A woman buys a gold watch with a “fake transfer”… worth 54 thousand dirhams

The Al Ain Court of First Instance ruled that a woman was obligated to pay a watch and jewelry company the amount of 54 thousand dirhams, the value of a gold watch that she had seized, after tricking the company’s representative into paying its price through a fake transfer.

In detail, a jewelry company filed a lawsuit against a woman, requesting that she be obligated to pay an amount of 54 thousand dirhams for a watch that the defendant bought and did not pay for, and with legal interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the judicial claim until full payment, with the ruling including expedited entry into force, in addition to fees. And expenses, noting that the defendant asked her to buy a watch made of full gold at a price of 54 thousand dirhams, provided that she would hand over the price to the representative – when the watch arrived to her – by transferring Pinky.

She continued that after receiving the watch, she presented the representative with a forged transfer receipt.

Despite being asked to pay the price, she still refuses to do so. She was convicted under a criminal ruling.

In support of her claim, the plaintiff presented a copy of the ruling and a copy of an invoice for the value of the hour, while the defendant did not attend.

For its part, the court stated in the merits of its ruling that “what is established from reviewing a copy of the ruling issued in the criminal case is that the defendant was convicted of the charge of seizure through the use of the information network (WhatsApp), which would deceive the plaintiff, as she deceived the victim’s representative (the delegate) She wanted to buy a watch, and she sent a receipt to prove that its value had been paid, contrary to the truth. In that way, she was able to defraud and get the victim’s representative to hand over the watch and seize it, and that ruling became final. And it is absolutely not to be appealed.”

The court indicated that the criminal ruling decided on the common basis between the civil and criminal lawsuits at hand, and in the legal description of them, and attributing it to the perpetrator, which is that the defendant seized from the plaintiff the watch described and valued in the papers owned by her in the current lawsuit, pointing out that “the constant The court determined that the value of the watch was estimated at 54 thousand dirhams, and therefore this judiciary, which has the force of res judicata, is considered before this court in proving that the defendant owes the plaintiff the amount. What is claimed? The court ruled to oblige the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount according to the reasons and expenses, and to reject any other requests.