False reports: the desire for revenge leads to “malicious” measures to discredit opponents

Emirates Today has monitored an increase in the number of civil cases being considered by state courts to decide on their owners’ demands for compensation for the material and moral damages they suffered due to what they described as “false reports” and “malicious accusations” from people with whom they had previous social and work relationships, and which turned into a rivalry that prompted them to seek revenge against them and tarnish their reputation.

Specialists have confirmed that some people misuse the right to litigation to harm their opponents, especially since proving maliciousness requires clear evidence, not just a feeling of injustice. The ideal solution is to promote mediation and reconciliation before resorting to the courts, and for lawyers to activate their role in preventing unnecessary escalation and directing the parties towards rational solutions, especially since the harm does not only affect the accused, but also affects the authorities and agencies entrusted with the investigation.

Defamation of reputation is defined in UAE law as “attributing a false or malicious allegation to a person, which leads to harming his reputation or standing before others.”

The specialists said that this accusation is repeated in many civil cases whose owners demand compensation for the material and moral losses they have suffered because of it, as it is considered a crime that drains the effort and time of the accused, the police and the judiciary, due to the difficulty of proving maliciousness, which requires finding a proactive path for conciliation and reconciliation to address this challenge, and reducing the number of sent accusation cases that result in criminal and civil cases, most of which end in acquittal and rejection.

They emphasized that the difficulty of proving abuse of the right to litigation causes a large number of malicious reports, as it encourages some of them to take revenge on their opponents with the aim of defaming their reputation, disrupting their interests, and preoccupying them with pursuing cases, in addition to trying to blackmail them, especially since most of them are between divorced people, or due to work disputes, inheritance, or neighborhood disputes, and are concentrated in accusations of insulting, trying to assault, beating, or entering a residence by force, which threatens the people against whom the claim is being made. They are punished by the criminal law, subject to investigative procedures by judicial authorities, and sometimes detained for some time.

Disgraceful crime

In detail, Dr. Saif Rashid Al Jabri, professor of culture and society at a number of Emirati universities, stated that a false report, in its simplest definition, means intentionally falsely informing a public authority of something that includes attributing a punishable act to a specific person with the intention of harming his reputation and honor. Its basic pillar is to report something that is definitely false and requires punishment for its perpetrator.

He added that the Islamic religion forbade false testimony, and even considered it a major sin, because this act erodes society, spreads hatred, and obscures the facts, as its motives are often hatred, grudges, and the desire for revenge and distorting reputation. Therefore, it is considered one of the most severe crimes that disrupt the course of justice. Because it affects people’s rights and dignity, it also causes inconvenience to the authorities, causes anxiety and confusion, and severs social ties, which requires confronting it firmly, so that it does not turn into a negative phenomenon that harms society.

Right to litigation

Lawyer Dr. Ahmed Al-Maamari stated that “the right to litigation is guaranteed to every person, and it cannot be restricted, even if it later turns out that the complaint is incorrect, as long as its complainant believed in the existence of a right or suspicion of a right,” indicating that there are cases in which a person submits malicious reports for the purposes of revenge or defamation. However, proving malicious intent is not easy, because the law requires clear evidence that the author did not intend to claim an actual right, but rather wanted to harm the other party.”

Al-Maamari said: “Such cases obstruct the course of justice indirectly. When complaints that are not serious or result from personal disputes accumulate, they occupy the investigation authorities in the police and prosecution agencies, consume the judiciary’s time, and delay the adjudication of more important and serious cases. But on the other hand, the state cannot prevent people from filing complaints, because that may deprive oppressed people of access to justice. Therefore, the solution is not to restrict the right, but rather to tighten the procedures for proving maliciousness and activating penalties on those who commit offenses.” Use this right.

---

Alternative solutions

He pointed out that “proving the abuse of the right to litigation (malicious complaint) usually depends on three elements, including: the clear absence of any basis for the accusation, the repetition of reports from the same person against the same opponent without new justification, in addition to the presence of messages or evidence proving bad faith, such as a prior threat to defame or retaliate,” pointing out that “if these elements are present, the accused can file a lawsuit for compensation for the allegation of false reporting or abuse of the right, according to the facts of each case.”

Al-Maamari added: “Most of these disputes are family or between neighbors or divorced people, so it is better to follow alternative steps before resorting to the judiciary, including family reconciliation or mediation through family reform centers, or community mediation through a neutral person who has standing with both parties, or using a law firm to negotiate before filing a lawsuit, in addition to raising awareness that judicial escalation harms everyone, especially in the presence of children. These means also reduce time and effort, and preserve social relations.”

Al-Maamari stressed that the lawyer can play a role in these cases, by evaluating the case before filing any lawsuits to find out whether there is a real legal basis or just an emotional reaction, and attempting to negotiate and reach an amicable solution as much as possible.

If it is proven that there is a malicious report or an accusation without evidence, the lawyer is advised to file a false report complaint, demand compensation for moral and moral damage, and request proof of the damage with evidence (its impact on work, family, reputation). If there is not sufficient evidence, it is wise to avoid escalation so that the case does not turn into a series of mutual lawsuits.

Disturbing the authorities

The opinion was supported by lawyer Salem Obaid Al-Naqbi, who pointed out that the crime of false reporting or malicious accusations is one of the acts that constitute an explicit assault on members of society, and with the development of societies and civil life, this crime has become a means that the perpetrator seeks to exploit to achieve personal goals such as revenge, obtaining money, or threats and intimidation, by putting pressure on the victim. This crime also results in inconvenience to the competent authorities, as it is their responsibility to investigate, research and investigate an unfounded crime. It is true, and there is no evidence that it occurred, and this is considered a waste of time and the real role for which police stations and prosecution offices were created.

Al Naqbi said: “The UAE plays a major role in combating false reporting crimes in all their forms. It does not hesitate to hold accountable anyone who commits these acts, as the UAE legislator has enacted deterrent laws and penalties commensurate with the extent of the harm inflicted on the individual victim, by applying the legal texts mentioned in the Crimes and Penal Code,” noting that at the same time not everyone who is acquitted is considered an accusation of false reporting, so the ruling, its merits, and the reasons for acquittal play the primary role in That issue, the acquittal may be for a reason that does not entail an abuse of the right to litigation.

Ambiguous cases

Lawyer Salem Saeed Al-Haqi stressed that the right to litigation is a constitutional and legal principle that cannot be infringed. It is a cultural tool for protecting rights. But the law itself recognizes limits. It is not permissible to use the right in a way that deviates from its purposes and becomes a means of harming others.

He stated that the provisions of the Civil Transactions Law legislate the principle of “abuse of the right” and specify its cases (such as intent to harm, conflict with Sharia or public order, or disproportionateness of the sought interest with the harm inflicted on others), indicating that this rule practically translates into the rejection of claims for compensation for complaints if it is not proven that the plaintiff used the right with the intention of harm or in a way that exceeds the limits of custom and Sharia.

Al-Haqi said: “In the practical field, there are cases in which the distinction between a legitimate right and misuse is ambiguous, such as when one party files a criminal report or a civil complaint against another out of fear or to pressure him, or out of revenge against him after a family dispute or divorce.”

He continued: “This must be opposed, but the problem lies in the fact that many of these allegations are elastic and based on doubts or facts whose maliciousness is difficult to prove, and thus it is difficult for the aggrieved person to easily convert the judiciary’s rejection of his criminal or civil lawsuit into a ruling that proves abuse.”

Obstruction of justice

He added: “These cases disrupt the course of justice. The intense follow-up of weak or repeated cases consumes the resources of the investigation and judicial authorities: investigations, hearings, expert fees, and the time of judges and lawyers, and this consumption may be reflected in the delay in deciding other cases.”

He continued: “Our judicial system prefers not to limit access to justice except within narrow limits, because excessive restrictions may prevent those with real rights from obtaining their justice,” noting that “the solution lies in controlling the balance by enacting judicial and procedural mechanisms (such as rejecting the case or applying fines or civil liability when bad faith is proven), with the aim of reducing the burden without prejudice to the principle of the right to litigation.”

Al-Haqi pointed out that “proving that the injured person misused the right to litigation requires building proof around specific, measurable elements, including intent to harm: evidence that the complainant intended to cause harm to the defendant (letters, blog posts, witness testimony, repeated behavior after a dispute), and lack of legitimate interest: proving that the complainant did not intend to protect a legitimate right, but rather to achieve another purpose (revenge), and violation of custom, law, or public order: that the use of the right was disproportionate or contrary to legal norms.

Proof of maliciousness

Methods of proving abuse of the right to litigation also include: actual damage, by providing concrete evidence of damage to reputation, work, or social status (firing from a job, loss of contracts, reputation-valuing expert testimonies, rejection letters from employers, psychological/social reports), in addition to proving maliciousness or procedural invalidity, which includes proving that the report is false or that the complainant concealed material information from the investigating authorities.

He stressed that limiting the access of such disputes to the courts “especially family and neighborhood disputes” is through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms through mediation, arbitration, family reconciliation, and community reconciliation. “Conciliation sessions are encouraged in family and neighborhood issues before accepting lawsuits, which reduces the degree of escalation from the beginning of the conflict, in addition to launching legal awareness campaigns to explain the limits of the right to litigation and the civil and criminal consequences of abuse and malicious reports.

---

Private brokers

The Abu Dhabi Judicial Department approved the first batch of private mediators in settling civil and commercial disputes in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, which included 58 mediators, to promote amicable solutions to disputes and facilitate access to justice.

The role of private mediators represents an essential pillar in achieving the department’s mission based on accelerating the resolution of cases, facilitating access to justice, and spreading a culture of tolerance and understanding, by providing alternative paths to resolve disputes away from the corridors of the courts.

The Department confirmed that the mediators have passed the specialized training programs implemented by the Abu Dhabi Judicial Academy, which qualifies them to practice private mediation work in accordance with the highest professional and legal standards. The training program included advanced topics in negotiation skills, management of mediation sessions, and amicable settlement mechanisms, in addition to the legal and ethical aspects of the profession.

Issues

The cases heard by the courts recently included the rejection of a compensation lawsuit filed by a man against a woman, in which he requested that she be obliged to pay him an amount of 100 thousand dirhams in compensation for opening a criminal report against him, in which she accused him of assaulting her bodily integrity, indicating that her accusation was unjust and slanderous. The court ruled that he was innocent of the accusation against him, but that claim led to material and moral damage to him, as he was arrested during the investigation period, and the accusation also led to… His reputation was tarnished, and the court ruled to reject his claim.

In a second case, the court ruled to reject a lawsuit filed by a woman in which she demanded compensation in the amount of 20,000 dirhams from a man who accused her of theft, after she obtained an acquittal of the charge against her.

The court rejected a third lawsuit by a young man who asked a girl for compensation of 50,000 dirhams, accusing him of committing an indecent act, based on the issuance of a ruling acquitting him of the accusation.

In a fourth case, the court rejected a compensation lawsuit filed by a woman against her ex-husband, in which she requested compensation for the material and moral damages she suffered as a result of a false report made against her. The civil court based its rejection rulings in compensation cases on the fact that the criminal court did not base its acquittal ruling on the basis of the informant’s lie, but rather on the basis of its doubts about the validity of the accusation.

Punishment for false reporting

The State Public Prosecution specifies “in its awareness posts on its social media accounts” that the penalty for false reporting crimes is imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months and a fine, or one of these two penalties.

The penalty shall be imposed on anyone who informs the judicial authority or administrative authorities of incidents or dangers that do not exist or are contrary to the truth, or of a crime that he knows has not been committed.

Imprisonment and a fine, or one of these two penalties, shall also be punished by imprisonment and a fine, or by one of these two penalties, whoever falsely and in bad faith informs the judicial authority or administrative authorities that a person has committed something that requires his criminal punishment or administrative sanction, even if this does not result in the filing of a criminal or disciplinary case, as well as whoever fabricates material evidence that a person has committed a crime contrary to the fact, or causes legal measures to be taken against a person who he knows is innocent. The penalty shall be imprisonment and a fine in both cases if the crime is slandered. A felony. If slander leads to a felony penalty, the slanderer shall be punished with the same penalty imposed.

• 3 elements to prove the maliciousness of the accusations, including: the absence of any basis for the accusation, the repetition of the report against the same opponent without new justification, in addition to proven bad faith.

• Proving malicious intent requires clear evidence, and the ideal solution is to promote mediation and reconciliation before resorting to the courts.

• The accusations sent result in criminal and civil cases, most of which end in acquittal and rejection.

• The acquitted accused can request compensation for the false report, according to the facts of each case.