Dubai: The Dubai Court of Appeal has acquitted a former executive accused of embezzling Dh1.24 million after a court appointed expert found the disputed payment was an authorised end of service benefit.
The court overturned a previous conviction that carried a Dh50,000 fine and an additional Dh1.24 million fine, equivalent to the amount allegedly misappropriated.
Get updated faster and for FREE: Download the Gulf News app now - simply click here.
The executive was charged with embezzlement and breach of trust after a cheque for Dh1.24 million was issued and cashed in September 2024. Prosecutors alleged the payment was made without proper authorisation.
The appeal court found that the defence evidence and independent expert’s findings raised sufficient doubt to acquit the former executive.
Lawyer’s defence helps secure acquittal
The defence led by lawyer and legal adviser Abdullah Bin Hatem played a key role in securing his client’s acquittal, arguing that the Dh1.24 million at the centre of the case was a legitimate end of service gratuity approved by the organisation’s general assembly, not embezzled funds.
Bin Hatem submitted meeting minutes documenting the approval, along with an official clearance letter confirming that no outstanding financial or administrative liabilities existed between the parties. He also requested an independent accounting review of the organisation’s financial records and payment procedures.
The court appointed expert’s findings supported the defence, confirming that the gratuity had been approved and that the payment was authorised under the organisation’s internal procedures. The findings helped cast doubt on the embezzlement allegations, prompting the Dubai Court of Appeal to overturn the earlier conviction and acquit his client.
Expert report confirms approval
The case emerged after a change in management prompted a financial review. The incoming management alleged that the former executive had issued and cashed the cheque without the board’s knowledge or authorisation.
An advisory accounting report submitted by the complainant argued that the organisation’s governing documents did not provide for an end of service bonus and questioned whether earlier general assembly minutes authorised the payment.
The organisation subsequently demanded repayment, warning of legal action.
During the appeal, the defence requested an independent expert to examine the organisation’s financial records, internal regulations and transactions.
The court appointed expert found that the general assembly had approved the Dh1.24 million gratuity at a meeting on September 5, 2024, following the executive’s resignation after long service and due to advanced age.
The expert also found that internal regulations allowed the organisation’s financial officer to authorise payments exceeding Dh50,000 in writing after verifying the reasons for the expenditure. The officer had approved the disputed payment in accordance with those procedures.
An official letter issued on January 8, 2025, also confirmed that no outstanding financial or administrative liabilities existed between the parties.
These findings contradicted the prosecution’s claim that the funds had been unlawfully taken.
Benefit of doubt principle
The Court of Appeal said courts have the discretion to assess expert reports and rely on findings supported by sound reasoning and documentary evidence.
Citing an established Court of Cassation principle, it noted that courts can adopt a well-founded expert report without addressing every objection raised against it individually.
The general assembly minutes, payment authorisation and financial clearance letter raised doubt over whether the transaction constituted a criminal offence.
Applying Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which requires doubt to be interpreted in favour of the accused, the court overturned the conviction and acquitted the former executive.
Civil appeals rejected on procedural grounds
The Court of Appeal also dismissed two appeals by the civil claimant as inadmissible because the Court of First Instance had not ruled on the civil claims.
Under Article 139 of the Civil Procedure Law, the claimant must return to the first-instance court for a ruling rather than appeal against a decision that was never issued. The appeal court said deciding the claims for the first time at the appellate stage would deny the parties a level of judicial review.
The claimant can still pursue the outstanding claims before the Court of First Instance. The judgment overturned the former executive’s criminal conviction and acquitted him, leaving the civil claims to be addressed separately.