Man faces jail, fine for dodging payment of Dh1m settlement

A man who tried to avoid paying Dh1 million as a settlement with a plaintiff by claiming his chequebook was stolen, now faces two months in prison and a Dh2,000 fine.

The Dubai Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's ruling and found S.A.A., a 36-year-old national businessman, guilty of filing a false report.

The court also acquitted B.B.R., a 40-year-old Indian manager, of the same charge.

According to court reports, Z.N., a national woman, had filed a lawsuit against the national businessman for a different case in Abu Dhabi. The national businessman and the national woman reached a settlement, and he agreed to pay Dh950,000 on condition that she drop the lawsuit.

After the accused gave her two cheques worth Dh950,000, he informed the police that his chequebook was stolen from his mobile phone shop.

The accused's mobile shop was burgled and he asked the manager of the shop, B.B.R., to report the crime to the police. Later, he ordered B.B.R. to inform the police that he had forgotten to add the chequebook to the list of stolen goods.

During investigations, B.B.R. stated that he had reported the theft to the police but, at first, he had not mentioned that the chequebook was stolen.

He added in his court statement that S.A.A. later asked him to tell the police that he had forgotten to report the chequebook was stolen.

Upon questioning, S.A.A. denied the charge, as well as the allegations of his shop manager.

The plaintiff had testified that she agreed to drop her commercial lawsuit against S.A.A. if he signed the Dh950,000 cheques.

She added in her statement that S.A.A. signed the cheques and sent them through a third party arbitrator.

An eyewitness and the third party arbitrator, testified during the trial that he played an intermediary role between the accused and the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal concluded that both had resolved their quarrel and reached a settlement. However, S.A.A.'s dubious claims that his chequebook had been stolen proved that he was trying to avoid paying the plaintiff her dues.

The court acquitted B.B.R. as he was only following his boss's orders.