A young man buys “fake” digital currencies for 373 thousand dirhams

The Al Ain Court of First Instance ruled that a young man must pay the last sum of 373 thousand dirhams, which he seized in the process of selling fake currencies through an online trading site. It also obligated him to compensate the plaintiff for the material and moral damages he suffered in the amount of 50 thousand dirhams.

In detail, a young man filed a lawsuit against another, in which he demanded that he be obliged to pay him an amount of 373 thousand dirhams, in addition to compensation in the amount of 190 thousand dirhams, while obligating him to pay fees and expenses. He indicated that the defendant and another participated, through an information technology method, in seizing an amount The claimant, after he tricked him into investing his money in digital currencies, which would have deceived him and forced him to transfer sums of money totaling 373,000. dirhams, and the defendant was convicted for that incident under a criminal ruling.

During the consideration of the case, the defendant appeared and submitted a memorandum that included a request to introduce a trading company to submit the documents it had under its control and a statement of the manner of dealings that took place between the two parties, and whether the plaintiff suffered any damages as a result of his dealings with the defendant, and to oblige it, if damage was proven, to do what might be ordered for the plaintiff. Original, with fees, expenses, and attorney fees.

The defendant also insisted on requesting the appointment of a committee specialized in electronic trading and a technical expert, and in the matter he insisted on rejecting the case based on the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant own accounts on a trading platform, and that the plaintiff expressed his desire to buy a group of digital currencies, and found a sale notice for the currencies he desired registered. From the defendant, the plaintiff chose to buy the offered digital currencies and they were seized. Once the plaintiff transferred their value of 285 thousand dirhams, the defendant confirmed the sale of the digital currencies from his account to the plaintiff’s account. Any relationship between them was cut off after the buying and selling process.

The court rejected the request to include a trading company as an adversary in the lawsuit, and pointed out that the defendant’s request to include an adversary in the lawsuit to prove that there was no error on his part when dealing with the plaintiff, contradicts what the criminal ruling concluded. The court explained in the merits of its ruling that what is established from reviewing the criminal ruling is, That the defendant was convicted of the charge of seizing the sum of money owned by the plaintiff, and the illegal act subject to this ruling was the one relied upon by the plaintiff in his present lawsuit, it is permissible with regard to the joint issue between Both lawsuits have the validity of the res judicata before this court, which adheres to it, and is prohibited from violating it or re-examining it, and accordingly rules obliging the defendant to return to the plaintiff the claim amount of 373 thousand dirhams to the plaintiff.

Regarding the request for compensation, the court indicated that what is proven in the documents is that the defendant was convicted of the charge of seizing for himself the amount owned by the plaintiff, which was given to him for investment. This resulted in harm to the plaintiff, represented by missing the opportunity to benefit from his money, in addition to moral harm represented by a state of fear, sadness, and heartbreak. The court ruled to oblige the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 373 thousand dirhams, while obliging him to compensate the plaintiff in the amount of 50 thousand dirhams, as stated in the reasons. The defendant was charged the fees and expenses.

. Plaintiff: The defendant tricked me into investing my money in digital currencies.