Abu Dhabi Court Dismisses Claim of Financial Misappropriation Against Businessman
A ruling reveals evidentiary shortcomings in a financial dispute involving AED 277,600.
The Abu Dhabi Family and Civil Administrative Court has ruled in favor of a businessman accused of misappropriating AED 277,600 in an investment agreement, citing a lack of sufficient evidence to establish a contractual relationship between the parties involved.
The court noted that the plaintiff failed to prove his claims of financial misconduct.
In the case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, seeking the return of AED 277,600, as well as legal interest and compensation amounting to AED 20,000.
The plaintiff asserted that he transferred AED 122,600 to the defendant's account and handed over an additional AED 155,000, facilitated by witnesses, with the expectation that the total amount would be invested in trade, splitting the profits due to the defendant's extensive experience in the automotive spare parts sector.
This investment arrangement was allegedly based on an oral agreement in the presence of witnesses, supported by banking receipts.
The defendant filed a counter-statement denying involvement in such arrangements with the plaintiff.
He claimed that his expertise lies in engineering within the automotive field and that he had undertaken projects on behalf of the plaintiff and a mutual associate in exchange for commissions, providing a rationale for the receipt of the payments in question.
As the court prepared to address the matter, it ordered an investigation to determine whether the plaintiff could substantiate his claims against the defendant.
During the proceedings, witnesses for the plaintiff testified about their limited knowledge of both the plaintiff's and defendant’s activities.
The first witness admitted to meeting the defendant only twice for money transfer purposes and expressed uncertainty regarding their business engagements.
The second witness acknowledged that the plaintiff and defendant had a commercial relationship, stating he invested a total of AED 140,000 in their partnership.
The court elaborated in its ruling that, under legal principles, the burden of proof lies with the creditor to substantiate his claims.
It clarified that the evidence must support any assertions made, with the presumption of innocence remaining until proven otherwise.
The court highlighted that the testimony of the second witness was discredited by his vested interest in the case, and the first witness’s lack of knowledge about the reasons behind the money transfers weakened the plaintiff's position.
Ultimately, the defendant's denial of any commercial relationship resulted in the plaintiff's inability to establish the contractual connection he claimed.
Consequently, the court ruled to dismiss the plaintiff's case, deeming it to lack a solid legal foundation, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the associated legal costs.
The court noted that the plaintiff failed to prove his claims of financial misconduct.
In the case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, seeking the return of AED 277,600, as well as legal interest and compensation amounting to AED 20,000.
The plaintiff asserted that he transferred AED 122,600 to the defendant's account and handed over an additional AED 155,000, facilitated by witnesses, with the expectation that the total amount would be invested in trade, splitting the profits due to the defendant's extensive experience in the automotive spare parts sector.
This investment arrangement was allegedly based on an oral agreement in the presence of witnesses, supported by banking receipts.
The defendant filed a counter-statement denying involvement in such arrangements with the plaintiff.
He claimed that his expertise lies in engineering within the automotive field and that he had undertaken projects on behalf of the plaintiff and a mutual associate in exchange for commissions, providing a rationale for the receipt of the payments in question.
As the court prepared to address the matter, it ordered an investigation to determine whether the plaintiff could substantiate his claims against the defendant.
During the proceedings, witnesses for the plaintiff testified about their limited knowledge of both the plaintiff's and defendant’s activities.
The first witness admitted to meeting the defendant only twice for money transfer purposes and expressed uncertainty regarding their business engagements.
The second witness acknowledged that the plaintiff and defendant had a commercial relationship, stating he invested a total of AED 140,000 in their partnership.
The court elaborated in its ruling that, under legal principles, the burden of proof lies with the creditor to substantiate his claims.
It clarified that the evidence must support any assertions made, with the presumption of innocence remaining until proven otherwise.
The court highlighted that the testimony of the second witness was discredited by his vested interest in the case, and the first witness’s lack of knowledge about the reasons behind the money transfers weakened the plaintiff's position.
Ultimately, the defendant's denial of any commercial relationship resulted in the plaintiff's inability to establish the contractual connection he claimed.
Consequently, the court ruled to dismiss the plaintiff's case, deeming it to lack a solid legal foundation, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the associated legal costs.