Khaberni - The Kuwaiti Supreme Court postponed the case of Sheikh Talal Al-Khaled to a session on March 9 to complete the defense in the cases of embezzlement of funds in both the Ministries of Interior and Defense.
The Supreme Court had earlier decided to suspend the execution of Sheikh Talal Al-Khaled's 14-year imprisonment sentence and to fine him 30 million dinars, in the cases of embezzlement of funds in both the Ministries of Interior and Defense, and to postpone the trial for arguments while banning him from travel.
The Supreme Court, in the rationale of its previous decision, which Al-Qabas obtained, remarked on distinguishing the judgment and returning the case for argument, saying, “Hence, the judgment under appeal - as its records reveal - convicted the appellant of money laundering without mentioning the incident of the lawsuit or detailing the evidence proving it, nor did it detail the events and actions committed by the appellant proving his commission of that crime.”
The court added: "Nor did the judgment under appeal sufficiently clarify the evidences indicating that, thus exposing them and affirming their dynamics from the facts of the case and its circumstances. Moreover, while the court of first instance has complete authority in assessing the evidence and adhering to what it finds reassuring and dismissing the rest, whenever the accused raises a substantial defense that might - if proven correct - alter the opinion in the case and supports it with documents presented, then the court must scrutinize this defense in light of what these documents might imply, or dismiss it based on valid evidence justifying its rejection. Since the court refrained from investigating this defense and responded to it in ambiguous terms, and what it presented does not confront the defendant's defense nor justifies dismissing it, then the judgment under appeal, besides breaching the right of defense, is flawed in its reasoning, thus necessitating its distinction with respect to the crime of money laundering and other interconnected crimes charged, ensuring the proper administration of justice, without needing to explore other aspects of the appeal presented by the convicted, or the public prosecution."
The court concluded that, as far as the matter at hand is concerned, what is presented before the court is not fit for adjudication.
