UAE court fines an Asian man 36,600 AED for a wrong bank transfer

A person of Asian descent has found himself entangled in a legal dispute after receiving an unexpected windfall of $9,970 (approximately 36.5 thousand dirhams) in his bank account.

Read also: UAE: Digitalization Reshapes Eidiya Traditions

Despite knowing the money was transferred in error, he chose to utilize it for his personal expenses, declining the bank's request for its return.

He is accused by Dubai's Public Prosecution of stealing other people's property that was either acquired unintentionally or by unavoidable means while he was fully aware of the facts. He was then sent to the misdemeanor court, which rendered a guilty verdict. The court ordered his deportation, fined him 36,600 dirhams, and sentenced him to one month in jail. He did, however, choose to challenge this ruling.

The Court maintained the other parts of the decision after overturning the deportation order on appeal. Court records state that the accused was a customer of the concerned bank. The bank mistakenly credited his account with $9,970 on the day in question. He withdrew and spent the money, knowing that it was an error. He was asked to correct the error by the bank, but he declined; therefore, the organization opened a file against him.

During police questioning, he admitted to depositing and spending the money, requesting a grace period for repayment. However, he denied the charges brought against him by the public prosecutor, claiming he believed the funds were from a company he dealt with abroad. He stated that he only realized the error later but was met with legal action before he could rectify it.

Despite being legally summoned, the accused failed to appear in court. Consequently, the court found him guilty as charged and imposed the aforementioned penalties. Dissatisfied with the verdict, he filed an appeal, appearing before the Court of Appeal and confessing to the charges. He sought leniency, while the public prosecutor urged the court to uphold the initial ruling.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the earlier verdict appropriately reflected the case's circumstances and that there was sufficient evidence to uphold the charges after reviewing the appeal and case files. The Court showed mercy by rescinding the deportation order but leaving intact the other punishments, such as paying back the embezzled money, even though it upheld the conviction.

Follow Us on Follow Alkhbr News at Google News