Dubai Court upholds acquittal in KHDA certificate forgery case

Dubai: A Dubai court has upheld the acquittal of an Arab institute owner accused of forgery and fraud, ruling that the evidence presented was insufficient to support a conviction and ordering the confiscation of the disputed training certificate.

The Court of Appeal accepted the case in form but rejected the Public Prosecution’s appeal on merit, affirming the earlier verdict that cleared the defendant of all charges and reinforcing the principle that criminal guilt must be proven with certainty.

The case originated on May 30, 2024, at Al Muraqqabat Police Station, where prosecutors accused the defendant of forging a training certificate allegedly issued under the Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA), using it as a genuine document, and defrauding a plaintiff of Dh10,000.

According to the plaintiff, he enrolled in a diploma programme in international diplomatic relations at an institute in Al Rigga after discovering it through Instagram. He said he paid Dh10,000 covering tuition, certification and a graduation ceremony.

After completing two months of training, he received the certificate but claimed the graduation ceremony never took place. When he later submitted the document to KHDA for verification, he was informed that he was not registered and that the certificate was invalid. The plaintiff was not available to testify before prosecutors as he was outside the UAE.

An official KHDA report stated that while such certificates can be issued and attested upon request, the document presented did not belong to the plaintiff.

The authority confirmed that the certificate’s reference data corresponded to another individual and that no academic record existed for the plaintiff in either the institute’s files or KHDA systems.

The defence, led by lawyer Mohammed Abdullah Al Redha, successfully argued that the case lacked material evidence and was built on contradiction and doubt rather than certainty.

Al Redha told the court that the plaintiff was not a student but had a working relationship with the institute, acting as a marketer who promoted its services and had regular access to its premises. He maintained that the Dh10,000 payment formed part of a commercial arrangement, not tuition fees.

The defence also highlighted a key timeline inconsistency, noting that the institute’s professional licence was issued on March 26, 2024, while the complainant claimed his studies began earlier that month — a discrepancy described as “logically impossible”.

Defence witnesses supported this version of events, stating that the complainant was never enrolled as a student and was instead involved in marketing activities.

They also testified that official stamps and certificate-printing tools were accessible within the office, suggesting the possibility that the disputed document could have been created by someone else.

The defence further argued that the certificate being in the complainant’s possession weakens claims that it was issued by the defendant.

In its reasoning, the court stressed that the presumption of innocence remains a fundamental safeguard and that the burden of proof rests entirely with the Public Prosecution.

It found no reliable evidence directly linking the defendant to the alleged acts of forgery, noting that the complainant’s claims were not supported by independent proof.

The court also cited inconsistencies in timelines, absence of official records, and defence witness testimony as factors that created reasonable doubt.

The court emphasised that criminal convictions must be based on clear and conclusive evidence, not suspicion or speculation.

It ruled that any doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.

The court upheld the acquittal, rejected the Public Prosecution’s appeal, and ordered the confiscation of the certificate at the centre of the case.