Obliging Asians to return 14 thousand dirhams, I reached their account by mistake

The Civil Court in Dubai applied the base of “enrichment for no reason” against Asians who turned an Asian woman into their account about 14 thousand dirhams by mistake after it deluded it as an electronic contemplation of investing the amount in trading operations, and she tried to restore the amount in a friendly manner, but her attempts were unsuccessful, and she wrote a report against them, and we condemned the Code of the Penal Court for possession of money in circumstances carrying a belief in the illegitimacy.

In detail, an Asian woman filed a lawsuit before the Civil Court, calling for two Asian people to pay 14 thousand and 180 dirhams, with legal interest at 12% of the date of entitlement to complete payment, and obliging them to fees, expenses and fees.

She said in a statement that she called that an unknown person contacted her through one of the social media platforms, offered to invest in trading operations, and assassinated her with great profits, she was enthusiastic about the idea and agreed to the offer, and transferred the money to the defendant’s account.

She added that she turned 12 thousand and 180 dirhams to one of them account, and 2000 dirhams to the other’s account, and waited for the promised profits, but the strange person disappeared, and it was issued a communication against them, and the Public Prosecution referred them to the misdemeanor court that ruled that they were convicted of seizing money in circumstances that bear the belief in the illegitimacy of its source, and punished them with a fine of 2000 dirhams each, in addition to the fine of the money They seized it from the victim.

The prosecutor submitted to the court a copy of the receipt of the financial transfers that she implemented, in addition to the police investigations that prove that the accounts that were transferred belong to the accused, pointing out that she tried to settle matters friendly with them, but this was not possible, so the lawsuit was referred to the civil court, which the defendant did not appear before them.

The court stated in the reasons for its ruling that, according to Article 318 of the Civil Transactions Law, no one is justified to take the money of others without a legitimate reason, so if he takes it, he must return it.

She explained that this article, according to the decision, is eliminated and according to the explanatory note of the law, it sets the basis of the rule of enrichment for no reason, and this enrichment is an independent source from the self -existing sources that are not based on another source and does not branch from it.

She stated that there are three pillars for enrichment for no reason, the first of which is the enrichment of the debtor, and the second is the lack of the creditor caused by this enrichment, and the third is stripping the enrichment of a reason that justifies it, and if no one of these pillars is available, the enrichment lawsuit has not been made for no reason.

The court stated in the reasons for its ruling that it is decided by law in accordance with the text of Articles 35 of the Evidence Law and 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedures, and what was done by the judiciary in “Dubai Distinguishing” that the civil court’s commitment to the ruling issued in the criminal case is limited to what the criminal ruling was separated as a necessary chapter in the occurrence of the action consisting of the common basis between the civil and judicial lawsuits.

She pointed out that the constant has in the lawsuit that the plaintiff had transferred money to the claimants of the defendant, thinking that she is investing them, and because they did not show a legitimate reason for possession of the money they would have archaeological without reason at her expense, which requires them to be obligated to return what is enriched with it.

She added that the constant also has that the case file is without, which indicates that the defendant’s participation in one criminal act, and that the basis of the lawsuit is enrichment for no reason, and not harmful work as they did not participate in fraud, so any basis for obliging them to compensate for not proving the component of the error.

She pointed out that the constant is also the defendant’s refusal to perform the original debt due in their custody of the prosecutor, and this debt is known for the extent in the event of performance, and then it is necessary to compel them to the benefits of the amount from the date of the judicial claim.

She ruled that the first defendant obliges the plaintiff to pay 12 thousand and 180 dirhams, and obliges the second to lead her to 2000 dirhams, and the legal benefit is 5% of the date of the judicial claim.