Ajman court clears woman after doubts over WhatsApp messages

Ajman: The Ajman Appeal Court has overturned the conviction of an Egyptian woman accused of embezzlement and breach of trust, ruling that doubts over the authenticity of WhatsApp evidence and a lack of proof that money was ever handed over warranted her acquittal.

According to court records, the retired dentist was accused of taking possession of money entrusted to her under an agency arrangement and unlawfully keeping it, leading prosecutors to charge her with breach of trust under Article 453 of the UAE Crimes and Penalties Law.

The Ajman Court of First Instance convicted the woman in July, fining her Dh5,000 and ordering her to pay court costs.

But the Ajman Appeal Court, sitting as a three judge panel, collectively overturned the ruling and acquitted her, finding that the prosecution had failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

In its judgment, the court stressed that criminal convictions must be founded on certainty and credible evidence, not suspicion or conjecture. It added that where doubts persist over the reliability of the evidence, those doubts must be resolved in favour of the accused.

A key issue before the appeal court was a series of WhatsApp screenshots submitted by the complainant as evidence.

The defence team, led by Legal Consultant Dr Hasan Elhais of Amal Al Rashedi Lawyers and Legal Consultants, argued that the messages could not be reliably linked to the accused and raised doubts about the authenticity of the screenshots.

According to the defence, the telephone number shown in the conversations appeared in a local format beginning with "05", rather than the international format typically displayed by WhatsApp using the UAE country code "+971".

“WhatsApp normally displays telephone numbers with their international country code,” Dr Elhais told the court.

He argued that the unusual formatting raised questions about the integrity of the screenshots and suggested the possibility that the number may have been added or altered using photo editing software.

The defence contended that the discrepancy undermined the reliability of the correspondence and that the screenshots alone were insufficient to prove that the woman had sent, received or participated in the alleged conversations.

Lawyers further argued that the material submitted to the court appeared to be image copies rather than original electronic records, limiting their evidentiary value.

“No forensic report was produced to verify that the conversations had originated from the woman’s phone or WhatsApp account,” Dr Elhais said, adding that no technical examination had been carried out to authenticate the messages or link them to the accused.

The woman consistently denied the allegations, telling investigators that she did not know the complainant, had never received any money from him and had not taken part in the WhatsApp conversations attributed to her.

“She had maintained her denial since she was first questioned by police and challenged the authenticity of the screenshots,” Dr Elhais said.

The defence argued that the screenshots could not reliably establish who had created or sent the messages, or whether the telephone number shown in the conversations belonged to the woman.

She also denied having any knowledge of the telephone number allegedly linked to the WhatsApp account.

The defence also challenged the complainant’s claim that he had handed money to the woman.

Dr Elhais pointed out that the case file contained no receipt, bank transfer, written agreement or other documentary evidence proving that the complainant had delivered any money to her.

The defence argued that the absence of proof of payment was significant because the charge of breach of trust required evidence that money or property had first been entrusted to the accused under a recognised relationship of trust, such as an agency arrangement.

“Without evidence of delivery, it could not be established that the money had ever entered the woman’s custody or that she later treated it as her own,” Dr Elhais said.

The defence therefore maintained that the prosecution had failed to establish a fundamental element of the alleged offence — that the money had actually been placed in the woman’s possession.

The defence also challenged the first-instance court’s finding that the complainant’s account was supported by an alleged confession from the woman, as well as other circumstantial evidence.

Dr Elhais said the woman had never confessed to the offence at any stage of the proceedings.

“Our client had not been questioned by prosecutors and had consistently denied the accusation in her police statement and before the trial court,” he said.

The defence argued that the lower court had therefore relied on a finding that was not supported by the evidence contained in the case file.

Appeal court finds inconsistencies in complainant’s account

In its judgment issued earlier this month, the Ajman Appeal Court identified inconsistencies in the complainant’s account of the alleged transaction.

The judges found that his statements about how the money was allegedly handed over and the amount involved were unclear and inconsistent.

The court also questioned why the complainant would have entrusted a substantial sum to the woman when the available evidence did not establish a clear relationship between them.

Court records did not show that the complainant was engaged in commercial activities or that there had been any documented business transaction between the two parties, the judges found.

This raised further doubts over the alleged agency arrangement and whether there had been any established basis for the woman to receive the money.

The appeal court also found no independent evidence capable of corroborating the complainant’s allegations.

The case file contained no reliable documentary evidence, supporting witness testimony or other material independently establishing that the woman had received the money or participated in the alleged WhatsApp conversations.

The judges also noted that the police investigation had not independently verified the circumstances surrounding the alleged transaction or established the authenticity of the WhatsApp material.

The woman had denied the allegations from the beginning, including any knowledge of the telephone number associated with the messages.

After reviewing the case, the appeal judges concluded that the prosecution had failed to provide sufficiently reliable evidence to uphold the conviction.

The court stressed that criminal convictions must be based on certainty and established facts, rather than suspicion, assumptions or speculation.

Where reasonable doubt exists over the reliability of the evidence, the accused must be given the benefit of that doubt.

The three judge appeal panel collectively found that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The court therefore overturned the Ajman Court of First Instance ruling, cancelled the Dh5,000 fine and acquitted the woman of the breach of trust charge.