The photo has been used for illustrative purposes.

Two Arab men aged 24 and 33, gulf national, were arrested and referred to criminal court for impersonating police officers and robbing two victims of their belongings in Dubai.

Official records indicate that the two defendants had planned to steal some vehicle’s plate number in order to commit their robbery.

Afterwards, they head to the streets fishing for victims. Not far long, they found the two victims walking down one of Dubai’s streets.

The defendants stopped by the two victims, and one got out of the vehicle and showed some fake identification, imposing as an undercover police officer.

He asked the victims to get inside their vehicle, and as soon as they did, the defendant asked them to clear their pockets from all their belonging.

The victims gave up their two phones and an amount of Dhs1,500, without doubting the defendants’ story.

The duo was then asked to leave the vehicle and the two defendants immediately fled the scene.

Later onwards, the victims realized that they fell for a scam made my two citizens who imposed as cops.

A police report was filed against the defendants, and investigations lead to their arrest and prosecution.

In November, the Supreme Federal Court rejected the Public Prosecution’s appeal against an appellate verdict acquitting a suspect who was charged with impersonating an investigation officer and breaking into a residence of 6 women, detaining them and stealing their money.

Details of the case date back to a time when the Public Prosecution charged the suspect and another anonymous with stealing the victims' money and detaining them after claiming he was an investigative officer, besides the charge of entering the house by force.

The court of first instance ruled that the suspect be imprisoned for a year.

The suspect appealed the ruling, which the appellate court cancelled and acquitted the suspect.

The Public Prosecution appealed the innocence, and the Supreme Federal Court rejected the ruling and referred the case for consideration by a different judiciary, that also acquitted the suspect.

The Public Prosecution appealed the ruling, affirming that it did not consider the evidences, including the fingerprint found in the place that matched the fingerprint of the suspect.