Abu Dhabi: The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Court ruled that two women must return Dh269,142 to a man, after it was proven that the amount was transferred from his bank account to their accounts without justification. The incident occurred after he was defrauded by a gold and metals investment scam, and he shared his bank card details and verification code with a telephone caller.
The court also ruled that they must compensate him a total amount of Dh20,000 for moral damages, with Dh4,000 for the first defendant and Dh16,000 for the second defendant.
In detail, a man filed a lawsuit against two women, demanding that they be jointly and severally obligated to pay him the sum of Dh303,102, the value of the amounts that were transferred from his bank account to their accounts without justification, and obligating them to pay him the sum of Dh50,000 as compensation for the material, moral and psychological damages that he suffered, in addition to fees and expenses.
He indicated that he was subjected to a fraud incident following a phone call he received from an entity dealing in investment in gold and metals, as he shared his bank card data and verification code with the caller, and then it became clear to him that financial transfers were made from his account to the accounts of the two defendants, despite the absence of any prior financial or contractual relationship between him and them.
The plaintiff asserted in his lawsuit that the defendants had unlawfully seized the claimed amount belonging to him, and that they had previously been convicted and fined Dh5,000 for the same offence. This offence involved collecting his funds under circumstances suggesting their illicit origin, by accepting deposits into their accounts without any financial or contractual relationship with him, prior acquaintance, or notification to the relevant authorities.
The defendants submitted two written responses and supporting documents, which the court reviewed, requesting the dismissal of the case. The court-appointed accounting expert’s report, which the court adopted based on its reasoning and the supporting bank documents submitted in the case, confirmed that Dh30,000 had been transferred to the first defendant’s bank account, and that Dh239,142 had been transferred to the second defendant’s bank account.
Neither of the defendants provided sufficient evidence of a legitimate reason justifying their retention of the amount that entered their account, or their return of it to the plaintiff. Nor did the documents prove that those amounts were returned to the entity that the plaintiff claims to have been dealing with in the field of investment. This is not changed by what the defendants adhered to in their memoranda, unless their defence is based on documents proving a legitimate reason for receiving the funds or fulfilling the obligation to return them.
The report indicated that the amounts mentioned were transferred to the bank account of each of the defendants independently, and it was not proven that one of them received the amount that entered the other’s account, or that there is a legal reason that justifies obligating them both to pay the entire amount. Therefore, the obligation of each of them to return is determined to the extent of what it was proven that they received it without right.
Regarding the claim for moral damages, the court indicated that it is established from the documents that the plaintiff was deprived of the benefit of the amounts that were transferred to the accounts of the two defendants without right, and that this would cause him moral and ethical damages. It added that the causal relationship between the act and the damage was available, with the elements of civil liability being fulfilled, and the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for those damages.
The court rejected the request for financial compensation, noting that its entitlement requires proof of damage independent of the mere obligation to return the money, and that this damage must be a natural result of the harmful act. It is not sufficient to merely prove the transfer of funds to the accounts of the two defendants to rule for additional financial compensation, given that the plaintiff has not provided enough to prove a financial loss independent of the origin of those funds.
The court ruled that the first defendant must pay the plaintiff the sum of Dh30,000, in addition to Dh4,000 as compensation for moral damages, and that the second defendant must pay him the sum of Dh239,142, in addition to Dh16,000 as compensation for moral damages, and that the defendants must pay the fees and expenses, and rejected all other claims.
Source: Emirates 24|7