Views: 12
The Dubai Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling by the Court of First Instance that sentenced an Asian male to one month’s imprisonment and fined him Dhs360,000, to be followed by deportation, for the embezzlement of a luxury Rolls Royce vehicle from a showroom in the Ras Al Khor, Dubai.
The details of the case date back to March of last year, when the proprietor of a shop selling used luxury vehicles in the Ras Al Khor filed a report stating that the accused seized a vehicle from the shop, after he had requested to test the vehicle prior to purchasing it.
The proprietor subsequently contacted the accused and requested to return the vehicle, but he refused to return and also to pay its value. Consequently, he the shop’s owner called the police and reported the incident.
The investigation revealed that the defendant had contacted a vehicle repair shop with the intention of testing the vehicle in question prior to purchasing it.
After testing, the vehicle was found to exhibit certain malfunctions, and the defendant was provided with a comprehensive report containing the vehicle’s data and a detailed list of the malfunctioning parts.
A police officer has stated that a team of investigators successfully apprehended the accused, an Asian national, 32, who admitted to receiving the vehicle in question from the aforementioned shop and already paid part of its value.
In addition, the accused denied embezzlement and seizing the vehicle without the consent of the shop’s owner. Instead, he asserted that he had formed a partnership with the aforementioned individual and another person, and that he had obtained the vehicle as collateral for his right to the investment between them.
In accordance with the Court’s ruling, the defendant admitted during the interrogation that he had received the vehicle in question and failed to return it to its rightful owner.
Furthermore, the available documentation does not substantiate or corroborate the veracity of the defendant’s assertions that he had made partial payments to the owner of the showroom.
This evidence, when viewed in its totality, unequivocally demonstrates that the defendant had committed the crime in question, thereby satisfying the requisite material and moral elements.
