Citing shaky evidence and contradicting testimony, the judge dismisses the charges and civil claim. Dubai: The Dubai Misdemeanours Court cleared an Indian worker who was charged with embezzling Dh 92,670 from his company, finding that the prosecution had not produced enough proof to back up the claims. The plaintiff was forced to pay all legal fees, and the company’s civil claim was also dismissed. The defendant, an Indian national, was employed by the corporation as an operations manager and had previously worked as a Tasheel services official and receptionist.
Although court documents verified that he was not permitted to accept funds directly from clients, his responsibilities included assigning and directing tasks, managing institutional operations, and keeping an eye on transactions. In September 2023, the defendant was accused of embezzlement. According to the prosecution, he received money from clients in his official role for services including granting residency permits, but he reportedly transferred the monies into his personal account instead of sending them to the business.
The verdict dismissed a related civil case that the firm had filed and exonerated the defendant of all accusations. The court determined that the prosecution’s case lacked the degree of certainty necessary in criminal proceedings since it was based on contradictory testimony, an unconfirmed audit report, and a contested written confession. According to the ruling, “the evidence gives rise to doubt and suspicion.” “The law requires the court to rule in favor of the accused when such doubt exists.” Allegations of betrayal of confidence The defendant was accused with breach of trust under the UAE Penal Code, according to court documents.
The prosecution said that the defendant, who worked as a receptionist and operations manager, was paid by clients for services including granting residency permits but neglected to deposit the money into the company’s accounts. According to reports, the incident in question happened on September 8, 2023. The defendant was accused by the prosecution of routinely receiving customer payments between 2018 and 2023 and transferring them into his personal bank account rather than sending them to the business.
The court determined that there was not enough evidence to prove the offense, even with the prosecution’s accounting report. Inconsistencies and contradictions in the witnesses’ testimony were noticed in the ruling, casting doubt on the accusations. The business filed a civil claim for Dh 51,000 in damages after reporting financial losses of Dh 92,670. The charges were made after he filed a labor complaint over unpaid wages and refused leave, and the defendant disputed all of them, claiming that he was not permitted to handle cash or collect payments from clients and that they were malicious.
Mohammed Abdullah Al Redha, his attorney, contended in court that the complaint was retaliatory and unsupported by reliable evidence. The prosecution’s case was based on conflicting testimony, an unconfirmed written confession, and an accounting report that lacked independent reliability, according to the court ruling. These factors were deemed insufficient by the court to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Inconsistent statements and untrustworthy reports The prosecution claimed that while working for the company, the defendant embezzled money entrusted to him. Nevertheless, the court determined that important witnesses gave contradictory and nonsensical explanations of how the purported misappropriation was found.
According to one firm spokesperson, security cameras were used to find the misconduct, while another stated that a client complaint led to its discovery. The court determined that these inconsistencies damaged the prosecution’s credibility. According to a report given by the complainant’s appointed accounting expert, Dh92,670 had been moved to the defendant’s personal account. However, the court pointed out that the report did not give any independent evidence that the monies were from firm clients; instead, it relied solely on documentation provided by the corporation. Forensic results and dubious confession Additionally, a written confession purportedly signed by the defendant admitting to the incident was used by the prosecution.
However, due to inadequate samples and missing original papers, the General Department of Criminal Evidence and Criminology stated that the signature could not be definitively authenticated. Consequently, the court declared that the confession lacked evidential weight and eliminated it from consideration.
The defense’s position and the court’s logic The charges were made after he filed a labor complaint over unpaid wages and refused leave, and the defendant disputed all of them, claiming that he was not permitted to handle cash or collect payments from clients and that they were malicious. The defendant’s attorney contended that the complaint lacked solid proof and was retaliatory. He maintained that the claim was the result of a disagreement at work after his resignation and that his client lacked the authority to accept or manage client payments.
The defendant claimed that the alleged misappropriation was nearly impossible. He clarified that the business is paid a set amount for the services it does, typically Dh80 each transaction. Using this amount, the defendant contested the charge, arguing that the Dh92,670 total he was accused of embezzling would need him to have carried out more than a thousand transactions, a volume he insisted was implausible. It was alleged that the money in question was embezzled between May 2018 and June 2023.
Civil claim and verdict After reviewing all of the evidence, the court determined that the prosecution had not proven that the defendant had been entrusted with corporate assets or that he had exploited them for personal gain—two crucial components needed to prove the breach of trust violation. In addition to acquitting the defendant of all counts, the court rejected the company’s Dh 51,000 civil claim, holding that there can be no civil liability in the absence of established criminal wrongdoing. The business was mandated to pay for all legal expenses. On October 29, 2025, a follow-up court order directed authorities to remove the defendant’s travel ban and halt all related enforcement actions.
