Court Acquits Woman of Embezzlement Over Doubts About WhatsApp Evidence

An Ajman appeal court has acquitted an Egyptian woman of embezzlement, overturning her earlier conviction after finding inconsistencies in the complainant’s account and insufficient evidence to establish that she had received the money in question.

 

The woman, a retired dentist who is now a homemaker, was convicted by a court of first instance in July and fined Dh5,000, in addition to court fees. She denied knowing the complainant, receiving any money from him or participating in the WhatsApp conversations attributed to her.

 

The complainant alleged that the woman had received money under an agency arrangement but subsequently misappropriated it. However, the appeal court found that his statements about how the money had been handed over and the amount allegedly paid were unclear and inconsistent.

 

The defence also challenged the authenticity of WhatsApp screenshots submitted as evidence. It pointed out that the telephone number displayed in the images began with ‘05’ but did not include the UAE’s international dialling code, +971. This raised questions about whether the screenshots accurately represented the original conversations.

 

The defence argued that the images could have been altered using photo-editing software and questioned whether they were coloured copies rather than original electronic records. It also maintained that the screenshots could not reliably establish who had created or sent the messages.

 

No forensic report was presented to verify that the conversations originated from the woman’s telephone or WhatsApp account. She had consistently denied the allegations, including any knowledge of the number associated with the messages, from the time she was questioned by police.

 

The court’s concerns extended beyond the digital evidence. It found no reliable documents or supporting witness testimony to substantiate the complainant’s version of events. The case papers also contained no independent police inquiries confirming the circumstances of the alleged transaction or establishing the authenticity of the accusation.

 

The judges questioned why the complainant would have entrusted a substantial sum to the woman when the available evidence disclosed no established relationship between them. They also noted the absence of material showing that the complainant was engaged in commercial activities or that the two parties had entered into a documented business transaction.

 

The first-instance court had concluded that the allegation was supported by the complainant’s account, the woman’s purported confession and other circumstantial evidence. On appeal, however, the defence disputed the claim that she had confessed, arguing that the case file contained no such admission. It also maintained that she had not been questioned by prosecutors and had consistently denied the accusation in her police statement and before the trial court.

 

The woman was charged with breach of trust under Article 453 of the UAE Crimes and Penalties Law. Her defence argued that establishing the offence required proof that the money had first been entrusted to her through a recognised relationship of trust, such as an agency arrangement.

 

Without reliable evidence that the complainant had handed over the money, the defence maintained, it could not be established that the funds had entered the woman’s custody or that she had subsequently dealt with them as her own.

 

The appeal court reiterated that criminal convictions must rest on certainty rather than suspicion or speculation. Where the evidence is unreliable or insufficient to establish guilt, the accused must be acquitted.

 

The three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the evidence did not justify upholding the conviction. It overturned the first-instance judgment and declared the woman not guilty.