The Sharjah Court of First Instance overturned a default judgment that had sentenced a defendant to one year in prison and deportation after he was convicted of participating with other defendants in defrauding a woman of AED104,000. The woman had allegedly been deceived into renting a villa under a fictitious tenancy agreement. The court acquitted the defendant after finding insufficient evidence to prove that he knew of the fraud or had participated in it. It stressed that merely owning a share in the property and providing ownership and identity documents to real estate brokers does not prove involvement in a crime unless there is evidence of knowledge of, or participation in, the fraudulent acts.
According to the case file, a woman saw an advertisement for a villa rental on an online property platform at the beginning of last July. She contacted a real estate broker and visited the property, where she met a representative of a real estate company. An agreement was reached to rent the villa for AED104,000, including services.
According to the investigation, the property owner was contacted and ownership and identity documents were provided before the tenancy agreement was signed. The woman transferred AED104,000 to a bank account belonging to a real estate company on the understanding that the contract documentation, property maintenance and handover would be completed within 10 days. However, two days after making the payment, she found that the phone numbers of the people she had been dealing with were no longer reachable, communication had ceased, and the villa had not been handed over. She subsequently filed a police report and sought the return of her money.
The investigation found that the bank account receiving the funds belonged to the real estate company and that one of the accused was authorised to sign on its behalf. Charges were brought against three people, including one of the property owners and intermediaries involved in the transaction.
The court had initially convicted the three defendants in absentia of obtaining money through fraudulent means. Each was sentenced to one year in prison, deportation after serving the sentence, and payment of court fees. However, one of the defendants, who was proven to own a share in the property, challenged the ruling and continued to deny the allegations, seeking to have the judgment overturned and to be acquitted.
In its ruling, the court stated that merely owning a share in the property or providing ownership and identity documents to real estate brokers for the purpose of advertising, marketing and renting the property was not sufficient to prove involvement in fraud. It said there must be evidence that the accused knew of, agreed to, or contributed to the fraudulent conduct.
The court also stated that the use of the defendant's documents in the transaction did not, on its own, prove that he participated in concluding the fictitious tenancy agreement. This was particularly so because he maintained that he had provided the documents for a legitimate purpose, namely advertising the property and seeking a tenant, without authorising intermediaries to enter into tenancy agreements or collect money on his behalf.
The court confirmed that the case file contained no sufficient evidence that the defendant had negotiated with the woman over renting the property, provided the bank account details used for the transfer, or requested that she make the payment. It was also not proven that he received or benefited from any of the funds in question.
The court further noted that the bank account that received the AED104,000 belonged to the real estate company and that one of the other defendants was authorised to sign on its behalf. There was no evidence showing that the money came into the possession of the defendant who filed the objection, or that any portion of it was transferred to an account belonging to him.
The court stressed that proving the woman had been defrauded and had transferred money did not automatically establish the involvement of everyone named in the case. It said the acts constituting the offence must be individually attributed to each defendant, with the legal elements of the crime established in each case.
It concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove that the defendant personally carried out any fraudulent acts, intentionally contributed to them, conspired with the other defendants to commit the offence, or knew that the transaction was being conducted fraudulently and intended to participate in it.
The court accepted the objection in form and, on its merits, overturned the default judgment and acquitted the defendant of the charges against him. As a result, the prison sentence and deportation order were cancelled after the court found that the evidence was insufficient to prove his involvement in the fraud.
