Obliging Arab to pay 2.5 million dirhams that he illegally seized

The civil court in Dubai ruled to oblige an Arab man to return 2.5 million dirhams to another, after he received it from him for allegedly using it to open distinct bank accounts for him and his company, stressing that the defendant’s acquittal in the criminal case does not prevent him from being held civilly accountable, once it is proven that he kept other people’s money without legal basis.

The details of the case go back to the plaintiff’s acquaintance with the defendant through a friend, where he presented himself as having extensive connections, and claimed that he works with an important person and enjoys influence to help him complete the procedures for opening private bank accounts with a bank, whether for the plaintiff or his company.

According to the lawsuit, the defendant initially convinced the plaintiff to pay 400,000 dirhams to complete the account opening procedures, before later suggesting that he open a bank account designated for VIP customers, and asked him to transfer an additional 2.1 million dirhams, stressing that the money would be deposited into the account once the procedures were completed.

After transferring the amount, the plaintiff was surprised after opening the accounts that the money had not been deposited in them, and when he demanded its return, the defendant refused to return the amount, which prompted him to file a criminal report accusing him of fraud and seizing his money.

Although the criminal case ended with the defendant acquitted, after the criminal court deemed that the incident did not constitute a fraud crime but rather represented a civil dispute, the investor returned to the civil court demanding that he be obligated to return the full amount.

The court confirmed in its merits that criminal acquittal does not necessarily mean the forfeiture of the civil right, explaining that the criminal court did not deny the fact that the defendant received the money, but rather concluded only that the elements of the criminal crime were not met, which leaves the civil court with the authority to decide on the financial rights between the two parties.

She added that the case papers included supporting evidence confirming that the defendant had already received an amount of 2.5 million dirhams, including mutual conversations and an audio recording in which he acknowledged that the money was still in his possession as a trust, in addition to that the criminal ruling itself proved that he had taken the measures he promised to open the bank accounts, which reinforces the financial relationship between the two parties.

The court explained that the defendant did not submit, throughout the consideration of the case, any document proving the return of the money to the investor, or transferring it to the agreed-upon accounts, or any evidence exonerating him of the amount, which makes his retention of it without legal justification sufficient reason to oblige him to return it.

The court stressed that the law not only protects those who are exposed to fraud, but also protects those who lose their money without a legitimate reason, as it is not permissible for any person to get rich at the expense of others without legal support. She pointed out that the rules of unjust enrichment oblige anyone who is proven to have owed money owned by others to return it if he is unable to prove a legitimate reason for keeping it.

On the other hand, the court rejected the case against a second defendant, after the case papers were devoid of any evidence proving that he received part of the money or participated in keeping it, stressing that civil liability is not based on suspicion or mere suspicion, but rather requires clear evidence proving that the defendant is concerned with the claimed money.

The court ended up obliging the first defendant to return 2.5 million dirhams to the investor, with a legal interest of 5% from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment, in addition to fees, expenses, and attorney’s fees.

• The court stressed that it is not permissible for any person to enrich himself at the expense of others without legal support.