Dubai Court acquits Indian worker in Dh92,670 embezzlement case

Dubai: The Dubai Misdemeanours Court has acquitted an Indian employee accused of embezzling Dh 92,670 from his employer, ruling that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the allegations. The civil claim filed by the company was also dismissed, and the plaintiff has been ordered to bear all legal costs.

The defendant an Indian national, worked at the company as an operations manager and had previously served as a reception employee and Tasheel services official. His duties involved assigning and supervising work, overseeing institutional operations, and monitoring transactions, but court records confirmed that he was not authorized to receive payments directly from clients.

The defendant was charged with embezzlement in September 2023. The prosecution claimed he received funds from clients in his official capacity for services such as issuing residency permits, but failed to remit them to the company, allegedly transferring the money into his personal account.

The verdict cleared the defendant of all charges and dismissed a related civil case filed by the company.

The court ruled that the prosecution’s case was built on inconsistent testimonies, an unverified audit report, and a disputed written confession, none of which met the level of certainty required in criminal proceedings.

“The evidence gives rise to doubt and suspicion,” the judgment stated. “Where such doubt exists, the law requires the court to rule in favour of the accused.”

According to court documents, the defendant was charged with breach of trust under the UAE Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that the defendant, who held positions as operations manager and reception employee, received payments from company clients for services such as issuing residency permits but failed to deposit the funds into the company’s accounts. The incident in question reportedly occurred on 8 September 2023. Prosecutors further claimed that between 2018 and 2023, the defendant had repeatedly received client payments and diverted them into his personal bank account instead of remitting them to the company.

Despite the accounting report presented by the prosecution, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove the crime. The verdict noted contradictions and inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies, which cast doubt on the allegations.

The company reported financial losses totalling Dh 92,670 and later filed a civil claim for Dh 51,000 in damages.

The defendant denied all allegations, insisting that he was not authorized to handle cash or collect payments from clients, and that the accusations were malicious — lodged after he filed a labour complaint over unpaid wages and denied leave.

He was represented in court by lawyer  Mohammed Abdullah Al Redha, who argued that the complaint was retaliatory and unsupported by credible evidence.

According to the court verdict, the prosecution’s case was built on contradictory testimonies, an unverified written confession, and an accounting report that lacked independent credibility. The court concluded that these elements were insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution alleged that the defendant had misappropriated funds entrusted to him by the company in the course of his work. However, the court found that key witnesses presented conflicting and illogical accounts of how the alleged embezzlement was discovered.

One company representative claimed that the wrongdoing was detected through surveillance cameras, while another said it was discovered following a client complaint. These contradictions, the court ruled, undermined the reliability of the prosecution’s case.

An accounting expert hired by the complainant submitted a report claiming that Dh92,670 had been transferred to the defendant’s personal account. But the court noted that the report relied entirely on documents provided by the company and offered no independent proof that the funds originated from company clients.

The prosecution also relied on a written statement allegedly signed by the defendant confessing to the act. However, the General Department of Criminal Evidence and Criminology reported that the signature could not be conclusively verified due to insufficient samples and missing original documents.

As a result, the court excluded the confession from consideration, stating that it lacked evidentiary weight.

The defendant denied all allegations, insisting that he was not authorized to handle cash or collect payments from clients, and that the accusations were malicious — lodged after he filed a labour complaint over unpaid wages and denied leave.

The defendant’s lawyer argued that the complaint was retaliatory and unsupported by credible evidence.

He argued that his client had no authority to receive or handle client payments and that the accusation stemmed from a workplace dispute following his resignation.

According to the defendant’s argument, the alleged embezzlement was practically impossible. He explained that the company receives a fixed fee for the services it provides, generally Dh80 per transaction.

Using this figure, the defendant challenged the accusation, noting that the total sum he was alleged to have embezzled— Dh92,670 —would require him to have conducted over a thousand transactions, a volume he maintained was unrealistic.

The amount in question was claimed to have been misappropriated over a period spanning May 2018 to June 2023.

After examining all evidence, the court found that prosecutors had failed to prove that the defendant was entrusted with company funds or that he had misused them for personal benefit—key elements required to establish the offense of breach of trust.

The defendant was acquitted of all charges, and the court also dismissed the company’s civil claim for Dh 51,000, ruling that no civil liability arises without proven criminal wrongdoing.

The company was ordered to bear all legal costs.

A follow-up judicial directive, issued on October 29, 2025, instructed authorities to lift the travel ban placed on the defendant and terminate all enforcement measures linked to the case.