I lost it in digital trading.. A woman refuses to return 340 thousand dirhams “advance” to her friend

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Claims Court rejected a lawsuit filed by a woman, in which another demanded the payment of 340 thousand dirhams, which she said she had transferred to her as a loan, while the defendant confirmed that it had been transferred to her for the purpose of investment and trading via a digital wallet.

The court noted that the plaintiff was unable to provide proof that the transferred amounts were a loan.

In the details, a woman filed a lawsuit against another, demanding that she be obligated to pay her an amount of 340 thousand dirhams, the legal interest of 12%, and an amount of 50 thousand dirhams in compensation for the damages she suffered, while obligating her to pay expenses, fees, and legal fees, noting that she transferred the amount of the claim in two installments to the defendant as a loan, and when she asked her to return the amount, she delayed and refused to pay unjustly.

In support of her claim, she provided pictures of bank transfers from her account to the defendant’s account, and WhatsApp messages.

For its part, the defendant submitted a reply memorandum in which she confirmed that the plaintiff’s claim was incorrect, noting that the amounts in question were voluntarily provided to her for trading in her digital wallet, as indicated in the WhatsApp conversations, adding that the relationship between them is in fact commercial, bearing profit and loss, and not “unjust enrichment.” She presented a scan of her digital wallet, the trading statement, and WhatsApp messages showing that the basis of the dealing was Trading via the digital wallet, requesting the lawsuit to be dismissed.

The plaintiff submitted a rejoinder, in which she confirmed that the defendant had borrowed the amount of 340,000 dirhams from her, and that she was trying to evade payment, denying that she had transferred the amount for investment via digital papers.

For its part, the court stated in the merits of its ruling that it was established that there were financial transfers to the defendant’s account, without explaining the reason for that, as the plaintiff maintained that the reason was based on borrowing, while the defendant denied this, stating that it was by way of investment in her portfolio.

She continued that the conversations presented by the plaintiff were devoid of anything indicating that the transfer was by way of a loan and advances, and her statements were sent in this regard, and the hallways were devoid of any document or evidence that supports her claim and proves that the defendant was preoccupied with the claimed amount. She stated that the financial transfer order submitted by the plaintiff does not prove the reason for the transfer, nor is it considered evidence of the defendant’s preoccupation with the amount, nor does it indicate the reason she claimed or prove the reason for the claim, pointing out that It only proves the fact that the money was transferred by agreement of both parties.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s request for compensation and attributed its refusal to the fact that compensation for damage requires the presence of the elements of responsibility, such as error, damage, and a causal relationship. The lawsuit papers were devoid of any evidence of the defendant’s error and harm to the plaintiff’s interests, and the plaintiff’s statements in this regard were sent. It ruled to reject the case and obligate the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.