A manager embezzles 8.5 million dirhams from his company in a professional manner over a period of 10 years

A former manager at a company exploited the powers of his job to embezzle approximately 8.5 million dirhams in a professional manner by purchasing hundreds of SIM cards and using their balances in 24,000 electronic purchases from two applications belonging to a company he owned outside the country, and then transferring the money to his bank account, committing his crimes over a period of 10 years out of the total 18 years he spent inside the company. The Civil Court of First Instance in Dubai ruled that he was obligated to pay 8 million and 647 thousand dirhams, the value of the money he embezzled, in addition to compensation for the damage he caused to the plaintiff company in the case.

In detail, the victim company filed a civil lawsuit 025 in which it demanded that a former manager be obligated to return an amount estimated at approximately 8.5 million dirhams, and the legal interest at the rate of 5% annually from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment, along with fees, expenses, and attorney’s fees.

She explained that the defendant worked for her from 2006 until 2024 as Director of the Internal Audit Department, and among his powers was to request SIM cards from the Financial Department to be used in testing the electronic system.

She indicated that the number of SIM cards he requested was 607 SIM cards, before it became clear that the actual number used had reached 702 SIM cards, each containing a balance that could reach 950 dirhams, with the ability to refill the balance without referring to his direct managers.

She continued that the company’s security incidents team received a notification from the Revenue Audit Department stating that repeated purchases of large sums of money had been discovered from the “Google Play” and “Apple” stores, and it was revealed through examination that the reference of the operations goes back to phone SIM cards registered under the “Internal Audit Team” account, which was managed by the defendant.

The internal investigation revealed that these chips – designated for periodic tests – were used to carry out purchases through applications, the number of which amounted to 24,988 purchases carried out over a period of 10 years, with an estimated value of about 8.5 million dirhams.

In light of this, the company filed a criminal complaint, and investigations by the General Department of Criminal Investigation and Investigation at Dubai Police revealed that the purchases were made through two smart applications, belonging to a company registered in an African country and owned by the defendant.

Investigations revealed that the proceeds of purchases were transferred to the company’s account, then transferred to his personal account within the country, before being transferred back to external accounts belonging to him, his wife, or other companies.

The Public Prosecution referred the accused to the Criminal Court on charges of embezzlement of money found in his possession due to his job, and intentional damage to the funds and interests of his employer, in addition to the misdemeanor of money laundering, and a criminal judgment was issued against him in absentia, convicting him.

After examining the papers submitted to it, the civil court clarified in its merits that a criminal judgment in absentia has no binding force before it unless it becomes final by exhausting the methods of appeal or missing their deadlines, in accordance with the Law of Evidence and the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, this does not prevent it from inferring error from the evidence and evidence presented to it, as civil liability does not depend on the issuance of a final criminal ruling, and the court may be independent in assessing the availability of its elements.

It relied on the text of Article (282) of the Civil Transactions Law, which stipulates that “every harm to others obliges the perpetrator to guarantee the harm.” It also indicated that tort liability requires the existence of fault, damage, and a causal relationship.

It indicated that the error was proven against the defendant through his deliberate exploitation of his job powers, and that the damage was achieved on the part of the company by depleting its balances and depriving it of the benefit of the funds, in addition to proving the direct causal relationship between the action and the result, especially with the proof that the real and ultimate beneficiary of all transactions is the defendant.

The court explained that the act does not fall within the category of mere negligence, but rather represents a clear transgression of functional limits, which necessitates full guarantee and refund of amounts without legitimate justification.

It ruled obligating him to return the embezzled amount, in addition to a financial compensation amounting to 92 thousand and 743 dirhams for the lost profits, bringing the total obligated to pay 8 million and 647 thousand dirhams with legal interest at 5% from the date of the ruling becoming final until full payment, and obligating him to pay the lawsuit fees and expenses and attorney’s fees.