A Dubai civil court has ordered an employee convicted of embezzlement to reimburse four million and 400 thousand dirhams to the victim, along with compensating him 300 thousand dirhams for the material and moral damages incurred. The employee had unlawfully appropriated six kilograms of gold and various cryptocurrencies—a breach of trust that led to his prior conviction and a subsequent three-year imprisonment sentence, as well as his expulsion from the country and a fine equivalent to the stolen assets.
Details of the Case
The victim initiated a civil suit demanding the return of the embezzled funds and an additional 500 thousand dirhams in compensation for damages. He explained in his filing that he had previously lodged a criminal complaint against the accused after the employee misappropriated six kilograms of gold and cryptocurrencies, specifically in Bitcoin and Ethereum, which he had been entrusted to manage under a power of attorney.
Following the criminal proceedings, the public prosecution brought the defendant to trial, leading to his conviction for breach of trust and sentencing. The court’s ruling included a three-year prison term, deportation from the UAE, and a fine amounting to four million and 400 thousand dirhams—the value of the embezzled assets—with the civil case being referred to the appropriate court for resolution.
Court’s Rationale
The defendant appealed the ruling; however, the court rejected the appeal on the grounds that the requisite security deposit had not been paid. Notably, the defendant did not contest the ruling before the Court of Cassation, rendering it final and binding.
During the civil proceedings, the defendant, represented by legal counsel, sought to dismiss any claims exceeding those established in the criminal verdict, particularly the additional compensation of 500 thousand dirhams, arguing a lack of evidence for damages and causation.
Judgment and Findings
The court stated that the finality of the criminal verdict carries legal weight in civil matters regarding the occurrence of the crime and its legal description, prohibiting any re-examination of these issues once they have been definitively adjudicated. The criminal ruling firmly established the defendant’s commission of breach of trust and the misappropriation of funds entrusted to him, thereby affirming his fault, which could not be revisited in the civil court.
Ultimately, the court mandated the defendant to return the four million and 400 thousand dirhams based on the criminal court’s finding of theft of the embezzled assets. The court highlighted that the financial harm stemming from breaching a financial interest is measured by both the loss incurred and any potential gains foregone by the victim.
Regarding the additional compensation, the court recognised the victim’s material and moral damages, which included losses from not being able to invest his funds for over two years and the distress suffered during the process of complaint and litigation to reclaim his rights. However, the court assessed the appropriate compensatory amount to be 300 thousand dirhams instead of the initially requested 500 thousand dirhams.