Court refuses to extradite suspect to Romania - GulfToday

Court refuses to extradite suspect to Romania

Cyber-attack

The suspect charged with forgery and fraud by e-mail.

Aya Al Deeb, Staff Reporter

ABU DHABI: The Supreme Federal Court rejected a ruling to extradite a suspect to the Romanian authorities being charged with forgery and fraud by e-mail.

According to the details of the case, the Attorney-General referred the wanted person to the Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeal to consider the request to extradite him to the competent authorities in Romania for being wanted for fraud crimes by e-mail and to be jailed for 4 years.

The court referred the case to the court that issued the ruling for re-consideration by a different body.

The Court of Referral ruled that the appellant could be extradited to Romania.

The suspect pleaded not guilty and the cassation prosecution submitted a note requesting acceptance of appeal in form and rejection of subject.

The suspect said in the appeal he was sentenced to be extradited despite the fact that there is no extradition agreement between Romania and the UAE, in addition to the violation of the human rights in the requesting country.

The court noted that the sentence is issued on the basis of the principle of reciprocity for the absence of a bilateral agreement between the UAE and Romania and also on the letter of the Romanian Minister of Justice to the Minister of Justice of the UAE.

Contracting company

In a separate case, the Federal Court of First Instance obligated a contracting company and its co-founder to pay Dhs238,212 to an Emirati, with the delay interest of 5%, for not committing to the completion of the construction of his villa on schedule. The Emirati filed a lawsuit against the contracting company demanding assigning an engineering expert to decide what has been accomplished in his villa, the value of the achievements and the delay period. He added that under the contract, the company undertook to complete the villa according to the designs and specifications in the contract in return for Dhs1,585,000 within 24 months. The plaintiff’s lawyer said his client had paid Dhs250,000 to the company, but the company had only completed 2 per cent and stopped working.

The report of the expert indicated the company completed 2% of the project in 60 days, which was supposed to be completed in 15 days only.

The lawyer added the value of the work done was Dhs31,788 while his client paid Dhs250,000.

The court abolished the contract and obligated the company and the co-founder to pay compensation of Dhs238,212 with a 5% delay interest.