An African employee (45 years old) resorted to “fabricating” a crime, to seize a sum of money that he had in his possession, and that belonged to the company in which he worked. He informed the Dubai Police that an unknown person had broken the windows of his vehicle and stolen 8,000 dirhams from it, but the police officers uncovered his trick, and he was arrested and referred. To the Public Prosecution.
The Public Prosecution charged the accused with committing the crime of informing the judicial authorities or administrative authorities about incidents or dangers that did not exist or about a crime that he knew had not been committed, and referred him to the misdemeanor court, which ruled that he was convicted and fined an amount of 5,000 dirhams, but the ruling was not accepted by the prosecution, which appealed it. before the Court of Appeal, demanding that the penalty be increased and the addition of imprisonment and deportation, but the court rejected the appeal and upheld the initial ruling.
In detail, the facts of the case stated, according to what was established in the court’s conviction and reassured its conscience, and what was stated in the Public Prosecution’s investigations that the accused informed the command and control center of the General Directorate of Operations in Dubai Police that he had been subjected to a robbery, as an unknown person broke the vehicle’s windows and stole an amount of 8,000 dirhams from it.
For its part, Dubai Police commissioned a research team to investigate the incident, and it was able to find conclusive evidence that the accused fabricated the report completely, so he was besieged with information, which prompted him to confess the truth, stating that he had stolen the amount of money amounting to 8,000 dirhams from the vehicle belonging to the company that He worked there, then spent 2,000 dirhams, and handed the remaining amount, 6,000 dirhams, to the police.
The accused again confessed to the crime during the Public Prosecution’s investigations, and he was charged with informing the authorities of a crime he knew had not been committed.
After examining the case, the court of first instance stated in the merits of its ruling that the confession is one of the procedural issues over which the trial court has full freedom to assess its validity and its value in proof, and stated that it sees, from extrapolating the papers, that there is no sufficiently proven fact regarding the accused, as it is reassured by the record of collecting evidence that he By calling the police to report an incident of theft from the vehicle, despite his full awareness that the incident did not occur, and that he was the one who stole the money belonging to his company.
The court ended up convicting and punishing him in accordance with Federal Law No. (38) of 2022 and fined him 5,000 dirhams.
For its part, the Public Prosecution did not accept the initial ruling, and appealed it before the Court of Appeal, demanding that the penalty be increased to imprisonment and deportation. The accused also appealed the ruling through his representative, denied the charge against him, argued that the elements of the crime were absent, and that the papers were devoid of evidence, documents, and witnesses. He originally requested acquittal and, as a precaution, the use of clemency and a reduction of the fine. The court joined the two appeals and ruled to uphold the initial ruling.
It stated in the merits of its ruling that the preliminary ruling correctly concluded that the accused was guilty, and imposed the prescribed punishment upon him, and thus it was just, and just as the Court of Appeal was reassured by the evidentiary evidence, it turned away from the denial of the accused, and saw that it was merely an attempt to evade punishment, and also rejected what was raised about Defenses, considering that they were intended to cast doubt on the evidence that the court was confident of, which means that the initial ruling coincided with the correct law and reality.
#employee #fabricates #theft #seize #dirhams
