Dubai: The Dubai Civil Court ordered an employee convicted of embezzlement to return Dh4.4 million to the victim and compensate him with Dh300,000 for material and moral damages he suffered, after he seized six kilograms of gold and digital currencies that he had received from him as an agent.
The incident had previously ended with his criminal conviction for breach of trust, and a sentence of three years imprisonment, deportation from the country, and a fine of the value of the embezzled funds.
The court considered that the damages suffered by the victim were not limited to the loss of his money, but extended to depriving him of the opportunity to invest and benefit from it for more than two years, in addition to the trouble of complaints and litigation to recover his rights, and the psychological damages he suffered as a result of the incident.
In detail, the victim filed a civil lawsuit demanding that the defendant be obligated to return Dh4.4 million, which represents the value of the money he seized, in addition to Dh500,000 as compensation for material and moral damages.
He explained in his lawsuit that he had previously filed a criminal complaint against the defendant, after the latter seized six kilograms of gold and Bitcoin and Ethereum digital currencies, which were in his possession by virtue of a power of attorney, before he disposed of them in violation of the purpose for which he received them, causing him financial losses.
The Public Prosecution referred the accused to criminal trial, which convicted him of breach of trust, sentenced him to three years imprisonment, deportation from the country, and fined him Dh4.4 million, the value of the embezzled funds, while referring the civil case to the competent court.
The convicted person did not accept the verdict and appealed it, but the court ruled that his appeal was not accepted because he did not pay the required insurance amount, while it was proven that the verdict was not appealed before the Court of Cassation, so it became final and conclusive.
Before the civil court, the defendant appeared through a lawyer and requested the rejection of claims that exceeded what was established in the criminal ruling, especially the additional compensation of Dh500,000, on the basis of the lack of proof of the elements of the damage, its causes and its amount.
The court affirmed in its reasoning that a final criminal judgment has legal force before the civil courts with regard to the occurrence of the crime, its legal description, and its attribution to the perpetrator. These matters may not be re-discussed after a final ruling has been issued, given that the judgment's authority extends to everyone, even if they were not parties to the criminal case.
It explained that the criminal ruling issued in the case settled the matter of the defendant committing the crime of breach of trust, and seizing the funds entrusted to him as an agent, and thus the error on his part was established by a final ruling which does not allow for raising the dispute about it before the civil court.
The court ruled that the defendant must return Dh4.4 million, as the value of the funds that were proven to have been embezzled under the criminal ruling, based on the fact that the material damage resulting from the breach of a financial interest is estimated by the amount of loss suffered by the injured party and the profit he missed.
Regarding the additional compensation, the court found that the plaintiff suffered material and moral damages, represented by the loss of earnings for more than two years, and being deprived of the opportunity to invest and benefit from his money, as well as having to endure the trouble of complaints and legal proceedings in order to recover his rights, and the feeling of oppression he suffered as a result of the seizure of his money.
It considered that these damages were directly related to the act for which the defendant was convicted, and that the elements of civil liability, namely a harmful act, damage, and a causal relationship, were present, but it estimated the compensation due to at Dh300,000, instead of Dh500,000 claimed by the plaintiff.
