The Dubai Court of Appeal has acquitted a former executive accused of embezzling Dh1.24 million after an independent court-appointed expert established that the disputed payment was an authorised end-of-service gratuity.
The court overturned an earlier conviction that had resulted in a Dh50,000 fine and an additional penalty of Dh1.24 million, equivalent to the amount allegedly misappropriated.
The former executive had faced charges of embezzlement and breach of trust following the issuance and encashment of a cheque for Dh1.24 million in September 2024. Prosecutors alleged that the payment had been made without proper authorisation.
However, the Court of Appeal found that documentary evidence and the findings of an independent accounting expert raised sufficient doubt over the allegations, warranting an acquittal.
Disputed Payment Linked to End-Of-Service Benefits
The case centred on whether the Dh1.24 million payment represented a legitimate employment-related benefit or funds unlawfully withdrawn from the organisation.
The defence maintained that the amount was an end-of-service gratuity approved by the organisation's general assembly and that the payment had followed the applicable internal procedures.
To support this position, the defence submitted minutes of the general assembly meeting recording the approval, together with an official clearance letter confirming that no outstanding financial or administrative liabilities existed between the parties.
It also sought an independent examination of the organisation's financial records, internal regulations and payment procedures to establish whether the transaction had been properly authorised.
The court-appointed expert's findings subsequently supported the defence position, confirming that the gratuity had received general assembly approval and that the payment was authorised under the organisation's internal procedures.
Management Dispute Triggered Financial Investigation
The allegations emerged following a change in the organisation's management, which prompted a review of its financial transactions.
The incoming management alleged that the former executive had issued and encashed the cheque without the knowledge or approval of the board. An advisory accounting report submitted by the complainant questioned the legitimacy of the payment, arguing that the organisation's governing documents did not provide for an end-of-service bonus and disputing whether earlier general assembly minutes authorised the transaction.
The organisation subsequently demanded repayment of the amount and warned that legal action would follow.
During the appeal proceedings, the defence requested an independent expert examination to establish whether the payment had complied with the organisation's governing rules and financial controls.
The expert found that the general assembly had approved the Dh1.24 million gratuity at a meeting held on September 5, 2024. The approval followed the executive's resignation after a lengthy period of service, with his advanced age also cited in connection with the decision.
The expert further established that the organisation's internal regulations permitted its financial officer to approve payments exceeding Dh50,000 in writing after verifying the reasons for the expenditure. The disputed payment had received the officer's approval in accordance with those procedures.
An official letter dated January 8, 2025, also confirmed that there were no outstanding financial or administrative liabilities between the parties.
Taken together, the findings contradicted the allegation that the executive had unlawfully appropriated the organisation's money.
Benefit of Doubt Applied In Criminal Proceedings
In overturning the conviction, the Court of Appeal considered the evidentiary value of the independent expert's report and the supporting documentary records.
The court observed that judges have the discretion to assess expert reports and rely on findings supported by sound reasoning and documentary evidence. Referring to an established principle of the Court of Cassation, it noted that a court may adopt a properly reasoned expert report without being required to address individually every objection raised against it.
The general assembly minutes, written payment authorisation and financial clearance letter collectively raised serious doubts about whether the transaction constituted a criminal offence.
The court applied Article 212 of the UAE Criminal Procedure Law, under which doubt must be interpreted in favour of the accused. Since the evidence did not establish the alleged criminal conduct with the required certainty, the earlier conviction could not stand.
The judgment overturned the criminal conviction and acquitted the former executive.
Civil Claims Must Be Pursued Before First-Instance Court
The Court of Appeal also dismissed two appeals filed by the civil claimant as inadmissible because the Court of First Instance had not issued a ruling on the underlying civil claims.
Under Article 139 of the UAE Civil Procedure Law, a claimant seeking a determination of civil claims must return to the first-instance court where those claims remain undecided, rather than appeal against a ruling that was never made.
The appellate court held that considering the claims for the first time at the appeal stage would deprive the parties of an opportunity for the prescribed level of judicial review.
The claimant remains entitled to pursue the outstanding civil claims before the Court of First Instance.
The judgment consequently resolves the criminal proceedings in favour of the former executive, while leaving the separate civil dispute open for determination by the competent court.
For enquiries or further information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.