“Appeal” condemns an accountant with embezzlement of 463 thousand dirhams and absolves its manager

The Dubai Court of Appeal upheld a ruling ruled by a court of first instance, to condemn and imprison an accountant (Asian) for a period A judgment on another defendant in the same case was the director of the accused and ruled his innocence of the charge of embezzlement.

In detail, the Public Prosecution in Dubai referred two accused: the first is an accountant (Asian), and the second director (Arab), to the Criminal Court, on charges of embezzlement The first assembled the daily sales proceeds for the institution in which he worked, and instead of depositing the entire proceeds in the institution’s bank account, he was embezzled as part of it for several months, and the second accused was covered on him.

The owner of the victim, the victim in the investigations of the Public Prosecution, said that one of the tasks of the work of the first accused is to receive daily revenues from the fund’s employees, “Cashier”, check it, then send them with a delegate to the bank, and later takes on a report and hand it over to the second accused in charge of checking these reports and compare them with bills Issued by the Cashir employee, pointing out that the director began to delay the preparation of the required reports on the performance of accountants, to cover up the first suspect, then submit his resignation from the institution, but his request was rejected until the audit was completed on financial revenues, so he resorted to filing a labor lawsuit and was judged in his interest. And his involvement in the embezzlement of the Foundation’s funds was later discovered in collusion with the first accused.

A witness from Dubai Police stated that the accused acknowledged that he was embezzled with money from the institution and used the money he embezzled in his personal expenses, but he does not know anything about the money that his manager embezzled, and the accused repeated his confessions before the Public Prosecution, but he later denied it during his trial, while he did not represent the second accused. (Director) before a court of first instance.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Dubai Criminal Court sentenced the defendants to be imprisoned for three months, followed by deportation from the state, but the Public Prosecution appealed before the Court of Appeal to neglect the first ruling, fining the defendants of the value of the money accused of embezzling it, while the two defendants were stabbed against the ruling, demanding innocence.

The Undersecretary of the Defense of the Second defendant, “Director”, lawyer Mohamed Al -Awami Al -Mansouri, sought the innocence of his client, founding his defense for the absence of the pillars of the crime of embezzlement, to prove that he was not receiving, mourning, or his responsibility for receiving any money in the interest of the victim, according to the constant of the experience report.

He stressed that although the experience report confirmed that his client did not receive any money from the institution or from the first accused, the expert made errors, including reference to his client assuming the second accused tasks related to the administration and he is not true, because he was not at any time as a manager or assistant to the manager Or has any tasks related to the preparation of mathematical reports, and that the communication is the subject of the lawsuit is only a Kidi communication according to the statements that are not based on any evidence.

After looking at the appeals, the Court of Appeal reassured that the second defendant did not embezzle any money during his period of work at the victim’s institution, so the court of the first degree court overturned his innocence of the charges against him, stressing that the case papers were devoid of any evidence that his conviction is proven only Others do not reassure her.