Dubai Court: A Failed Business Deal Does Not Automatically Amount to a Crime

 

The Dubai Court of Appeal has upheld the acquittal of a businessman accused of criminal breach of trust, in a case arising from a failed used-car spare-parts venture. The ruling reinforces the principle that commercial disagreements, disputed accounts and unsuccessful business partnerships do not automatically constitute criminal offences.

 

The case arose after two parties jointly invested in a spare-parts business. When their relationship deteriorated, one partner accused the other of unlawfully retaining funds that had been entrusted to him under a power of attorney. Criminal proceedings for breach of trust were subsequently initiated.

 

In examining the allegations, the court considered witness testimony, contractual documents, company records and a report prepared by an independent expert. The evidence, however, pointed not to straightforward misappropriation, but to a complicated business relationship involving joint investments, shared management responsibilities and unsettled financial accounts.

 

The court-appointed expert found no evidence in the financial or corporate records indicating dishonest appropriation or unlawful conversion of funds. Instead, the records reflected intertwined finances between the two partners, including investments, withdrawals, profits, expenses and reciprocal obligations that had never been fully reconciled.

 

A key factor was that the partners had not prepared a final statement of accounts establishing their respective financial rights and liabilities.

 

In the absence of such reconciliation, the expert could not determine whether the disputed funds had been misappropriated for personal purposes, represented an outstanding entitlement, related to an unresolved business expense, or formed part of the partners’ normal profit-sharing arrangements. There was also no convincing evidence that the funds had deliberately been diverted.

 

The court therefore found that the evidence did not satisfy the requirements for establishing criminal breach of trust, which requires proof of dishonest intent, fraudulent conversion and deliberate misappropriation.

 

The dispute, the court concluded, was essentially commercial and accounting in nature rather than criminal. Such matters, it held, should be addressed through the civil courts, where the parties’ accounts can be examined, reconciled and their respective entitlements determined.

 

The ruling offers an important reminder to entrepreneurs and investors, particularly those involved in the automotive and trading sectors, that a failed business venture or disagreement over accounts should not automatically result in criminal proceedings.

 

The decision also underlines that breach of trust involves more than simply retaining or possessing another party’s money. The evidence must establish that the property was specifically entrusted to the accused under a recognised legal arrangement, that it was dishonestly misused and that the necessary criminal intent existed.

 

Where business partners share investments, profits and management responsibilities, the failure of a venture or disagreement over final accounts cannot, by itself, establish fraud. There must be clear evidence of dishonest conduct and deliberate misappropriation.

 

The ruling ultimately reinforces a fundamental legal principle: criminal law should not be used as a substitute for civil proceedings where the underlying dispute concerns business accounts, financial obligations and the parties’ respective entitlements.

 

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.