A Dubai civil court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by an Emirati donor seeking to recover more than Dh3.5 million from two men he accused of fraudulently collecting funds under the guise of humanitarian aid, after a final criminal ruling acquitted one of the defendants.
The claimant said he regularly supports charitable causes, including orphan sponsorship and humanitarian initiatives. He alleged that the two men approached him claiming they had direct connections to families in need and charitable organizations in an Arab country, offering to deliver financial assistance for medical treatment, housing, education and orphan support.
According to court records, the donor said the defendants provided a dedicated phone line through which he communicated with supposed beneficiaries.
He told the court he received WhatsApp messages expressing gratitude from individuals presented as aid recipients, which reinforced his trust and led him to hand over large sums of cash and cheques.
He based his civil claim on an earlier criminal judgment that had initially sentenced the defendants to one year in prison, imposed a joint financial penalty equivalent to the disputed amount and ordered their deportation, while referring the civil aspect of the case to the competent court. He also cited financial losses and emotional distress.
However, one of the defendants appealed the criminal ruling, prompting the civil court to suspend proceedings pending the outcome. The Court of Appeal later overturned the conviction and issued a final acquittal, which was submitted to the civil court when hearings resumed.
In its decision, the civil court cited provisions of the UAE Criminal Procedures Law, which require civil courts to be bound by final criminal judgments, whether conviction or acquittal, on matters concerning the occurrence of the offence, its legal classification and its attribution to the accused.
The court also referred to precedents from the Court of Cassation, which treat the authority of final criminal rulings as a matter of public order to prevent contradictory judgments.
The appeal court had based its acquittal on insufficient evidence and doubts over whether fraud had occurred. The defendant maintained he had delivered the funds as humanitarian aid, presenting a supporting witness and receipts indicating distribution to beneficiaries.
The criminal court had earlier found that the case relied largely on statements from the claimant and his son, along with an expert report based on documents submitted by the claimant. It concluded there was no conclusive proof that the funds failed to reach their intended recipients.
Given that the acquittal rested on lack of sufficient evidence, the civil court ruled it was legally bound by the final criminal judgment and could not revisit the alleged offence or assign liability. The civil claim was consequently dismissed.
