Dh4.6m embezzlement: Accused doubts witness

AA, 32, Emirati businessman, who is being prosecuted for embezzling Dh4.6 million from his Indian business partners in a cinema house project, told the Dubai Court that he had never seen the affirmative witness who claimed to have worked for him.

After the defence lawyer suspected the identity of the witness Kashef Ahmad Mohammed, an affirmative witness who said he used to work for the accused, the presiding judge asked the accused if he knows the witness.

The witness turned his head so the accused could see him.  The latter answered: “I do not know him and have never seen him. Who is this man?”

The defence lawyer argued that Kashef Ahmad Mohammed had left for India while the man standing before the court is not him.

“Your honour, as the ID card that the witness presented to the court states, his name is Mohammed Kashef while, in fact, Kashef Ahmad Mohammed has left the country,” said the lawyer.

The jury double checked the ID and found out that the name was different.

The lawyer of the plaintiffs --the two businessmen -- presented to the court a letter from the Indian Consulate that stated changing of the name.

However, the defence lawyer argued that even if the name was changed, the person standing in front of the court should have the same old unified number given by the UAE Ministry of Interior. He asked the court to allow him get such evidence from DNRD.

This issue was raised after the witness affirmatively answered when asked if he saw the accused forging Civil Defence documents which he presented to his business partners as evidence of going ahead with the cinema project.

“I was working for AA and the victims were his business partners in setting up a cinema in Safeer Mall in Sharjah. I know that the partners had paid their share of the capital in installments. After some time, the partners asked my employer why he did not start the project.  My employer insisted that he had started the formalities. So they asked him to present documents to support his claim. He forged receipts and presented them with forged photocopies and kept the originals with him, saying that he needed them,” the witness testified.

When the judge asked him if he saw the original receipts, the witness answered yes.

At this point, the defence lawyer intervened and suspected the identity of the witness. He also brought up another issue, suspecting one of the two plaintiffs had forged the receipts to accuse his client of forgery.

The defence lawyer told the court that a complaint had been lodged with the police by the man who had actually forged the receipts and documents on the request of one of the plaintiffs and the latter seem to have failed to pay him for his service.

"Your honour, the forgery had been documented by the police and the complaint had been preserved,” the defence lawyer said, urging the court to take that compliant into consideration and asked for getting documents of the complaint.

The records

According to the records, AA embezzled more than Dh4.6 million that had been kept in his custody by two Indian businessmen.

AA, 32, is also accused of forging three receipts of about Dh300,000 attributed to Sharjah Municipality.

NR, 42, Indian businessman, met AA in November 2011 and agreed to establish a cinema house in a mall in Sharjah together with VD, a compatriot businessman.

“We met in his office in Karama. AA told us that he had agreed with the mall’s management on setting up the cinema. He showed us some documents that carried the mall’s letterhead. We gave him our oral consent based on those documents,” NR told investigators.

Two months later, in January 2012, AA presented to the two businessmen a bid from a decoration company for the project.

“The bid was reasonable and so we agreed to it. We decided Dh13.4 million as the estimated capital of the project. We signed a contract for setting up a limited liability entertainment company. The contract was attested by a notary public.


“Later, a licence was issued by the Department of Economic Development and a bank account was opened for the company,” he said.

On the request of AA, VD transferred Dh3.2 million to the company’s bank account, while NR paid Dh1.6 million for the purchase of building and decoration materials.

AA had put a condition that he should be the manager of the company.

NR learnt that AA was using the building materials for a similar project he had in Ras Al Khaimah.

Four months after signing the partnership contract, the two Indian businessmen found out that AA had not started any work on the cinema house project.

When they confronted AA claimed that he had already paid the decoration company Dh6.7 million and presented a receipt from the company. He also presented a photocopy of a cheque of Dh1.2 million drawn on his personal bank account. He claimed to the partners that the amount was paid as commission to a person.

AA also submitted to his partners receipts of payments from various departments of the government of Sharjah.

He also asked his partners to contribute extra capital. He asked VD, whose share in the company was 25 per cent, to transfer Dh2.5 million.

Since the two businessmen suspected AA, they started checking the authenticity of the receipts and cheques he had presented to them. The two found out that the receipts were forged and the cheques had never been given to the parties AA claimed he had paid.

AA denied the accusations when he first appeared before the court.
 

Follow Emirates 24|7 on Google News.