2.23 AM Friday, 29 March 2024
  • City Fajr Shuruq Duhr Asr Magrib Isha
  • Dubai 04:56 06:10 12:26 15:53 18:37 19:52
29 March 2024

Former Deyaar executive's sentence reduced

Published
By EMAN AL BAIK

The Dubai Court of Appeal Court reduced the sentence awarded to Deyaar’s former board member SA to one year and  Dh11.75 million fine after the company conceded its rights.

The First Instance Court had earlier awarded the 42-year old Emirati three years in jail and Dh115m fine as he was found guilty of abusing his position in government job, causing loss to Deyaar and accepting Dh11.75m as bribe.

Announcing the verdict, Presiding Judge Mustafa Al Shennawi said: "The court dismisses the public prosecution's appeal for harsher punishment.”

The court acquitted SA of the charge of giving a usury loan worth Dh6m to a businessman.

Earlier, Deyaar dropped the civil lawsuit that it pursued against the former board member and the businessman.

The Court of First Instance had acquitted 44-year-old Emirati businessman, who had been on trial in absentia for taking an illegal usury loan from the first defendant.

SA had pleaded not guilty to accepting Dh11.75m bribe from the businessman in a deal over a plot of land in Dubai Marina and of giving a usury loan worth Dh16m to the businessman.

Dr Habib Al Mulla, SA’s lawyer presented two documents issued by the Ruler's Court confirming that his client was not assigned as a public servant when he served as a board member.

"The amounts were not taken as illegal profits or bribes. My client had not abused his power as a public servant, made unlawful gains, or accepted or requested a bribe. Prosecutors failed to identify exactly, in the bill of charges, how my client abused his duty. The charge sheet was unclear, unspecific and did not contain any solid evidence. Dr Al

Mulla has also doubted the report of the Financial Control and described it as baseless and asked the court for his client’s acquittal. Dr Al Mulla told Emirates 24|7 that after the concession the case and the ruling of the First Instance Court have become baseless. The company did not suffer any loss and my client is not a public servant.