Sharjah court jails man in Dh692,000 fake IPhone sale fraud

Sharjah: A Sharjah court has sentenced a man to six months in prison after convicting him of defrauding an Arab buyer of Dh692,000 in a fake wholesale iPhone transaction, ruling that he used deception and false commercial claims to obtain the money without supplying the promised devices.

The verdict was issued on July 16, 2026, by the fifth misdemeanor circuit at the Sharjah Court of First Instance, which found the defendant guilty of fraud under the UAE Crimes and Punishments Law. The court also ordered him to pay judicial fees and referred the victim’s compensation claim to the competent civil court, preserving his right to seek financial damages.

According to the Public Prosecution, the defendant falsely claimed that he owned and operated a mobile phone trading business and had the ability to supply 160 iPhone 17 Pro Max devices for a total value of Dh692,000.

Prosecutors said the accused deliberately created the impression that he was a legitimate electronics supplier and used this false representation to persuade the buyer to complete the transaction and hand over the money.

Investigations later revealed that the defendant did not own a licensed mobile phone trading company and had no stock of the smartphones he claimed he could provide. The prosecution charged him with obtaining another person’s money through fraudulent methods and misleading representations.

Court records showed that the incident took place on February 20, 2024, near Emirates Post on Jamal Abdul Nasser Street in Sharjah.

After discussions about the purchase, the buyer arrived at the agreed meeting location carrying Dh692,000 in cash inside a laptop bag, believing he was finalising a genuine commercial purchase.

The defendant allegedly received the money and told the buyer that he would collect the smartphones from a nearby location and return shortly with the devices. However, prosecutors said he left the area on foot and failed to provide any of the promised phones.

Investigations found that the defendant later contacted the buyer through WhatsApp and sent him the location of a building in Al Nahda, instructing him to wait there for delivery of the devices.

Prosecutors said the message was another attempt to mislead the buyer, delay the discovery of the fraud and give the accused more time to leave with the money.

A witness who accompanied the buyer during the transaction testified that he had seen the cash handover and supported the buyer’s account of what happened.

The court reviewed witness statements, investigation findings and other evidence related to the transaction before concluding that the defendant had intentionally presented himself as a genuine trader despite not having the ability or intention to complete the sale.

The defendant denied the allegations during the trial and rejected the fraud accusation, arguing that the matter did not amount to a criminal offence.

However, the court ruled that the case was not a failed commercial transaction but a deliberate act of fraud, finding that the defendant had obtained the money through false claims and deceptive conduct.

Lawyer Mohammed Al Awami Al Mansoori , representing the victim, argued that the incident was a planned fraud scheme rather than a normal business dispute.

He told the court that the defendant had misrepresented himself from the beginning by falsely claiming to be a mobile phone supplier capable of providing a large quantity of devices. The defence argued that the accused used this false business identity to gain the buyer’s trust, arrange the cash meeting and collect the money.

Al Awami also highlighted the defendant’s actions after receiving the cash, including his failure to deliver the phones and his WhatsApp messages directing the buyer to another location, which the defence described as attempts to delay the victim from discovering the fraud.

Lawyer Al Awami sought Dh52,000 in temporary compensation on behalf of the victim, citing financial losses and damages resulting from the alleged fraud.

In its judgment, the court found that the defendant’s actions fulfilled the elements of criminal fraud, as he obtained the money through intentional deception and false representations.

The court sentenced him to six months in prison, ordered him to pay court fees, and referred the civil compensation claim to the relevant civil court for further consideration.