Dubai court orders fraudster to repay Dh1.1 million after seizing 187 silver bars

The Dubai Civil Court of First Instance has ordered an Arab man to pay Dh1.109 million to the owners of a silver shipment and Dh100,000 in compensation for material and moral damages after he was found to have embezzled 187 silver bars.

The defendant convinced the owners that he owned a shipping company in Dubai and arranged the handover of the silver at the company's premises. It later emerged that he was merely a regular customer of the company.

The case arose after the defendant falsely claimed to own a shipping company in Dubai. He received silver shipments from the plaintiffs in several batches, claiming they would be shipped to a city in their home country. He allegedly kept the bars for himself instead.

According to court documents, the Public Prosecution charged the defendant with embezzling 187 locally produced silver bars of two high-purity grades worth a total of Dh1.109 million. The bars belonged to the plaintiffs and had been entrusted to him.

A criminal court sentenced the defendant in absentia to six months in prison, fined him the value of the embezzled silver and ordered his deportation. The civil claim was referred to the competent court.

In the civil case, the plaintiffs sought to hold both the defendant and a shipping company liable. They demanded the current market value of the shipment, estimated at Dh2.5 million, plus Dh500,000 in material and moral damages, 9 per cent legal interest, and legal costs.

The plaintiffs included the shipping company in the lawsuit, saying the defendant had falsely claimed ownership of it. They said the silver was handed over at the company's premises in several batches in the presence of two employees. The deliveries were recorded by surveillance cameras and video footage, and the company's representative was questioned during the investigation.

The company argued that the case against it should be dismissed, saying it had no relationship with either the plaintiffs or the defendant. It said the defendant was neither an owner, partner nor employee, but only a regular customer. The company also denied any involvement, collusion or wrongdoing.

The court said a criminal judgment is binding on a civil court only when it becomes final. It noted that a judgment issued in absentia is not binding if it has not been formally served on the convicted person and no opposition proceedings have been filed.

After reviewing the criminal case file, the court found that the judgment against the defendant had been issued in absentia earlier this year. A certificate from the Public Prosecution showed no challenge had been filed against the ruling.

However, the court found no evidence that the defendant had been formally notified of the judgment or had opposed it. As a result, the judgment had not become final.

The court said the criminal judgment was therefore not binding on it, but it independently reviewed the evidence and documents.

It concluded that the defendant had deceived the plaintiffs into believing he owned a shipping company and received the silver bars on the pretext of shipping them to a city in their home country. Instead, he kept the bars for himself. The court also found no evidence that the silver or its value had been returned to the plaintiffs.

The court said anyone who unlawfully takes another person's property must return it or pay its value if it has been consumed, damaged or lost.

It therefore ordered the defendant to pay Dh1.109 million, representing the value of the silver bars. The court found that the plaintiffs suffered financial losses after being deprived of the value and use of the silver, as well as potential gains. It awarded Dh100,000 in compensation for material and moral damages.

As for the shipping company, the court found no evidence that its representatives or employees were involved in the transactions between the plaintiffs and the defendant. It also found no evidence that the company or its employees received the silver bars. The plaintiffs, the court said, failed to prove any formal relationship between the defendant and the company.