A baby stroller leads “Jeddah” to charges of electronic fraud…and the “Appeal” acquits her

The Ajman Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit acquitted a fifty-year-old woman of electronic fraud, after she was accused of seizing an amount of 5,000 dirhams from a user, via a fake payment link sent following an advertisement for the sale of a baby stroller on an electronic advertising application.

In the merits of its ruling, the court affirmed that the evidence presented did not reach the level of certainty and certainty, and that doubt as to the attribution of the act to the accused necessitates an acquittal, in accordance with the principle of “certainty cannot be replaced by doubt” stipulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The details of the case are due to a person submitting a report stating that he had been subjected to fraud, after publishing an advertisement for the sale of a baby stroller through an application specialized in electronic advertisements. A person who claimed to want to buy contacted him and sent him an electronic link claiming to be for payment or receipt of the amount. However, the complainant was later surprised by a deduction of 5,000 dirhams from his bank account.

After the investigation, the Public Prosecution brought charges against a woman, based on the data of the phone number used in the operation, which showed that the number was registered in her name. A preliminary ruling was issued against her in absentia, ruling that she be imprisoned for one year and required to pay judicial fees.

The accused appealed the ruling, and lawyer Khadija Suhail presented a lengthy list of reasons for the opposition, in which she argued that the announcement and procedures were invalid, noting that her client’s announcement was not made in accordance with the rules, as the court did not prove that legal notification had been achieved, which makes the absentia ruling invalid in form. She also confirmed that the opposition was submitted within the legal period after the accused learned of the ruling.

She explained that the investigations overlooked essential facts, the most important of which is that the phone number used in the crime was registered in the name of a man, and that he reported during the investigation that he had handed the SIM card to his maid (of Asian nationality), who was using the phone and spoke English fluently, which is consistent with the description of the complainant, adding that the maid was not summoned for investigation, even though the statement of the owner of the number is considered decisive evidence that may change the face of the case.

The lawyer stated that the judicial investigation report did not include any material link between her client and the SIM card or phone used, and it did not prove that she made calls or received sums of money on the date of the incident, which makes the technical evidence incomplete and incomplete.

It relied on the criminal rule that says, “Criminal rulings are based on certainty and certainty, not on suspicion and guesswork,” stressing that the elements of the material and moral crime were not proven against the accused, as they have no relation to the criminal act, and she did not have criminal intent.

She also stated that her client suffers from chronic stomach health problems, and was bedridden on the day of the incident, unable to move.

She provided proof of her travel for treatment outside the country, explaining that she is a woman in her mid-fifties, a mother and grandmother, and has no criminal record, which makes the perception that she committed the crime neither logically nor realistically plausible.

The Court of Appeal explained in its decision that the papers lacked concrete evidence linking the appellant to the incident in question, and that simply registering the phone number in her name is not enough to prove that she committed the crime, especially with the presence of another party who could potentially use the SIM card.

The court added that the established principle in criminal justice stipulates that rulings are based on certainty and certainty, not on doubt and possibility, and that whenever doubt reaches the evidence, an acquittal must be ruled, stressing that the court’s task is to scrutinize the evidence and achieve justice, not to fill the spaces of accusation with assumptions.

The court ended by canceling the initial ruling issued against the accused, and once again acquitting her of the charge attributed to her, in application of Article (211) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

• The grandmother suffers from chronic stomach health problems, and was bedridden and unable to move on the day of the incident.

Court:

• Merely registering a phone number in someone’s name is not enough to prove that he committed the crime, especially with the presence of another party using it.