Dubai Court clears defendant in KHDA certificate forgery case, ruling that benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
A Dubai Court has upheld the acquittal of an Arab institute owner accused of forgery and fraud, ruling that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction and ordering the confiscation of the disputed training certificate.
The Court of Appeal accepted the case in form but rejected the Public Prosecution’s appeal on merit, confirming the earlier judgment that cleared the defendant of all charges and reinforcing the principle that criminal guilt must be proven beyond doubt.
The case dates back to a May 30, 2024 complaint filed at Al Muraqqabat Police Station, where the defendant was accused of forging a training certificate allegedly issued under the Knowledge and Human Development Authority and using it to defraud a complainant of Dh10,000.
According to the complainant, he enrolled in a diploma programme in international diplomatic relations at an institute in Al Rigga after discovering it on Instagram, paying Dh10,000 for tuition, certification, and a graduation ceremony.
After completing two months of training, he received a certificate but alleged that no graduation ceremony was ever held. When he later submitted the document to the Knowledge and Human Development Authority for verification, he was informed that he was not registered and that the certificate was invalid.
The complainant was unable to appear before prosecutors as he was outside the United Arab Emirates at the time.
A report from the Knowledge and Human Development Authority confirmed a mismatch, stating that while such certificates may be issued and attested upon request, the document submitted did not belong to the complainant.
The authority further verified that the certificate reference details corresponded to another individual, and that no academic record existed for the complainant in either the institute’s records or KHDA systems.
The defence, led by lawyer Mohammed Abdullah Al Redha, argued that the case lacked material evidence and was based on contradictions and doubt rather than certainty.
He told the court that the complainant was not a student but had a commercial relationship with the institute, acting as a marketer who promoted its services and had regular access to its premises. He also maintained that the Dh10,000 payment was part of a business arrangement rather than tuition fees.
The defence also pointed to a key timeline inconsistency, noting that the institute’s professional licence was issued on March 26, 2024, while the complainant claimed to have begun his studies earlier that same month — a discrepancy described as “logically impossible”.
Witness testimony raises doubt
Defence witnesses supported the argument that the complainant was never formally enrolled as a student and was instead engaged in marketing activities for the institute.
They further testified that official stamps and certificate-printing equipment were accessible within the office, suggesting that the disputed document could potentially have been produced by another party.
The defence also argued that the complainant’s possession of the certificate undermines the allegation that it was fraudulently issued by the defendant.
The Dubai Court found no conclusive evidence against the defendant, stressing that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental legal safeguard and that the burden of proof lies entirely with the Public Prosecution.
The court noted there was no reliable evidence directly linking the defendant to the alleged forgery, and that the complainant’s claims were not supported by independent proof.
It also highlighted inconsistencies in timelines, the absence of official records, and defence witness testimony as factors that created reasonable doubt.
Reaffirming legal standards, the court emphasised that criminal convictions must be based on clear and conclusive evidence rather than suspicion or speculation.
The court ruled that any doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.
Final ruling
The Dubai Court upheld the acquittal, rejected the Public Prosecution’s appeal, and ordered the confiscation of the certificate at the centre of the case.
