UAE

A fake apartment rental deal has cost fraudsters in Abu Dhabi after a court ordered them to return Dh15,566 taken from a victim and pay an additional Dh15,000 in compensation for the financial and emotional harm caused.

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court issued the ruling after finding that the suspects had deceived the complainant by falsely claiming to be real estate brokers and offering an apartment for rent.

According to court records, the victim was contacted by one of the suspects through WhatsApp, where they presented themselves as property agents. After the victim agreed to rent the apartment, the suspects asked him to transfer Dh3,000 as a security deposit to one of their bank accounts.

They later instructed him to transfer another Dh9,666 as the first installment of the rent to the bank account of the alleged property owner’s fiancée. The suspects then demanded an additional Dh2,900 as a brokerage fee, bringing the total amount paid by the victim to Dh15,566.

However, despite receiving the money, the suspects failed to complete the rental agreement or provide the apartment as promised.

The victim subsequently filed a criminal complaint, resulting in a conviction against the suspects for causing financial and moral harm. He later approached the civil court seeking the recovery of Dh15,566, compensation of Dh35,000, and payment of legal costs.

After examining the evidence and transaction records, the court found that the victim had transferred the full amount to the suspects and ordered them to refund Dh15,566. The court also ruled that their actions had caused both material and moral damages, awarding the victim Dh15,000 as comprehensive compensation.

A Sharjah court has ordered the deportation of an Asian man after finding him guilty of operating an unauthorised money transfer business in the UAE. The court replaced a one-year jail sentence with deportation and ordered the confiscation of funds and equipment used in the illegal activity.

The Sharjah Misdemeanours Court heard that the defendant had been collecting cash from residents who wanted to send money abroad, despite not holding the licence required by UAE authorities to provide money transfer services.

Court records showed that authorities uncovered the operation following surveillance and investigative efforts. The man was arrested while allegedly receiving money from customers and was found to be coordinating overseas transfers through phone communications with contacts outside the UAE.

Prosecutors told the court that the defendant had carried out financial transactions without obtaining the necessary approvals and regulatory licences from the relevant authorities.

During the proceedings, the accused admitted to transferring money outside the UAE without legal authorisation.

The court ordered his deportation from the UAE instead of imposing the one-year imprisonment sentence. It also directed the confiscation of all seized funds and equipment connected to the illegal operation and ordered the defendant to pay the legal expenses of the case.

An Abu Dhabi court has ordered a truck driver to pay Dh89,080 to his employer for losses caused by a traffic accident after he jumped a red light, while rejecting the company’s original compensation claim of Dh230,000.

The ruling was issued by the Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Claims Court, which found that the driver’s traffic violation directly resulted in financial losses for the shipping and customs clearance company that employed him.

The accident occurred on October 13, 2025, when the driver ran a red light in Abu Dhabi, causing a collision that endangered lives. The truck was subsequently seized by authorities. The driver had joined the company on July 31, 2025, less than three months before the incident.

A criminal court had earlier convicted the driver and imposed a Dh10,000 fine. Based on that judgment, the company filed a civil claim seeking compensation for expenses incurred in recovering the vehicle and losses arising from the truck being unavailable for business operations for 230 days.

The company initially sought Dh230,000 in damages, arguing that the vehicle’s prolonged impoundment had affected its operations. However, the court found that only part of the claim was supported by sufficient evidence.

During the proceedings, the driver appeared before the court without legal representation and rejected the company’s claim, stating that he was unable to pay the amount sought.

The company submitted documents detailing its financial losses, including Dh50,000 paid as a reckless driving fine, Dh3,000 in vehicle impoundment charges, Dh2,180 in traffic violations, Dh1,800 for towing the truck from Al Ain to Abu Dhabi, and Dh2,100 in additional transport charges imposed by Saaed.

It also claimed Dh230,000 in losses resulting from the truck being out of service from October 13, 2025, until June 4, 2026.

Court Recognises Documented Losses

In its judgment, the court said the receipts and invoices submitted by the company for the fines, towing and related expenses were issued by competent authorities and established as genuine.

The court noted that the company would not have incurred these costs but for the driver’s actions, which were considered the direct cause of the financial losses.

The driver failed to provide evidence challenging the documents or proving that the expenses were unrelated to the accident. As a result, the court accepted Dh59,080 as proven losses arising from the incident.

However, regarding the company’s claim for Dh230,000 due to the truck being unavailable for 230 days, the court exercised its discretion and reduced the amount. It ruled that Dh30,000 was fair and reasonable compensation for the loss of use of the vehicle during its impoundment period.

The court ultimately ordered the driver to pay Dh89,080, comprising Dh59,080 in documented expenses and Dh30,000 for the loss of use of the truck. He was also ordered to pay court fees, expenses and Dh300 in legal costs.

The judgment highlighted that compensation must provide a fair remedy for actual losses suffered while preventing excessive claims beyond what can be justified by evidence.

Sharjah Misdemeanours Court has sentenced a man to two months in jail followed by deportation after convicting him of breaking into a house and attempting to steal valuables.

The ruling came after evidence presented before the court, including surveillance footage, established that the accused had entered the residence and attempted to take belongings. The suspect also admitted to the charges during court proceedings.

The incident occurred when a resident reported that he had left his home with his family without locking the door. Shortly afterwards, he returned briefly to use the restroom and found an unknown person inside the apartment.

The homeowner confronted the intruder and searched him, but found no stolen items in his possession.

Police investigations later revealed, after examining security camera recordings, that the suspect had entered the apartment by taking advantage of the unlocked door. The footage showed him taking a mobile phone belonging to the resident before returning it to its original place after realising that the homeowner was present.

During the trial, the court questioned the accused over the charges. He confessed to entering the property and attempting to commit theft, leading the court to issue the conviction and sentence.

The Federal Court of First Instance in Ajman has dismissed a woman’s claim seeking to reverse the transfer of a property registered in her name and recover its estimated Dh10 million value, ruling that she was only the nominal owner and had no actual financial interest in the asset.

The court rejected her request to cancel the transfer and restore the property to her name, as well as her alternative claim for Dh10 million in compensation, along with 12 per cent legal interest, court costs and legal expenses. It ordered her to bear the litigation costs and pay Dh1,000 towards the defendant’s legal fees.

According to court records, the woman claimed that the property was legally registered in her name and that she had granted the defendant a general power of attorney to manage her affairs. She alleged that he had abused that authority by transferring ownership of the property to himself without her knowledge or approval.

The defendant denied the allegations, arguing that the woman was not the true owner of the property and that the registration in her name was part of a nominee arrangement. He told the court that the property had been purchased and financed by a group of partners, including the woman’s husband, and that the transfer was carried out to return ownership to one of the legitimate stakeholders.

To support his defence, the defendant submitted a partnership agreement identifying the actual contributors and owners of the property. He also relied on the outcome of an earlier criminal case related to allegations of embezzlement and unlawful appropriation, in which he was acquitted and the related civil claim was dismissed.

Court documents showed that during the criminal proceedings, the woman acknowledged that her husband had arranged for the property to be registered in her name and that she had not contributed any personal funds towards its purchase.

In its judgment, the court noted that final criminal judgments are binding on civil courts regarding facts conclusively established in both proceedings. It found that the criminal court had already examined the property transfer and allegations concerning misuse of the power of attorney and had concluded that there was no criminal wrongdoing or unlawful conduct.

The court also found that the transfer had taken place with the consent of the property’s actual owners and that there was no evidence of fraud or deception.

Rejecting the woman’s argument that the transfer violated legal restrictions preventing an agent from purchasing property entrusted to them for sale, the court ruled that such protections apply only to genuine owners. Since the woman had no beneficial ownership interest, the court found that she could not rely on those provisions.

After reviewing the partnership agreement, the woman’s own statements and evidence from other partners, the court concluded that she was the registered owner only on paper and had no financial stake in the property. It found that the defendant was among the actual owners and that the transfer merely restored ownership to the rightful party.

The court further ruled that the woman did not have the necessary legal standing to pursue the claim, as cancelling the transfer would not restore any legitimate right but would instead grant her ownership of a property in which she had no actual interest.

Regarding her husband’s position as one of the partners, the court said any dispute over his rights must be addressed through partnership-related legal claims, including accounting between partners, enforcement of partnership rights or dissolution of the partnership.

Such disputes, the court held, did not give the woman — who was not a party to the partnership agreement and had no beneficial ownership interest — the right to challenge the transfer or seek restoration of the property.

Finding that the lawsuit lacked a legal basis, the court dismissed both her primary and alternative claims and ordered her to pay the court costs and legal fees.

An Abu Dhabi criminal court has sentenced two men for illegally installing and using emergency warning systems on a vehicle, equipment reserved exclusively for authorised emergency service vehicles.

The court sentenced the first defendant to six months in prison, fined him Dh100,000 and ordered the confiscation of the vehicle after finding that he had driven on a public road with emergency warning lights installed without the required legal approval.

The second defendant was convicted for assisting in the installation of the unauthorised emergency system, despite lacking the legal authority to fit or use such equipment.

Court records showed that the case involved the unlawful installation of emergency warning devices designated for vehicles operated by authorised emergency services, in violation of regulations governing their use.

The ruling reflects the UAE’s strict enforcement measures against the misuse of emergency vehicle equipment, with authorities warning that such violations can undermine road safety, disrupt public order and create risks for other road users.

An Abu Dhabi court has ordered a social media influencer to pay Dh81,000 after finding that a video she posted about a well-known restaurant amounted to defamation rather than legitimate consumer criticism, according to the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department (ADJD).

The court found that the video, which was published on the influencer’s personal social media account, contained direct insults and allegations targeting the restaurant owner’s integrity and business practices instead of providing an objective review of the restaurant’s services or products.

The influencer had filmed the restaurant premises and uploaded the footage online. The owner later filed a complaint, claiming that the video had caused significant damage to both his personal reputation and the business’s standing.

During questioning by authorities and the Public Prosecution, the defendant admitted that she had recorded the video and shared it through her account. She maintained that her intention was to criticise the restaurant.

However, investigators concluded that the content went beyond a review or expression of opinion, as it focused on personal accusations and offensive remarks against individuals. Authorities determined that the statements were defamatory and abusive, rather than a genuine assessment of the services provided.

The court convicted the influencer, imposed a Dh30,000 fine, ordered the removal of the video, and directed the confiscation of the mobile phone used to record and publish the content.

In addition to the criminal penalty, the court ordered her to pay Dh51,000 in temporary civil compensation to the affected party, taking the total financial liability to Dh81,000.

The Abu Dhabi court highlighted the legal risks associated with publishing harmful statements online and stressed the distinction between lawful criticism and defamation. While consumers have the right to share opinions about products and services, UAE law does not permit content that damages an individual’s reputation through insults, false allegations or personal attacks.

UAE Defamation Law

Under Article 425 of the UAE Penal Code, publicly accusing another person of a specific act that could harm their reputation may constitute defamation. The offence can lead to imprisonment of up to two years or a fine of up to Dh20,000.

Publishing defamatory statements through newspapers or other publications is considered an aggravating circumstance and may result in stricter penalties.

Article 426 addresses public insults that harm a person’s honour or dignity without alleging a specific fact. Unlike defamation, which involves attributing a particular act to someone, public insult covers offensive expressions or remarks that degrade a person’s reputation.

Under Article 428, defamation may not be considered a criminal offence if the accused proves the truth of the allegation in cases involving public officials or individuals performing public duties, provided the statement relates to their official conduct.

Cybercrime Legislation

The UAE’s cybercrime legislation also imposes strict penalties for spreading false, misleading or harmful information through digital platforms.

The law prohibits publishing, sharing or circulating false information, rumours or misleading content that may affect public order, safety or social stability. Violators may face imprisonment and fines of not less than Dh100,000, with harsher penalties during emergencies, crises or pandemics.

The legislation also criminalises online insults and allegations that expose individuals to punishment or public contempt. Such offences can attract fines ranging from Dh250,000 to Dh500,000, along with possible detention.

Legal experts have repeatedly stressed that social media users must distinguish between expressing a genuine opinion and making unsupported accusations that harm another person’s reputation. While criticism of businesses is permitted, personal attacks, defamatory claims and misleading statements can trigger criminal and civil consequences in the UAE.

Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence startup xAI has sued a South Carolina man arrested earlier this year on charges of sexually exploiting minors, alleging he misused the company’s AI system Grok to create child sexual abuse material.

In a lawsuit filed in a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, xAI alleged that Terry Harwood violated the company’s terms of service by using Grok to generate explicit and non-consensual sexual imagery. The case is among the first legal actions brought by an AI company against a user accused of abusing an AI system to create illegal content.

Harwood, who was arrested in February, was not immediately available for comment. Representatives for xAI also did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuit comes amid growing global scrutiny of xAI over allegations that Grok has been used to create sexualised deepfakes — realistic-looking images and videos generated by artificial intelligence without a person’s consent.

In its complaint, xAI said it takes action against users who violate its rules through account suspensions, terminations and reports of suspected child sexual abuse material to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC).

The company said it had suspended 52,222 accounts and filed 73,604 reports with NCMEC in 2026, leading to at least 244 arrests, according to the lawsuit.

xAI alleged that Harwood uploaded non-sexual images of adults and minors to Grok and attempted to use the system to create sexually explicit deepfakes based on those images. The company also claimed he generated non-consensual sexual imagery involving adults.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount in monetary damages and a court order permanently preventing Harwood from accessing Grok.

“Defendant’s actions were a calculated scheme to weaponise Plaintiff’s tool for criminal ends, exposing real victims to profound and lasting harm, while exposing Plaintiff to significant legal risk and reputational damage,” xAI said in its filing.

The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts recorded a landmark first half of 2026, registering 810 cases with claims worth Dh10 billion ($2.73 billion), as businesses increasingly turn to Dubai as a preferred destination for resolving complex commercial disputes.

The number of cases filed between January and June 2026 rose 25 per cent compared with the same period last year, while the total value of claims increased 48 per cent, averaging Dh55 million in claims every day.

The figures, released on Monday, represent the first half-year performance since the DIFC Courts unveiled their five-year strategy in December 2025. They highlight growing international confidence in Dubai’s legal framework and the willingness of businesses to voluntarily select the DIFC Courts to settle high-value disputes.

Nearly one-third of all cases — 243 out of 810 — were filed under the Courts’ opt-in jurisdiction, where parties voluntarily agree to use the DIFC Courts despite not being legally required to do so. At the Court of First Instance (CFI), opt-in cases accounted for 42 per cent of claims.

The DIFC Courts’ Arbitration Division also recorded significant growth, handling 37 claims worth Dh3.17 billion, a 61 per cent increase year-on-year. The rise reflects growing reliance on the DIFC Courts as a supervisory jurisdiction for arbitration-related matters.

“These are the figures of a jurisdiction chosen, not assigned. Nearly one in three cases arrived by the parties’ own agreement, with the average claim before our Court of First Instance more than doubling to Dh112.6 million. Disputes of that value and complexity require proven systems and expertise,” said Justice Omar Al Mheiri, Director of the DIFC Courts.


The CFI and its specialised divisions handled 110 claims during the first half of the year, compared with 86 in H1 2025, marking a 28 per cent increase. The claims had a combined value of Dh9 billion, with an average claim size of Dh117.2 million.

The main CFI division alone recorded 72 claims, an 18 per cent rise from the previous year. The average value of claims more than doubled to Dh112.6 million, reflecting the growing complexity and scale of disputes brought before the Court.

The Small Claims Tribunal, which provides access to justice for individuals and small and medium-sized enterprises, processed 479 claims worth Dh44.7 million. The average claim value stood at Dh94,000, with filings increasing 5 per cent year-on-year.

Enforcement activity also witnessed a sharp rise, more than doubling to 220 filings in the first half of 2026, compared with 106 during the same period last year. The figure represents more than one enforcement application every day on average. Eight applications involved the enforcement of judgments and orders issued outside the DIFC Courts.

“Behind every statistic is a court user, a business protecting a contract, an individual resolving a dispute, or a family planning ahead,” Justice Al Mheiri said.

Digital Model

The DIFC Courts continued to expand their digital-first approach, with 99 per cent of proceedings — 818 out of 824 — conducted online during the reporting period. Only six hearings took place in person.

During the six months, the Courts issued 1,766 digital orders and judgments, reinforcing their position as one of the region’s most technology-driven judicial systems.

Other services also recorded steady demand. The DIFC Courts’ Wills Service registered 1,925 wills in the first half of 2026, taking total registrations since its launch beyond 14,300.

The Courts’ practitioners’ register now includes 1,351 lawyers from 256 law firms, while its Pro Bono Programme supported 315 individuals with assistance from 55 volunteer lawyers representing 39 firms.