Dubai Court Acquits Two In Dh13.5M Cheque Case After Reversing Jail Terms

The Dubai Court of Appeal has acquitted a businessman and a lawyer in a Dh13.5 million breach of trust case, overturning a lower court's ruling that sentenced both defendants to one year in prison and ordered them to pay a Dh13.5 million fine jointly.

 

The appeals court found that witness testimony and authenticated documents supported the defence's account that the cheque at the centre of the dispute had been voluntarily returned as part of a commercial settlement. It concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish criminal liability.

 

The case arose from a commercial transaction involving the supply of fuel and gas between two companies. The prosecution alleged that the lawyer had misappropriated a cheque entrusted to her law firm, while the businessman was accused of colluding with her to commit the offence.

 

Cheque Deposited As Security

 

The dispute stemmed from a $6 million fuel and gas transaction that left an outstanding balance of Dh13.5 million. To secure the debt, the businessman deposited a cheque for the same amount with a law firm following discussions with the other party.

 

Under the arrangement, the firm was authorised to initiate legal proceedings if the outstanding amount remained unpaid after four months.

 

When the deadline expired without payment, the cheque was presented to the bank but returned unpaid because of insufficient funds and a discrepancy in the signature.

 

The complainant subsequently returned the cheque to the law firm so that a police complaint could be filed, alleging that it had been issued in bad faith.

 

Settlement And Return Of Cheque

 

The parties later reached an amicable settlement and met at the law firm to formalise their agreement. Evidence presented during the appeal proceedings indicated that the complainant voluntarily handed the original cheque back to the businessman in the presence of law firm employees. The businessman signed a receipt acknowledging that he had received the cheque.

 

The settlement was subsequently documented in writing, recording the parties' agreement to return the cheque and bring related legal proceedings to an end. The lawyer also contacted the police station formally to seek the withdrawal or closure of the earlier complaint.

 

The defence relied on the settlement agreement, official records and authenticated documents to argue that the commercial dispute had been resolved and that the cheque's return was voluntary.

 

Complainant Later Alleged Breach Of Trust

 

Despite the settlement and the documented handover, the complainant later alleged that the cheque had not been returned and accused the lawyer of breach of trust. The businessman was also accused of participating in the alleged offence.

 

The lower court convicted both defendants, imposing one-year prison sentences and ordering them to pay a Dh13.5 million fine jointly.

 

Both appealed against the verdict, arguing that the prosecution's allegations were contradicted by witness testimony and documentary evidence confirming the return of the cheque under the settlement.

 

Court Finds Evidence Insufficient

 

The Court of Appeal accepted the defence evidence and overturned the convictions, acquitting both defendants.

 

The court emphasised that a disputed commercial transaction does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. An offence must be proved through sufficient evidence meeting the applicable legal standard, while the presumption of innocence remains in place unless guilt is established.

 

The judges found that witness testimony, supported by authenticated and officially attested documents, corroborated the defence's account of the voluntary return of the cheque as part of the settlement.

 

Concluding that the evidence failed to establish the alleged criminal offence, the court acquitted both defendants, setting aside the lower court's convictions and sentences.

 

The ruling underscores the distinction between a commercial disagreement and criminal conduct, highlighting the importance of documentary evidence and the requirement to establish criminal liability through proof that meets the applicable legal threshold.