Latest news with #DubaiCourtofFirstInstance
Gulf Today
07-05-2025
- Business
- Gulf Today
Heirs of Canadian businessman sue a bank in Dubai for mismanaging deceased's account
The Dubai Court of First Instance heard a civil lawsuit filed by the heirs of a deceased Canadian businessman against a local bank, accusing the bank of mismanaging the estate and withholding tens of millions of dirhams in violation of banking regulations and the orders of the Dubai Probate Court. The heirs (the deceased's brother and two sisters) filed the case before the Dubai Commercial Court, alleging that the bank conducted unauthorised financial transactions in the deceased's accounts after his death in October 2020. The heirs demanded the recovery of Dhs76.9 million, in addition to interest and compensation, asserting that they discovered significant violations in the bank's handling of their brother's accounts while initiating procedures to retrieve the estate assets. A report by an accounting expert appointed by the heirs highlighted several breaches, most notably bank transfers executed after the date of death, despite official notification of the man's death. The report revealed that the bank disposed of Dhs110 million, in addition to unauthorised bank transfers and cheques from the deceased's account. Additionally, the estate administrator's report noted that some of the assets may not be directly registered in the deceased's name, and the bank has not officially acknowledged them, in clear violation of banking regulations and fiduciary duties. Lawyer Awatif Shawqi, the legal representative of the heirs, stated that the bank was officially notified of the businessman's death in late October 2020, but it continued to execute financial transactions without authorisation from the competent court. Shawqi added that the unauthorised transfers exceeded Dhs18.7 million, in addition to cheques withdrawals totaling approximately Dhs3.7 million. The bank also froze Dhs87 million as bank guarantees for two years without valid claims. Shawqi requested the court to compel the bank to submit all documents related to the deceased's accounts, investments, and transactions, and to conduct a comprehensive financial audit to determine the full impact on the estate. The lawsuit included documents indicating that the bank failed to disclose deposits and investment portfolios belonging to the deceased, despite his substantial investments during his lifetime in projects and portfolios managed by the bank.
Gulf Today
18-04-2025
- Business
- Gulf Today
Realty firm ordered to refund Dhs1.9m to a woman in Dubai
The Dubai Court of First Instance ordered a real estate development company to refund Dhs1,935,000 (Dhs1.935 million) to an Arab woman after it was proved that the company failed to fulfill its obligations under an agreement following the cancellation of a real estate project, on the basis of which the woman had contracted to purchase a plot of land to build a villa on it. The court obligated the company to return Dhs1,785,000, representing the amount owed to the plaintiff under the settlement, in addition to Dhs150,000 as compensation for the damages she incurred due to the delayed payment. The case details date back to the time when an Arab woman filed a lawsuit with the Dubai Real Estate Court, demanding the refund of Dhs2.6 million she had paid to a real estate development company, along with a 12% legal interest. The case documents revealed that the plaintiff had taken a bank loan and paid its interest to purchase a plot of land and build a villa through the appellee company. It was revealed also that she paid the company Dhs2.1 million, but shortly before the delivery date, the company informed her of the project's cancellation without providing clear reasons. The company allegedly proposed an amicable settlement, which the plaintiff accepted, and an agreement was signed stating that the plaintiff was entitled to Dhs1,879,000 to be transferred to her bank account, but the company failed to comply, paying only Dhs94,000 despite receiving legal notices. The plaintiff's legal representative, Dr Alaa Nasr, stated that the court deemed the original contract canceled due to the settlement, and the plaintiff's request for a full refund of all payments was legally unacceptable in light of the settlement agreement. Dr Nasr added that the court considered the Dhs150,000 compensation to be proportionate to the actual damages the plaintiff incurred due to the company's failure to fulfill its contractual obligations.
Gulf Today
11-03-2025
- Gulf Today
Dubai Court of Appeal upholds punishment of man over fraudulently selling a mobile phone
Dubai Court of Appeal upheld a verdict issued by Dubai Court of First Instance fining an Arab Dhs1,000 for swindling the same amount of the fine from an employee in collaboration with another man. The defendant defrauded the victim with an advertisement for selling a phone in installments posted on Instagram. The case dated back to July last year when an Arab reported to the police that he had been defrauded. He explained that he communicated with the advertiser, who asked him to transfer Dhs1,000 as a down payment of the mobile phone price amounting to Dhs5,000, provided that the remaining amount would be paid in installments over four months. The victim stated in the interrogations that the defendant promised him to send the mobile phone immediately after the down payment was received. However, after transferring the amount to the given bank account, he waited for the mobile phone but he never received it, he said. He tried to communicate with the defendant but the latter blocked him and consequently he told the police accordingly, he added. A policeman stated in the interrogations that a team of detectives managed to identify and subsequently arrest the bank account holder. On interrogation, the defendant denied any connection to the fraud, pleading that an unknown man posted an advertisement on social media to hire an employee and that after communicating with the unknown man and submitting his CV, he received a job offer. According to the defendant's statement, he was asked to use his bank account to receive money and transfer the same to crypto-currency accounts in exchange for a commission. The defendant confirmed that he carried out several operations without realizing the nature of the money or if it was illegal.
