A lawyer was imprisoned for two months on charges of “breach of trust”

The Sharjah Court of First Instance, Misdemeanor Division, ruled to imprison a female lawyer for two months, after convicting her of embezzling movable property delivered to her by way of agency, obligating her to pay judicial fees and referring the civil case to the competent court.

The details of the case go back to a report submitted by a lawyer on behalf of her client, in which she reported that he had been subjected to an incident of betrayal of trust by a lawyer whom he had appointed to follow up on a legal execution file pending before one of the state’s Sharia courts.

She explained that he concluded a legal power of attorney with the accused to follow up on the legal implementation procedures related to an outstanding alimony owed by him pursuant to a judicial ruling, as an accounting report was issued showing that the total outstanding amount amounted to 86 thousand and 22 dirhams and 58 fils.

She said that the accused asked her client to transfer the amount to her account to deposit it in the legal execution file and lift the arrest warrant issued against him, based on his ignorance of the legal procedures, so he transferred the amount in batches, via bank transfer, and in cash via one of his relatives.

The lawyer reported that her client was later surprised by the continued issuance of arrest warrants and habeas corpus against him from the Sharia Execution Court, and that he received notices stating that he had not paid the full amount due, which raised his doubts and prompted him to review the execution file, until it became clear that the lawyer had deposited only 30 thousand dirhams of the amount.

She indicated that reviewing the movement reports issued by the Judicial Department, and reviewing the WhatsApp correspondence between the two parties, showed that the accused was deluding her client into depositing the amount and following up on the implementation file, while she did not provide any evidence that she actually did so.

During the investigations, the accused denied the accusation against her, and determined that the amounts she kept were accumulated legal fees from a number of previous cases between the client and his ex-wife. She pointed out that there were signed agreements that allowed her office to take the necessary measures to preserve his financial rights. She claimed that she did not refrain from settling the matter, but rather was waiting for the client to appear to discuss the dues.

For its part, the court affirmed, in the merits of its ruling, that the trial court has full authority to gain an understanding of the reality in the case, give it the correct legal description, and evaluate the evidence presented to reach the accusation against the accused, as long as it bases its ruling on justifiable reasons that have a proven basis in the papers, and are based on evidence that is acceptable by reason and logic, without any comment on it.

It clarified that it is not obligated to follow the opponents in their various statements and aspects of their defense, or to respond independently to every statement or request, as long as the truth of which it is convinced, and which it provided evidence of, includes the implicit response to those statements, relying in this on what the Supreme Court’s judiciary has established.

Regarding the accusation against the accused, she stated that the incident was established before her, based on the statements of the informant, who stated that her client agreed with the accused, in her capacity as a lawyer, to represent him in following up on the Sharia execution file before one of the Sharia courts in the country, with the amount of expenses owed by him being deposited within the execution file.

The lawyer (the accused) asked her client to transfer the full amount to her personal account, under the pretext of depositing it in the execution file and lifting the arrest warrant issued against him. However, the accused did not deposit the amount in the legitimate execution file, and did not provide proof that she had done so, which confirmed to the court the validity of the incident attributed to her, and that the accusation against her was proven.

Based on the above, and in accordance with the text of Article 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the referral materials, the court was confident that the incident had been proven completely and conclusively without doubt, as it was completely convinced that the accused had committed the crime charged to her.

The court decided, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of Federal Law No. 13 of 2016 regarding judicial fees before the federal courts, to oblige the convicted woman to pay the legally prescribed judicial fees.

Regarding the civil case, she explained that it is acceptable in form, but deciding on it requires conducting a special investigation that may result in postponing the decision on the criminal case.

It was decided to refer it to the competent civil court.

The court concluded by ruling in the presence of the accused, convicting her, punishing her with imprisonment for two months for the charge charged against her, and obliging her to pay judicial fees.