Khaberni - The Ajman Appeals Court Second Circuit acquitted a fifty-year-old woman of electronic fraud after she was accused of taking AED 5,000 from a user through a fake payment link sent following an advertisement for selling a stroller on one of the online advertisement applications.
The court confirmed in its ruling reasons that the evidence presented did not reach a level of certainty, and that any doubt regarding the action’s attribution to the accused necessitates a verdict of acquittal, following the principle of "certainty is not displaced by doubt" stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Law.
The case details trace back to a person filing a complaint claiming to be defrauded after posting an ad to sell a stroller on a specialized advertising application. Someone claimed to be interested in purchasing, sent a supposedly payment or fund collection link, only for the complainant to later discover a deduction of 5000 AED from his bank account.
After the investigation, the Public Prosecution charged a woman, based on the phone number used in the transaction, which showed it was registered under her name. A preliminary judgment in absentia sentenced her to one year in prison and ordered her to pay judicial fees.
The accused appealed the decision, and her lawyer, Khadija Suhail, submitted a lengthy list of opposition reasons, arguing the invalidity of the notification and the proceedings, pointing out that her client’s notification was not properly executed, thus making the default judgment legally nullified, and emphasized that the appeal was made within the legal period upon the accused being notified of the judgment.
She explained that the investigations overlooked crucial facts, the most important being that the phone number used in the crime was registered under a man's name, who stated in the investigation that he had given the SIM card to his Asian maid, who was the one using the phone and fluently speaking English, which correlates with the complainant's description. Add to that, the maid was not summoned for questioning, despite the owner of the number's statement being a decisive piece of evidence that could change the face of the case.
The lawyer pointed out that the judicial arrest report did not include any material connection between her client and the SIM or phone used, and it was not proven that she made calls or received any money on the date of the incident, making the technical evidence insufficient and incomplete.
She relied on the criminal law principle that "penal judgments are based on certainty and not on suspicion or conjecture," affirming that neither the physical nor the moral elements of the crime were proven against the accused, as she had no connection to the criminal act and had not realized any criminal intent.
She also mentioned that her client suffers from chronic stomach issues and was bedridden on the day of the incident, unable to move.
She presented evidence proving her trip for treatment abroad, highlighting that her client is a woman in her mid-fifties, a mother and grandmother, with a clean criminal record, making the notion of her committing the crime logically and realistically improbable.
The Appeals Court clarified in its decision that the records lacked unequivocal evidence linking the appellant to the accused incident, and merely registering the phone number under her name was insufficient to prove her commission of the crime, especially with the existence of another possible user of the SIM.
The court added that the settled principle in criminal jurisprudence dictates that judgments are based on certainty and not on doubt and probability, and once doubt intrudes upon the evidence, the court must rule for acquittal, emphasizing that the court's task is to scrutinize the evidence and achieve justice, not to fill voids in the accusation with assumptions.
The court concluded by canceling the initial judgment against the accused and reaffirming her acquittal of the alleged charges, applying Article (211) of the Criminal Procedure Law.
