in this account, he believed that he had transferred He received it from a company he deals with abroad, so he took the initiative to spend it for his personal benefit, but he later discovered that the deposit had occurred by mistake, so he asked for a grace period from the bank to pay, but he was surprised by the opening of a report against him.
During the trial session, the accused did not appear despite his legal declaration. The court concluded that the elements of the crime charged against him were met, and ruled that he be imprisoned for a month, fined 36,600 dirhams, and deported from the state. He objected to the ruling in absentia, and the court accepted his opposition in form, but supported it in his presence.
In turn, the accused did not accept the initial ruling, and appealed it before the Court of Appeal. He appeared before it and confessed to the charge against him, requesting clemency against him, while the Public Prosecution requested that the appeal be rejected and the ruling be upheld.
After examining the appeal submitted by him and the case papers, the court concluded that the appealed ruling covered the facts of the case with a sufficient explanation of the availability of the legal elements of the crime charged against the accused, and cited derived evidence for the validity of its proven against him, which the court was reassured by according to what was stated in the statements of the informant, and the confession of The accused, which is plausible evidence that would lead to what arranged the ruling, and the Court of Appeal stated that the ruling correctly concluded that the appellant was convicted, and imposed on him the penalty prescribed for that, but in the area of estimating the punishment, it considered granting him a measure of clemency, and annulled the deportation measure against him, while upholding except that.
. 36.5 thousand dirhams, the amount that was deposited in the accused’s account and spent on his personal needs.
#Asian #refuses #return #amount #deposited #account #mistake
