UAE: A Man Sued His Friend Over Misuse of Security Checks

A lawsuit has been initiated by an individual against a friend who lent him 150,000 dirhams for investment purposes.

Read also: Abu Dhabi declares its achievement of a 42% success rate in IVF

The plaintiff provided bank checks amounting to 550,000 dirhams to the defendant solely as a guarantee for these transactions. However, the defendant attempted to utilize these checks, leading to their rejection by the bank, prompting the defendant to file reports against the plaintiff with the police.

In detail, the plaintiff described a cordial relationship with the defendant, wherein the defendant loaned him 150,000 dirhams for investment. To secure this amount, the plaintiff issued bank checks totaling 550,000 dirhams to the defendant exclusively as a guarantee for these transactions. However, the plaintiff later discovered that the defendant misused these checks by presenting them to the bank without proper justification. Consequently, the plaintiff filed reports against the defendant for each bounced check.

Furthermore, under pressure, the plaintiff surrendered 370,000 dirhams to the defendant following the intervention of the plaintiff’s father and subsequent negotiations to withdraw the reports. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant was not entitled to this amount as the initial loan was only 150,000 dirhams. Despite returning a portion of the checks to the plaintiff and dropping complaints, the defendant still retains a check worth 50,000 dirhams from the security checks issued, totaling 550,000 dirhams, which prompted the plaintiff to file the lawsuit.

The plaintiff demanded a reimbursement of 220,000 dirhams and the return of a 50,000 dirham check. Additionally, the plaintiff provided a copy of a Muslim check as security to the defendant, along with his identity.

The supervising judge assigned an accounting expert to examine the case files and evaluate the plaintiff-defendant relationship while the case was being deliberated at the case management office. The expert's report attested to the fact that the two parties had an investment-oriented relationship in which the plaintiff was required to reimburse the defendant for the principal amount invested plus any returns. As a result, the court decided in the defendant's favor, declaring that the plaintiff was not entitled to the 220,000 dirhams in compensation.

Follow Us on Follow Alkhbr News at Google News