admin 
The Misdemeanor Court in Dubai acquitted a company manager of the charge of embezzling Dhs6,230,000 from the company’s funds, and rejected the civil lawsuit filed against them, after finding no evidence in the papers proving the seizure of funds or the intention to embezzle them.
The details of the case date back to a time when two partners in the company filed a report accusing the manager, who was in charge of managing the company and its financial affairs, of seizing amounts during the period from 2018 to 2024, through withdrawals and financial irregularities, while they demanded a temporary civil compensation of Dhs51,000.
During the hearing of the case, the court appointed an accounting expert to examine the accounts and documents, and concluded that the transactions under accusation were recorded in the company’s books and the partner’s current account, and that amounts related to profit distributions were based on decisions signed by the complainants and their representatives, which the court considered evidence of their knowledge and approval of those transactions.
Lawyer and legal consultant Marwa Al Suwaidi, the representative of the accused manager, said that the court clarified in the merits of its judgment that the crime of breach of trust requires proving that the money was delivered to the suspect as a trust under one of the contracts specified by law, and then he intended to embezzle or use it in a way that harms its owner.
The court also indicated that the evidence relied upon by the complainants, represented by their statements and the advisory accounting report, was not sufficient to prove the crime, especially after the expert’s report refuted the occurrence of embezzlement.
The court took into account that the withdrawals and financial transactions were recorded in the company’s accounts, and that the profit distribution decisions were signed by the complainants or their representatives.
It also saw that what was stated in the papers did not constitute conclusive evidence of the availability of the suspect’s intention to seize the funds, and that the mere existence of debit balances or financial and accounting disputes between partners was not sufficient alone to prove criminal intent, and therefore the elements of the crime of breach of trust were not completed against them. Accordingly, the court acquitted the appellee, rejected the civil lawsuit, and ordered the complainants to pay the costs and lawyer’s fees.
