Criminal Liability Under UAE Penal Code
Criminal Liability Under UAE Penal Code
1. Case: Employee Embezzlement in Abu Dhabi Real Estate Company
Facts: An employee misappropriated AED 437,000 from a real estate company where he worked as a finance officer. The company claimed he breached trust by diverting company funds for personal use.
Court Reasoning: The court examined the nature of the relationship between the employee and the company. Since he was entrusted with company funds as part of his job (creating a fiduciary duty), the act constituted a breach of trust under Article 453.
Outcome:
Criminal conviction: fined AED 500,000.
Civil compensation: ordered to repay AED 437,464 plus additional AED 100,000 for moral and material damages.
Significance: Demonstrates the principle of personal criminal liability in breach-of-trust cases, showing the overlap between criminal sanctions and civil restitution.
2. Case: Director Acquitted of Embezzlement
Facts: A director of a trading company was accused of embezzling AED 2.5 million from company accounts. The accusation stemmed from the director approving payments that allegedly benefitted him personally.
Court Reasoning: The Court of Appeal analyzed whether a legal fiduciary relationship existed between the director and the company for the specific transactions. It concluded that:
He did not have authority to issue certain orders.
No clear misappropriation was proven.
Outcome: The director was acquitted of criminal charges.
Significance: Highlights that criminal liability under Article 453 requires proof of actual misappropriation and a fiduciary or trust-based relationship. Mere access to funds is insufficient.
3. Case: Restaurant Investment Dispute – Criminal Claim Dismissed
Facts: Two individuals were accused of embezzling AED 10.8 million invested in a Dubai restaurant venture. Investors claimed the funds were used improperly.
Court Reasoning: The court distinguished between civil and criminal liability:
The funds were transferred as part of a contractual investment.
No deposit, agency, or loan relationship existed to trigger breach-of-trust charges.
Outcome: Criminal charges were dismissed; the dispute remained a civil contractual matter.
Significance: Reinforces the principle that contractual disputes, even with financial mismanagement, do not automatically amount to criminal liability.
4. Case: Corporate Money Laundering and Fraud
Facts: Several individuals and corporate entities were involved in laundering USD 18 million through shell companies, using forged documents to move funds internationally.
Court Reasoning: The court applied Articles 401 and 66:
Natural persons were held liable for fraud and money laundering.
Corporate entities were held liable because the crimes were committed on their behalf or for their benefit.
Outcome:
Individuals received 5–10 years imprisonment and fines.
Corporate entities faced fines up to AED 5 million and license suspension.
Significance: Illustrates corporate criminal liability and penalties under UAE law. Confirms that legal persons can face significant financial and operational consequences, even if only agents committed the acts.
5. Case: Tax Evasion – Conviction Overturned
Facts: A company was initially convicted of evading excise taxes exceeding AED 4 million. The first-instance court imposed imprisonment and fines.
Court Reasoning: The UAE Court of Cassation examined the evidence:
Conviction relied on assumptions rather than clear, documented proof.
Legal standards required precise evidence of intent and tax liability.
Outcome: Conviction was overturned; charges dismissed.
Significance: Emphasizes the importance of proof beyond reasonable doubt and demonstrates how appeal and cassation serve as safeguards against wrongful criminal liability.
6. Case: Assault Leading to Permanent Injury
Facts: An individual attacked another person in Dubai during a personal dispute, causing permanent injury.
Court Reasoning: The court applied Articles 390–391:
Examined intent, severity of harm, and use of weapons.
Considered aggravating circumstances like premeditation.
Outcome:
The attacker received 5 years imprisonment and a fine of AED 200,000.
Victim awarded civil compensation for medical costs and moral damages.
Significance: Demonstrates the UAE Penal Code’s dual approach of criminal punishment and civil restitution for crimes causing bodily harm.
7. Case: Fraud in Online Trading Platform
Facts: An individual used a fake online platform to collect payments from investors, promising high returns, but never delivering services. Total funds collected: AED 2 million.
Court Reasoning: Under Article 399 (fraud):
Intent to deceive and induce surrender of property was proven.
Evidence included bank transactions and witness testimonies.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and fine of AED 1 million.
Ordered to repay investors the AED 2 million.
Significance: Highlights UAE courts’ approach to financial fraud, linking criminal and civil remedies.
8. Case: Attempted Murder with Weapon
Facts: A personal dispute escalated; accused attacked the victim with a knife. Victim survived but suffered serious injuries.
Court Reasoning: Applied Articles 379–384 (intentional injury with weapon) and considered:
Premeditation and weapon use as aggravating factors.
Degree of injury caused.
Outcome:
7 years imprisonment and fine AED 500,000.
Victim awarded civil compensation for pain, suffering, and medical expenses.
Significance: Shows the UAE courts’ strict approach to violent crimes and combined application of imprisonment, fines, and restitution.
Key Observations Across Cases
Personal liability: Natural persons are always liable for their acts; corporate agents can expose themselves and their company.
Corporate liability: Legal persons can be fined, lose licenses, or face asset confiscation if crimes are committed on their behalf.
Civil and criminal nexus: Courts frequently impose civil compensation alongside criminal sanctions.
Fiduciary relationships: Embezzlement or breach-of-trust liability hinges on a legally recognised fiduciary duty.
Proof and intent: Convictions require clear evidence; assumptions or contractual disputes alone do not suffice.
Severity of crime affects sentencing: Violent crimes, large-scale financial crimes, or repeated offenses carry heavier penalties.
RELATED Blog
comments