The Abu Dhabi Family and Civil and Administrative Claims Court rejected a girl’s lawsuit against a young man, demanding that he pay her three million and 319 thousand dirhams, after accusing him of having obtained the money from her, after deluding her that he had an important position and worked in several projects, and that he would make a real estate investment. For a profitable project, the defendant denied receiving the money, indicating that he was communicating with her with the intention of marrying, and that he told her that he did not want to continue with her.
In the details, a girl filed a lawsuit against a young man, in which she demanded that he pay her an amount of three million and 319 thousand dirhams, and delegate an accounting expert to move and review the accounts of the two parties to the case, to verify the amounts received by the defendant, while obligating him to pay expenses and in return for attorney’s fees.
The girl indicated that she met the defendant through the conversation program, where he deluded her that he had an important position, working in projects and auctions of used vehicles, and asked her to lend him and that he would make a real estate investment in a profitable project, so she sent him sums of money through the exchange, amounting to 82 thousand Dirhams in three installments, and she handed him cash amounts to one million and 687 thousand dirhams, and another cash amount estimated at 370 thousand dirhams.
During the consideration of the case, the defendant admitted that he knew the plaintiff, and was communicating with her with the intention of marriage, and told her that he did not want to continue with her, because he was married to another, and because she was older than him, and that she was the one who borrowed an amount from him, then returned it to him through the exchange, and denied receiving any cash from the plaintiff.
He pointed out that the plaintiff was the one who handed him her bank card, considering that she was traveling, so that he could return the amount to her, denying the validity of receiving one million and 180 thousand dirhams from her account, demanding that the case be dismissed for lack of validity and evidence.
The plaintiff’s attorney submitted a commentary note, which included that the plaintiff appeals to the defendant’s conscience regarding the cash amounts handed to him, and requests that the decisive oath be directed to him in respect of them, and requested that he be obligated with the amounts he admitted receiving, and assigning an accounting expert to inspect the accounts of the parties to the lawsuit to verify the amounts received by the defendant.
In its ruling, the court explained that the plaintiff based her request by appointing the expert, as having withdrawn cash from her personal account, and handed it over to the defendant as a loan, and that she transferred sums through an exchange, and the defendant also took money using her credit card, noting that all that she demanded The plaintiff did not provide any evidence to prove that claim, as the papers were devoid of any evidence proving the fact that the plaintiff handed over an amount of two million and 57 thousand dirhams, and the papers were void of proving the fact of the loan or Debt or advance any of the amounts you claim.
The court indicated that it is not sufficient merely to transfer funds from the plaintiff for the benefit of the defendant, to say that there is a loan or debt between the two parties to the dispute, because the fact of the transfer in itself is nothing more than a mere transfer of funds, but it does not indicate the nature of the transaction according to which the transfer of funds took place, especially The transfer order included personal needs for its purpose, pointing out that the plaintiff requested that the decisive oath be directed to the defendant in the amount of two million and 57 thousand dirhams, assuming that he received it in cash from her as a loan, and the defendant agreed to take the decisive oath, and denied what was stated in it. The court considered that there is no point in assigning an expert to settle the account between the two parties, as long as the basic fact on which the claim in question is based, the fact of the loan, debt or advances, is not established, but rather the case is devoid of any evidence of it, with which the plaintiff’s request is based on an unsubstantiated From the reality of the law. The court ruled to dismiss the case, obligating the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.
• The young man was communicating with the girl with the intention of getting married, then he retreated.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news