Abu Dhabi court obliges two to compensate company owner with Dhs200,000

The Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi rejected an appeal against a ruling which obligated two men to jointly pay a third, a company owner. the sum of Dhs1,049,600 and an additional Dhs200,000 as compensation.

The case papers stated that the first defendant exploited a power of attorney granted to him by the company he worked for and issued two cheques to the second defendant for the aforementioned amount.

The details of the case date back to when the owner of a company filed a lawsuit against two men, demanding that they jointly pay him Dhs1,049,600 and Dhs500,000 as material and moral compensation, along with a 12% annual legal interest from the date of the judicial claim until full payment.

The plaintiff stated that the first defendant, who worked at his company exploited the power of attorney granted to him and connived with the second defendant to embezzle the company’s money, by issuing two cheques to the second defendant totaling Dhs1,049,600, which were withdrawn from the company’s bank account.

He added that the first defendant was previously convicted in absentia by a criminal misdemeanour court under the Public Funds Prosecution for misappropriating the cheques, and the ruling was not appealed.

The court ruled that the defendants must jointly pay the company owner Dhs1,049,600 and Dhs200,000 as compensation. The first defendant appealed the ruling to the Abu Dhabi Court of Appeals, which upheld the original judgment, so he challenged the ruling before the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation stated that the evidence clearly showed the first defendant exploited the power of attorney granted by the company he worked for and issued and signed two cheques totaling Dhs1,049,600 to the second defendant with the intent to embezzle the company’s money.

The case was referred to the Public Funds Prosecution, which appointed a forensic accountant to audit the first defendant’s activities based on the company’s bank account, examine documents, hear witness testimony, and review communications between the defendants.

The expert’s report concluded that the cheques were issued without any legal basis, agreement, or contract, and the first defendant provided no receipts or bank transfers to the company’s account from the second defendant. Consequently, the court rejected the appeal.