Expert Report Confirms Disputed Payment Was an Approved End-of-Service Benefit.
Dubai: The Dubai Court of Appeal has cleared a former executive of charges involving the alleged embezzlement of Dh1.24 million, after an independent expert appointed by the court determined that the disputed amount was a properly authorised end-of-service payment.
The ruling reversed an earlier conviction that had imposed a Dh50,000 fine, along with an additional financial penalty of Dh1.24 million, matching the amount the executive was accused of misappropriating.
The case centred on a cheque worth Dh1.24 million that was issued and cashed in September 2024.
Prosecutors had accused the former executive of embezzlement and breach of trust, alleging that the payment had been processed without the necessary approval from the organisation.
However, after reviewing the defence’s submissions and the findings of a court-appointed financial expert, the appellate court concluded that sufficient doubt existed regarding the allegations to warrant an acquittal.
Defence presents evidence supporting executive’s acquittal
Lawyer and legal adviser Abdullah Bin Hatem, who represented the former executive, argued that the disputed payment was not the result of financial misconduct but a legitimate end-of-service gratuity.
According to the defence, the Dh1.24 million payment had been approved by the organisation’s general assembly in accordance with its internal procedures.
To support this position, Bin Hatem presented official minutes from the relevant meeting, documenting the approval of the payment.
He also submitted a formal clearance certificate indicating that there were no outstanding financial or administrative obligations between his client and the organisation.
As part of the appeal proceedings, the lawyer requested an independent accounting examination of the organisation’s financial records, authorisation processes and payment procedures.
The court subsequently appointed an expert to review the available evidence and determine whether the disputed transaction had been properly approved.
The expert’s findings supported the defence’s arguments, confirming that the end-of-service gratuity had received the required approval and that the payment complied with the organisation’s internal authorisation procedures.
These conclusions raised significant doubts about the prosecution’s allegations and contributed to the Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn the previous judgment.
Independent expert confirms payment was authorised
The legal dispute arose following a change in the organisation’s management, which led to a review of its financial transactions.
During the review, the incoming management questioned the Dh1.24 million cheque issued to the former executive in September 2024.
The new management alleged that the executive had arranged for the cheque to be issued and cashed without the knowledge or approval of the board.
Those allegations formed the basis of the embezzlement and breach-of-trust charges.
However, the independent accounting review later established that the payment had been authorised through the organisation’s established approval procedures.
The expert’s report, together with the supporting documents submitted by the defence, played a central role in the appellate court’s assessment of the case.
Based on the evidence presented, the Dubai Court of Appeal set aside the earlier conviction and acquitted the former executive of the charges.
Accounting report questions legitimacy of payment
An advisory accounting report presented by the complainant had challenged the legitimacy of the Dh1.24 million payment, arguing that the organisation’s governing documents did not specifically provide for an end-of-service bonus.
The report also questioned whether minutes from earlier general assembly meetings constituted sufficient authorisation for the disputed payment.
Following the financial review, the organisation demanded that the former executive return the money and warned that legal proceedings could follow if the amount was not repaid.
During the appeal, the defence challenged these allegations and requested an independent financial examination of the organisation’s records, internal regulations and relevant transactions.
The court subsequently appointed an accounting expert to establish whether the payment had been properly authorised.
Expert confirms Dh1.24 million gratuity was approved
The court-appointed expert concluded that the organisation’s general assembly had formally approved the Dh1.24 million end-of-service gratuity during a meeting held on September 5, 2024.
The approval followed the executive’s resignation after a lengthy period of service, with his advanced age also cited as a factor in the decision.
The expert’s examination further established that the organisation’s internal financial regulations permitted its financial officer to approve payments exceeding Dh50,000, provided written authorisation was issued after verifying the reasons for the expenditure.
According to the findings, the financial officer had approved the disputed payment in compliance with those established procedures.
The defence also relied on an official clearance letter dated January 8, 2025, confirming that no outstanding financial or administrative obligations remained between the executive and the organisation.
Together, the general assembly’s approval, the financial officer’s authorisation and the clearance document contradicted the prosecution’s allegation that the funds had been unlawfully misappropriated.
The evidence ultimately raised doubts about whether the transaction amounted to a criminal offence.
Court applies benefit-of-doubt principle
In its judgment, the Dubai Court of Appeal emphasised that courts have the authority to evaluate expert reports and determine whether their conclusions are supported by reliable evidence and sound reasoning.
Referring to an established legal principle recognised by the Court of Cassation, the appellate court explained that judges may rely on a properly substantiated expert report without being required to respond separately to every objection raised against its findings.
The court considered the general assembly meeting minutes, documented payment approval and official financial clearance letter when assessing the allegations against the former executive.
It concluded that these documents created sufficient uncertainty about whether the payment involved criminal wrongdoing.
Applying Article 212 of the UAE Criminal Procedure Law, under which doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused, the court overturned the earlier conviction.
The ruling resulted in the former executive’s acquittal of the embezzlement and breach-of-trust charges, setting aside the penalties previously imposed.
Civil appeals dismissed over procedural requirements
The Dubai Court of Appeal also ruled that two appeals filed by the civil claimant were inadmissible on procedural grounds, as the Court of First Instance had not yet issued a judgment on the underlying civil claims.
The appellate court explained that, under Article 139 of the Civil Procedure Law, the claimant must return to the Court of First Instance to obtain a ruling on those claims before pursuing an appeal.
It noted that considering the civil claims for the first time at the appellate level would deprive the parties of an opportunity for judicial review through the established court process.
As a result, the court dismissed both civil appeals without determining the merits of the outstanding claims.
However, the decision does not prevent the claimant from continuing to pursue those claims before the Court of First Instance.
The judgment therefore overturned the former executive’s criminal conviction and cleared him of the embezzlement and breach-of-trust charges, while leaving the separate civil claims unresolved and subject to further proceedings before the appropriate court.
