Dubai court rejects Dh3.67 million claim in luxury watch fraud case

Dubai: The Dubai court has dismissed a civil lawsuit filed by an Asian man seeking to recover Dh3.67 million after being defrauded in a high-end watch deal involving two Patek Philippe timepieces, ruling that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of the alleged transaction, Emarat Al Youm reported. 

According to case documents, the victim agreed to sell the watches, worth more than $1 million, to a European national who posed as the chief executive of an investment company in Dubai.

The scammer hosted the seller at what appeared to be the company’s office, presented a copy of its trade license, and drafted a purchase agreement stamped with the company seal. 

Convinced of the buyer’s credibility, the seller handed over the watches without receiving payment, relying instead on the promise of a bank transfer.

Days later, the fraudster sent what appeared to be two payment slips, one for $200,000 and another for $300,000, claiming the remaining balance would follow. 

When the funds never appeared, the seller contacted his bank and discovered the transfer documents were forged. Attempts to reach the buyer failed; his phone was switched off, and intermediaries offered conflicting stories, including claims of a car accident.

The victim subsequently filed a criminal complaint accusing the defendant of fraud, forgery, and use of forged documents. 

The Criminal Court found the defendant guilty of falsifying bank transfer documents and sentenced him to three years in prison, a ruling that became final. 

However, the charge of fraud was referred to the Misdemeanor Court for further proceedings.

Relying on the criminal judgment, the victim filed a civil lawsuit demanding compensation equal to the watches’ value. But the Civil Court rejected the claim, noting that while the criminal conviction confirmed the act of forgery, the plaintiff had not provided proof of delivery of the watches or a valid contract linking the watches to the forged documents.

In its reasoning, the court reaffirmed that civil liability for damages requires three elements: a proven act (or omission), demonstrated harm, and a causal connection between the two. 

It added that a criminal court ruling carries binding authority over civil proceedings only when it definitively establishes both the act and the perpetrator’s responsibility.

Since the plaintiff failed to present the original purchase contract or proof that the accused had indeed received the watches, the court ruled the case “unsubstantiated and unproven.”