Imprisonment and fines for those accused of stealing money “offline”

The Federal Supreme Court rejected the defendants’ appeal against a ruling that sentenced them to three months’ imprisonment and a fine of 600,000 dirhams, after they were convicted of stealing money through a process called “offline,” which means making a card withdrawal without contacting the bank, confirming that all legal elements were present for them to commit the crime.

The Public Prosecution referred the defendants to court, charging them with participating by agreement and assisting in the initiation of the disposal of the movable property, knowing that they did not own it and that they had no right to dispose of it. However, the effect of their crime was defeated for a reason that had nothing to do with their will, and that was by being caught red-handed. Before the police, demanding that they be punished.

The court of first instance ruled to punish the defendants with three months’ imprisonment, fine them jointly 600,000 dirhams, and obligate them to pay judicial fees. The court of appeals upheld the ruling. The ruling was not accepted by two of the defendants, so they appealed it.

The two defendants said that the court convicted them without explaining the incident requiring punishment, and specifying the evidence and evidence used for the conviction, despite their denial, and the lack of any evidence convicting them of the evidence presented by the Public Prosecution, and the absence of the elements of the crime charged against them, especially criminal intent. They also called for a measure of mercy and compassion, given their social circumstances.

The court rejected the appeal, emphasizing that obtaining an understanding of the reality in the case and evaluating the evidence and weighing between them is within the authority of the trial court, which has the right to give preference to what it is comfortable with and reject what is otherwise, once it has clarified the truth of which it is convinced and based its ruling on justifiable reasons sufficient to support it.

It confirmed that participation by agreement is based on the intention of its parties to commit the agreed-upon act, and that it is sufficient to meet the condition to help the perpetrator in committing the crime, that he intentionally performs the actions that prepare, facilitate, or complete its commission.

The court indicated from the facts of the defendants’ confessions that they agreed to carry out an “offline” operation, and agreed on other operations before they were arrested, explaining that the “offline” operation means withdrawing money by card without communicating with the bank, which causes harm to the bank and the owner of the card from which it is withdrawn. . The agreement between the first and second defendants was that they would get 50% of the operation, and their company would get 50%, while the rest of the defendants were intermediaries and had a percentage of the operation.

The “offline” process means withdrawing money from the card without communicating with the bank, which harms the bank and the cardholder.