Al Dhafra Court of First Instance issued a ruling that the thief must pay 7,000 dirhams after deceiving him and convincing him to buy a coffee machine through a website, and he succeeded in obtaining the amount through a bank transfer.
In detail, the man filed a lawsuit against another person, in which he demanded compensation of 51 thousand dirhams for the material and psychological damage he was subjected to, and also asked him to bear the costs of the case and legal fees. He explained that the accused deceived him through the internet and used a website to sell a used coffee machine worth 10,500 dirhams. The man contacted him via his phone number and transferred the amount of 5,500 dirhams from his account to the account of the accused, after which he discovered that he had been deceived and subjected to a fraud. The accused was tried, convicted and fined according to the criminal judgment.
For his part, the accused submitted an answer memorandum refusing to accept the case and stressing that it would be filed without the required legal conditions. He also confirmed the inadmissibility of claiming compensation that exceeds the value of the damage inflicted, and requested that the lawsuit be dismissed due to its invalidity and lack of proof, and that the appellant be obligated to bear legal costs and fees.
With regard to the final judgment, the court ruled that the defendant’s refusal to accept the case without the required legal conditions is void. She indicated that with regard to the civil lawsuit, it must be submitted to the civil court, which has general jurisdiction to consider it and issue a judgment in its regard.
The court clarified that the documents confirm that the error committed by the accused, which was confirmed in the criminal judgment, is the same as the one on which the appellant relied in filing the similar lawsuit, and that the criminal judgment has decided in this case. She stressed that the criminal case and the civil case must be separated with regard to the occurrence of the act, which forms the common basis between them, and the legal responsibility of the perpetrator should be assigned.
The court indicated that it was proved that material damage had occurred to the appellant as a result of the accused’s mistake in seizing his money and preventing him from using the amount since the date of the seizure, and decided to oblige the accused to pay compensation of 7,000 dirhams to the appellant, and also oblige him to bear the costs and reject any other demands.
