An Asian hands over two watches worth 3.6 million dirhams to a fraudster for free

A person of Asian nationality agreed to sell two luxury Patek Philippe watches worth more than three million and 670 thousand dirhams to another European without receiving anything in return for them, whether in cash or a guaranteed payment mechanism. He handed them over to the buyer after the latter hosted him at the headquarters of one of the companies and convinced him that he was its CEO. Then he wrote a contract for him in the name of the company, and later convinced him that he had bought the two watches for an important personal benefit, and sent him receipts to transfer the amount. To the seller’s account, but it was later discovered that they were fraudulent transfers.

In detail, the victim said that he agreed with the accused to sell two valuable watches to him, after the latter misled him that he was an executive director of an investment company in Dubai, provided him with a copy of its commercial license, and then concluded a purchase agreement with him in the name of the company.

He added that he agreed to hand over the two watches to the accused after he was completely convinced of his financial capabilities, and signed a purchase contract with him bearing the company’s stamp, on the condition that he transfer the price of the two watches, which is one million dollars, to his bank account.

He pointed out that he contacted the accused via WhatsApp when he was late in paying, and the latter informed him that he had sold the two watches to an important person, and asked him to write invoices in the name of that person. He agreed and wrote the invoices based on his request, then sent them to him via WhatsApp.

He continued that the accused sent him pictures of two bank transfers, one for $200,000, and the other for $300,000, with a promise to send the rest of the amount to him later. He pointed out that he checked with the bank and was shocked that there were no financial deposits or transfers in his account, and when he tried to communicate with the accused later, the latter did not answer him and turned off his phone.

The victim stated that he went to the headquarters of the company where the accused received him, and asked the receptionist about him, and she informed him that he was not there, and provided him with the number of another person of the nationality of an Arab country, to help him reach him, pointing out that he communicated with that person and learned from him that the accused had been in a traffic accident and could not respond now, then he received a copy of another bank transfer from the broker’s number in the amount of 300 thousand dirhams, but the amount did not enter his account either, which brought doubt and suspicion into him, and he reviewed. The bank discovered that it was a forged transfer.

The victim confirmed that he repeatedly contacted the accused and asked him to return the two watches or pay for them, but to no avail, as he continued to procrastinate for a period of time, then completely stopped responding to him, which prompted him to file a criminal case against him in which he accused him of seizing his money in a fraudulent manner, forging an official document, and using that document to deceive him.

After examining the case by the Criminal Court, it convicted the accused of the crime of forging bank transfers, and punished him with three years’ imprisonment. The ruling became final, but the fraud crime was referred to the Misdemeanor Court.

Based on the criminal ruling, the victim resorted to the civil court, demanding a refund of the price of the two watches at a value of three million and 670 thousand dirhams, and he presented a portfolio of documents that included a copy of the criminal ruling and the correspondence exchanged between them, while the defendant did not appear before the civil court.

After examining the case, the court explained in the merits of its ruling that it is judicially established that “the trial court is not tasked with directing the opponents to the requirements of their defense. It is sufficient for it to evaluate its ruling according to the evidence and documents presented to it, sufficient to support it. It is also not tasked with proving the opponents’ defense, and they must provide evidence for what they claim.”

It is also stipulated in a judiciary regarding warranty or civil liability that “responsibility for a harmful act requires the presence of three elements, which are: proof that the person committed the act, whether positive or negative, proof of harm on the part of the injured person, and the causal relationship between them.” It stated that according to the law of evidence, the ruling issued in the criminal case has binding authority before the civil court in what was decided in it with a necessary decision regarding the occurrence of the act that constitutes the common basis between the civil and criminal lawsuits, and in the legal description of the act. And attributing it to its perpetrator, if the criminal court finally decides on these issues, the civil courts will not be able to re-examine them. Rather, they must consider them and adhere to them in examining the civil rights related to them so that their ruling will not be in violation of the previous criminal ruling against him. “By applying the previous rules to the case, the court stated that what is proven among its criminal cases on which the plaintiff relied in his civil lawsuit is that there were five charges brought against the defendant, and he was convicted by the criminal court of two counts of forgery and using a document. It is a forger, and he was punished with three years in prison, while the charge of fraudulently seizing the money of others was referred to the misdemeanor court, and the plaintiff did not submit a ruling issued in this regard by the misdemeanor court until the civil court found out whether the crime of seizure had occurred and whether or not the defendant had received the two watches. The plaintiff also did not submit a copy of the forged contract and the value of the amount agreed upon, according to the agreement concluded between them, and evidence of the defendant’s receipt of the two watches, and then ruled to reject the lawsuit, for lack of validity and proof.