Dubai Woman Acquitted in Cybercrime Case; Court Calls for Probe into Ex-Husband.
Dubai: A Dubai Misdemeanour Court has acquitted an Arab woman of charges related to possessing and storing pornographic material via information technology, ruling that the case lacked both legal and evidentiary merit and relied on unlawfully obtained and flawed evidence.
The alleged incidents reportedly occurred in October 2025 within the jurisdiction of Al Barsha Police Station.
The woman faced trial following a complaint from her ex-husband, who claimed she had stored explicit content with the intention of displaying it to others, allegedly violating the UAE’s cybercrime law. The court described the case as malicious and urged authorities to investigate the former husband’s conduct.
Forensic Evidence Questioned
The forensic report, which analyzed the complainant’s mobile phone, identified ten video clips and twenty-two images deemed offensive to public morals. The materials reportedly included footage of unidentified individuals engaged in explicit conduct, including indecent acts captured on camera.
Court Highlights Flaws in Prosecution, Orders Deletion of Content
In its ruling, the court concluded that the prosecution’s case relied on contradictory forensic evidence and failed to prove either the material element of the alleged crime or the required criminal intent. All images and videos at the center of the case were ordered deleted, while a related civil compensation claim was dismissed after the complainant failed to pay the prescribed court fees, with the complainant also ordered to cover legal costs.
Defence Argues Hacking and Extortion
Represented by lawyer Mohammed Abdullah Al Redha, the defence argued that the woman was targeted in a deliberate scheme of hacking, unlawful surveillance, and extortion.
A key point in the case was a discrepancy in forensic reports: although the prosecution claimed incriminating material had been recovered from the woman’s phone, technical analysis confirmed her device remained locked and inaccessible to forensic experts, meaning no data could have been extracted from it.
Misattributed Evidence and Court Findings
The court found that the videos and images at the heart of the case were actually retrieved from the complainant’s own device. The defence showed that a secretarial error in the electronic case file—where reports from two separate devices were placed sequentially—led to the mistaken attribution of the materials to the woman.
The court accepted that this clerical error undermined the prosecution’s case, confirming there was no evidence that the woman had stored, possessed, or shared the materials, nor that she had any intent to do so.
Complaints of Threats, Blackmail, and Illegal Access
Trial evidence further revealed that the complainant had unlawfully accessed the woman’s private cloud account without her consent. During investigations, he admitted to infiltrating her iCloud account to obtain personal images and videos, supporting the defence’s claim of threats and blackmail.
Ex-Husband Accused of Blackmail and Extortion
Case files reveal that the ex-husband threatened to distribute private photos and videos—illegally obtained from the woman’s accounts—to her relatives and family members.
According to the court memorandum, his actions were motivated by blackmail and financial extortion. He sent threats via WhatsApp, attempting to coerce the woman into transferring ownership of multiple properties and assets. Documents submitted to the court indicated that he aimed to exploit potential reputational harm within her family as leverage to force her compliance.
Further evidence showed that the complainant had installed recording and eavesdropping devices inside the woman’s private car without her knowledge or consent, part of a broader pattern of unlawful surveillance and privacy violations.
Defence Labels Case “Malicious and Fabricated”
The defence contended that the case was deliberately constructed, arguing that the complainant initiated legal action to hide his own unlawful conduct and to pressure the woman amid their personal dispute. They maintained that all evidence had been obtained illegally and was therefore inadmissible.
No Criminal Intent Found
The court found no proof that the woman had intended to share the materials with others—a necessary element for conviction under the UAE cybercrime law. It noted that the complainant himself was the only person who circulated the content.
Following the acquittal, the defence requested that the matter be referred to the Public Prosecution to investigate the complainant for illegal hacking, extortion, misuse of telecommunications, and providing false testimony.
