The trial of 4 defendants who deceived a person into abandoning a case

The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that convicted one of the defendants in a case of defrauding a person to waive a previous case, deciding to refer the case to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration.

In the details, the Public Prosecution charged the accused and others with attempting to defraud the victim, by using incorrect fraudulent methods in order to waive a previous case, where they tricked him into giving him an envelope containing 870 thousand dirhams. Indeed, the victim looked at what was inside it before the waiver and confirmed that the amount was correct. However, after executing the waiver, they gave him an envelope similar to the first, but containing 4,000 dirhams (representing eight packages of five denominations). dirhams) and would have deceived the victim and forced him to give up, but the effect of the crime was defeated by the victim taking care of the matter and canceling the waiver.

The Public Prosecution requested that he be punished with the articles stipulated in Federal Decree Law No. 31 of 2021 issuing the Crimes and Penal Code.

The court of first instance ruled in its presence to convict two of the defendants and punish them with six months imprisonment for each of them on the charge of participating by agreement and assisting in the seizure of the amount owned by the victim attributed to them, obligating them to pay the criminal case fees and referring the civil lawsuit filed by the civil plaintiff against them to the competent civil court to decide on it. It also ruled to acquit two others of the charge of seizing for themselves the amount of money owned by the victim attributed to them.

The convicts and the civil plaintiff appealed this ruling, and the Court of Appeal ruled to amend the appealed ruling against one of the defendants, and merely punish him with a fine of 20,000 dirhams for the charge against him and the appeal fees, while it rejected the appeal submitted by the second main defendant, and upheld what the appealed ruling ruled against him.

This ruling was not accepted by the accused, whose appeal was rejected, so he appealed it before the Federal Supreme Court, and the Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum requesting that the appeal be rejected.

The accused complained of a violation of the right of his defense, who maintained before the trial court that it was not permissible to file a criminal case due to the issuance of an order that there was no basis for filing a criminal case, which the Public Prosecution erroneously described as an administrative preservation order. The contested ruling neglected to respond to this defense despite its essence, which is flawed and requires it to be overturned.

For its part, the Federal Court supported the defendant’s appeal, explaining that “it is established, in the jurisprudence of this court, that rulings must be based on clear and clear reasons that indicate that the court has attained an understanding of the reality in the case and that this means its obligation to respond to the fundamental defenses and defenses.”

She confirmed that it is established that the fundamental defense that the ruling is defective in omitting is every fundamental defense that resonates with the court and would – if true – lead to changing the face of opinion in the case.

She pointed out that what is established from reviewing the final memorandum submitted by the accused before the Court of Appeal is that he maintained the inadmissibility of filing a criminal case due to the issuance of an order that there was no basis for filing a criminal case, which the Public Prosecution erroneously described as an administrative preservation order. However, the ruling was not subject to this defense either as a statement or as a response, and it is a fundamental defense that the accused made to the court’s hearing, and the opinion of the case may be changed by its investigation, if true, in the case. This flawed the ruling with failure in causation and breach of the right of defence, and requires it to be overturned without the need to examine the rest of the other grounds for appeal. To be with the referral cassation.