Obligating the “embezzling” director to pay 100 thousand dirhams in compensation

The Dubai Civil Court ruled to oblige a company director to pay 100,000 dirhams and 5% interest as compensation to the company’s owner after he was convicted of embezzling sums of money from the capital of the institution entrusted with its management.

The victim said before the court that she suffered from accumulated debts, her business faltered, and she lost the capital she and her husband had saved due to the crime for which the defendant was convicted, which affected her psychologically and socially.

She demanded 100,000 dirhams in compensation for the damages she suffered as a result of the embezzlement.

She stated in her statement of claim that she had established a sole commercial enterprise, appointed the defendant as its manager, and handed over to him, pursuant to a trust contract, the company’s capital, but he betrayed the trust and seized sums of money for himself, which prompted her to file a report against him.

The Public Prosecution charged him with embezzling movable property delivered to him by agency, to the detriment of the rightful owner.

A preliminary criminal ruling was issued to punish the accused with three months’ imprisonment for the accusation against him, in addition to paying the embezzled amount and deporting him from the state.

In turn, the accused appealed the initial criminal ruling, and the court accepted his appeal, ordered the initial ruling to be annulled, convicted him, and punished him with a fine of 55,449 dirhams.

The plaintiff indicated that, over the course of three years, she suffered successive damages caused by the defendant, as she accumulated debts and registered labor lawsuits against her due to her inability to pay employees’ salaries as a result of his seizure of the company’s funds and his refusal to renew her car licenses, which caused the cessation of her activity. In delivering orders.

She explained that the consequences of his actions led to grief overwhelming her and her feeling insecure and anxious about the uncertain future, because she lost the savings that she and her husband had painstakingly collected, demanding compensation worth 100 thousand dirhams for the material and moral damage she was exposed to.

In turn, a legal representative of the defendant attended and submitted a memorandum requesting that the case be halted until his appeal against the appeal ruling before the Court of Cassation was decided. The court granted his request until the plaintiff submitted a request to expedite the case from the stay, and attached a certificate stating that the appeal submitted before the Cassation Court had been rejected and a ruling had been rendered. The criminal conviction was final, so the defendant submitted a memorandum in which he requested the dismissal of the civil lawsuit on the basis that the plaintiff contributed to the error that led to the company’s loss.

After examining the case, the court stated that it is established with regard to the guarantee or civil liability that responsibility for the harmful act requires the presence of three elements, which are proof that the person committed the act, whether positive or negative, proof of harm to the injured party, and the causal relationship between them.

It stated that the burden falls on the injured party to prove the presence of the elements of tort liability on the part of the person to whom the harmful act is attributed, and if negligence or negligence on his part is not proven, responsibility for him is excluded.

The court concluded that it was clear that the defendant’s mistake was established under the final criminal ruling, and that it resulted in material damage to the plaintiff amounting to the amount he seized, and moral damage represented by her grief over losing her money and missing the opportunity to use it, and these are damages that the court deems compensatory compensation for 100 One thousand dirhams, and 5% interest from the date the judgment becomes final until full payment, and obligates him to pay the lawsuit fees and expenses.

. The plaintiff (the company owner) was financially and morally harmed as a result of the embezzlement.

mfouda@ey.ae