Accountant told to pay Dhs788,000 to employer after embezzling the company in Abu Dhabi

Sohaila Ahmed, Staff Reporter

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling by the Court of First Instance that obligated an accountant to pay Dhs788,000 to his employer, after he embezzled Dhs738,000 from the company, and was convicted according to a criminal ruling that sentenced him to one year in prison.

The court records indicate that a lawsuit was filed by the company’s director, in which she demanded that the employee must pay an amount of Dhs738,000 that he embezzled, as well as compensate for the material and moral damages with an amount of Dhs2.5 million.

She indicated that the defendant was working as an accountant in her company, and had embezzled the mentioned amount.

Additionally, the court ruled that the employee must pay the plaintiff an amount of Dhs738,000 and extra Dhs50,000 in compensation and procedural fees.

The two parties appealed the ruling, and the employee asked for the case to be referred to the labour court, indicating that the amounts allegedly embezzled were made during his period of work at the company.

On the other hand, the director appealed to the ruling in order to increase the amount of compensation to Dhs2.5 million, to commensurate with the damage inflicted on her.

She pointed out that the compensation is not equivalent to the damage she suffered, as she was financially and morally damaged by the ruin of her reputation.

She added that her projects had almost failed as she deals with the society’s prestigious women, besides coming from a well known family with a good reputation.

The plaintiff claimed that she suffered neurological and psychological disorders as a result of the defendant’s behavior, and that she incurred the costs of the lawsuit and attorney fees.

For its part, the court confirmed in its ruling that the compensation claimed in these procedures is based on tort liability and not on the work-related matter.

Therefore, the labor court is not competent to consider the case, and that the assessment of compensation is determined by the court, noting that the court of first instance had sentenced the defendant to 3 years jail-term.

Later on, the court of appeal reduced the sentence to a one-year in prison, and the court of cassation confirmed the imprisonment sentence. Thus, the one-year jail-term became a conclusive ruling.