Appeal court overturns jail sentences after defence challenges claims over disputed cheque.
Dubai: The Dubai Court of Appeal has acquitted a businessman and a lawyer in a Dh13.5 million breach of trust case, finding that witness testimony and authenticated documents supported their account that the disputed cheque had been voluntarily returned as part of a commercial settlement.
The appeals court overturned an earlier ruling that had sentenced both defendants to one year in prison and ordered them to jointly pay a Dh13.5 million fine.
The case centred on a cheque worth Dh13.5 million that had been deposited with a law firm as a guarantee during a commercial dispute.
Prosecutors accused the lawyer of misappropriating the cheque after it had been entrusted to her firm, while the businessman was accused of agreeing with her to commit the alleged offence.
However, the Court of Appeal found that the evidence was insufficient to establish criminal liability and accepted the defence argument that the matter stemmed from a commercial transaction rather than a criminal offence.
Cheque deposited as guarantee
The dispute arose from a $6 million fuel and gas transaction between two companies. After a balance of Dh13.5 million remained unpaid, the businessman and the other party approached a law firm, where the businessman deposited a cheque for the same amount as security for the outstanding debt.
Under the agreement, the law firm was authorised to initiate legal proceedings if the amount was not settled within four months.
When the four-month deadline passed without payment, the cheque was presented to the bank but was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds and a discrepancy in the signature.
The complainant subsequently returned the cheque to the law firm so that a police report could be filed alleging that it had been issued in bad faith.
Settlement changed the course of the dispute
The case later took a different turn when the parties reached an amicable settlement and returned to the law firm together.
According to evidence presented before the Court of Appeal, the complainant voluntarily handed the original Dh13.5 million cheque back to the businessman in the presence of law firm employees. The businessman then signed a receipt confirming that he had received the cheque.
The settlement was subsequently formalised in writing, documenting the parties’ agreement to return the cheque and bring all related legal proceedings to an end.
Following the settlement, the lawyer also formally contacted the police station to request that the earlier complaint relating to the cheque be withdrawn or closed.
The defence submitted the settlement agreement, official records and authenticated documents to the court, arguing that they showed the commercial dispute had been resolved and that the cheque had been returned voluntarily.
Criminal complaint followed
Despite the settlement and documented handover, the complainant later alleged that the cheque had not been returned and accused the lawyer of breach of trust.
The businessman was also accused of assisting in the alleged offence by agreeing with the lawyer to misappropriate the cheque.
A lower court convicted both defendants, sentencing them to one year in prison each and ordering them to jointly pay a Dh13.5 million fine.
Both defendants appealed the ruling, arguing that the prosecution’s case was contradicted by the settlement documents and witness testimony. The defence maintained that the evidence showed the cheque had been voluntarily returned as part of an agreement to resolve the underlying commercial dispute.
Court stresses burden of proof
The Dubai Court of Appeal accepted the defence evidence, overturned the convictions and acquitted both defendants.
The court stressed that criminal liability could not be inferred solely from a disputed commercial transaction and had to be established through clear and convincing evidence.
It also reaffirmed the principle that an accused person is presumed innocent unless guilt is established to the required legal standard.
The judges found that witness testimony, supported by authenticated and government-attested documents, corroborated the defence account that the complainant had voluntarily returned the cheque as part of the settlement.
The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish the alleged criminal offence, resulting in the full acquittal of both defendants.
Lawyer and legal adviser Abdullah Bin Hatem, who represented the defendants and secured their acquittal on appeal, said the ruling reaffirmed the principle that criminal liability must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.
He said documented settlements and objective records can play an important role in resolving complex commercial disputes and distinguishing contractual disagreements from criminal offences.
The ruling ultimately distinguished the underlying commercial dispute from criminal conduct, finding that the evidence presented did not meet the legal threshold required to establish criminal liability.
