23 August 2026 12:03 AM |
Last updated: 23 August 12:05 2026
Summary
A company purchased a Lamborghini for 1.86 million dirhams, only to find it was stolen and listed internationally; the sellers were convicted, ordered to refund the amount, and compensate 30,000 dirhams.
In an alarming turn of events, a company recently acquired a luxury Lamborghini for 1.86 million dirhams from Asian sellers, only to later discover that the vehicle was stolen and sought internationally through Interpol. A Dubai criminal court subsequently found the sellers guilty, sentencing them to two months in prison and holding them jointly liable for the car’s value. The court also mandated the sellers to refund the company fully and to compensate it with an additional 30,000 dirhams.
According to court documents, the company entered a purchase agreement for the vehicle in May 2025, paying 1.2 million dirhams in cash and the remaining 660,000 dirhams via bank transfer. However, just a month later, they received notification from authorities to surrender the car, as it had been reported stolen internationally and was listed among desired vehicles.
Following this unsettling discovery, the company initiated criminal proceedings against the sellers, which resulted in charges for selling a vehicle they did not own, with full awareness of its stolen status. The evidence clearly showed the car was stolen and sought by international authorities.
The Dubai criminal court sentenced the sellers to two months of incarceration and imposed a fine equal to the vehicle’s market value of 1.86 million dirhams, along with orders for their expulsion from the country. The civil claim was subsequently referred to the appropriate court, where the ruling became final after the sellers’ appeal was dismissed, and no further challenges were made.
In the subsequent civil appeal held in the Dubai commercial court, the company sought to recover the vehicle’s value and demanded 500,000 dirhams for damages, including material and emotional distress, in addition to legal interest. The court clarified that the criminal ruling had conclusively established a critical fact: the vehicle was stolen and not owned by the sellers, who had no right to sell it. Therefore, the civil court adhered to the findings of the criminal judgement.