A man accuses a woman of seizing 138,000 dirhams with an “imaginary profits scam.”

A man of Asian nationality filed a report with the police against a woman of the same nationality, accusing her of seizing about 138,000 dirhams from him in a fraudulent manner. He filed a civil lawsuit demanding that she return the amount, in addition to 50,000 dirhams in compensation for the harm she caused him, with a legal interest of 5%. From the date on which the ruling becomes final.

He stated in his statement of claim that he was seeking to improve his financial situation by investing part of his savings, and he was directed to the defendant through a number of his acquaintances, pointing out that he contacted her, and she made him believe that she owned a company working in the field of metals, and that she was willing to work with him. She promised him fantastic profits.

The plaintiff said that the defendant deceived her by fabricating a partnership agreement between them that included fictitious details that did not exist, with the aim of seizing his money. Then he handed her the money in two installments, and asked her to provide him with the commercial license of the alleged company, or its headquarters in the country, but she was evading him under false pretexts. The plaintiff was not informed of the company’s details. He added that when it was due to collect the profits, as they agreed, he called her, but she ignored him and did not answer him. He had concerns about the fate of his money, which prompted him to file a criminal report with the police, which is still under examination and investigation. Accordingly, he filed a civil lawsuit and submitted a portfolio of documents that included a copy of the agreement. A copy of the transfer notice, in addition to an acknowledgment and other papers reviewed by the court.

In turn, the defendant submitted a legal memorandum in which she requested that the judiciary not accept the lawsuit due to the existence of an arbitration clause in the commercial relationship between them, and to reject the lawsuit, while charging the plaintiff with fees and expenses and attorney’s fees.

Regarding the defendant’s argument that the lawsuit was not accepted because of the arbitration clause, the court responded that what is established in the agreement signed between them is that the arbitration clause does not specify the party entrusted with that, which makes the defense invalid in reality and in law, and the court rules to reject the defense.

Regarding the subject of the case, she explained that it is established, in accordance with what is stipulated in Article 125 of the Civil Transactions Law, that the ruling of the contract is established between its two parties once it is concluded in a way that proves its effect on the contracted party, and it entails the obligation of each of them to fulfill what he is obligated to do. If one of them breaches his obligations, it is permissible The other contractor may request termination.

Based on what happened in the court’s ruling, the plaintiff is obligated to provide evidence for what he claims, whether he is an original plaintiff in the case or a defendant.

The court indicated that, according to what is clear and proven from its review of the case papers and the expert’s report, according to the agreement signed between the defendant and the plaintiff, the latter paid $60,000 to her, and she acknowledged this. However, by referring to the agreement, it became clear that it stipulates that this amount is non-refundable. Then the court rejects the case.