Dubai Court acquits four after false claims of seizing Dhs200 million from investor
The Dubai Criminal Court acquitted four Asians of the charge of seizing Dhs200,000 allegedly belonging to a compatriot Asian investor, who claimed that he had given to them to construct a luxury hotel in Dubai and a company to manage it.
The case dates back to 2018, when an Asian investor filed a report, stating that people of his nationality had seized his money.
He said that he had agreed with a friend of him (one of the defendants) to construct a 5-star hotel in the Emirate of Dubai and to establish a company to manage the hotel, since the latter holds nationality of a western country and can move between countries faster.
However, he was surprised after several years that neither the hotel nor the company was established.
The investor also said in his statement that he had submitted to the concerned authorities all documents that prove his ownership of the hotel and the company to be established in the Emirate of Dubai, and also submitted an account statement that affirm his transfer of money to the same company run by his friend (the main suspect) and three others, including his friend’s wife.
The defendants’ lawyer, Saeed Ali Al Taher, argued in the defense memorandum that his client had not received money from the investor, and that his client is the real owner of the establishment, not the investor as he had claimed.
The lawyer also said that his client had been kidnapped by the investor and forced to sign a waiver of the hotel and the company.
Therefore, the lawyer requested the Court to assign an auditor to examine the authenticity of the transfers that the investor claimed he paid to his client and his partners in the process of seizing his money.
Accordingly, the Court delegated a tripartite committee from the Expertise and Dispute Settlement Department to examine the documents submitted by the parties.
The committee stated that the incorporation and the commercial license of the company and the hotel to be built were owned by the first defendant since its inception.
However, the investor stated that they are in the name of the first defendant in fictitious terms and that they are not owned by him actually.
As for the money, according to the report, it related to commercial transactions, the completion of transactions, and the supply of materials and paintings between the investor and the defendants.
