UAE court fines an employee 5,000 AED for fabricating a theft crime
A 45-year-old African employee attempted to deceive authorities in Dubai by falsely reporting a crime to obtain money belonging to his employer.
He claimed that an unknown person had broken into his vehicle and stolen 8,000 dirhams. However, his deceit was uncovered by the Dubai Police, leading to his arrest and referral to the Public Prosecution.
The public prosecutor charged him with fabricating a crime by falsely informing authorities about an incident that didn't occur, knowing that no crime had been committed. He was then tried in a misdemeanour court, where he was convicted and fined 5,000 dirhams. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the prosecution appealed to the Court of Appeal, seeking a harsher penalty, including imprisonment and deportation. Despite this, the initial ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The court detailed the case, explaining that the accused had informed the Dubai Police's command centre of a robbery, alleging that his vehicle had been broken into and money stolen. Upon investigation, the police found conclusive evidence that the accused had fabricated the report. He eventually confessed to stealing the money from his employer's vehicle, spending a portion of it, and turning the rest over to the police.
During the Public Prosecution's investigations, the accused confessed again to the crime. The court emphasised the significance of confession as evidence and concluded that the accused knowingly reported a non-existent crime while being fully aware that he was the perpetrator.
The court found the defendant guilty and punished him with 5,000 dirhams in compliance with Federal Law No. 38 of 2022. The Court of Appeal maintained the initial decision in spite of appeals from the accused as well as the prosecution. The original verdict was pronounced just after the accused's attempts to refute the charges and cast doubt on the evidence were rejected. The ruling took into account the evidence that was given.
Ultimately, the court affirmed that the initial ruling aligned with the law and factual reality, ensuring justice was served in the case.