Latest news with #HudaAlAswad

Daily Tribune

Man accused of pocketing cash in restaurant equipment deal cleared

A Bahraini man accused of pocketing cash from the sale of restaurant equipment he never received has walked free after a court ruled there was no solid proof to back the charge. Defence lawyer Huda Al Aswad said the Minor Criminal Court found her client not guilty, rejecting the prosecution's claim that he had misappropriated both cash and items belonging to a restaurant. The case hinged on whether the man had ever been given the equipment in the first place. The prosecution alleged he had been entrusted with it and failed to hand over the proceeds after selling it. Proof However, Al Aswad argued there was no proof he had ever taken possession of the items, let alone sold them. She said the complainant himself had admitted in an early statement that he had given the equipment to another person — who happened to be the defendant's business partner — to sell, in exchange for a 10 per cent cut. The arrangement, she pointed out, had been made before her client even started working at the restaurant. Complainant The complainant later claimed the defendant had sold the goods and kept the money, citing the business partner's word as evidence. But in court, the man confirmed he had initially handed over the equipment to the partner for sale, a detail that matched the defendant's account. The only items the defendant admitted selling were three refrigerators, and he had given the proceeds to the complainant, who acknowledged receiving the money in court. Evidence Judges found no evidence that the equipment had been sold for more than what had been handed over. The court noted that for a charge of embezzlement to stick, there had to be proof that the accused had converted someone else's property into their own — something that had not been demonstrated. It also pointed out that there was no clear evidence the defendant had ever received the full set of items in question. Claim As for the claim that the goods had been offloaded at a higher price than declared, the court said there was nothing to back it up. Just because something is sold below market value does not mean the seller has pocketed the difference. With no firm proof that the accused had done anything wrong, the court dismissed the charge and acquitted him under Article 255 of the Criminal Procedure Law.