A check in bad faith.

This post is also available in: العربية (Arabic)

In the 2003 Discrimination Challenge No. 501
At the public meeting on Saturday, April 24, 2004
Headed by Mohamed Mahmoud Rasim, President of the Court
The members of the judges, Dr. Ali Ibrahim Al-Imam, Salah Mohammed Ahmed, Mohammed Nabil Mohammed Riad and Ahmed Abdul Rahman Al Zawawi

Base Summary
A check without credit.
The offence of giving a cheque without a credit is achieved by giving the drawer the cheque to the beneficiary knowing that there is no payment for the withdrawal on the due date. Do not submit the check for disbursement within six months. Article 618/1 business transactions do not affect the conduct of the crime. The reason for that.

Legal principle
It is planned that the crime of giving a cheque is not matched by a balance that is done once the drawer gives the cheque to the beneficiary with the knowledge that there is no exchange able to withdraw on the date of maturity and that knowledge is assumed against the accused who knows before when issuing the check that he does not meet it in return for an existing and sufficient payment, as he is obliged to follow up on the movement of the balance with the bank withdrawn to earn his ability to meet the value of the cheque until it is fulfilled, This does not change the fact that there are other cheques that were disbursed from the same account because there is a payment for it, as long as the cheque in question did not have a balance when it was submitted to the bank, as it was the constant of the papers and from the statement of the bank dated 28/4/2003 that the company of the appellant It had overdraft facilities for the period from 21/11/2000 to 17/12/2000, which is the same period related to cheques worth 500,000 dirhams and that the total value of the cheques submitted for disbursement is 200.970 dirhams, This statement states that the balance is insufficient and does not change what the appellant raises in his appeal that the reason for not disbursing the cheques is due to the fact that they were not submitted within six months, as article 618/1 of the Commercial Transactions Act stipulates that the failure to submit the cheque on the date stipulated in the article above the statement does not result in the loss of its status and does not entitle the drawer to recover in exchange for the payment, and does not increase its responsibility for fulfilling the value of the cheque unless it is proven that the payment of the payment was in place at the time of submission. It was not used in its benefit, as it was not enough for the balance to be present at the time of the issuance of the cheque, but it must remain so until the date of its payment, because the provision of the cheque for disbursement has nothing to do with the availability of the elements of the crime, but it is a material procedure that tends to meet against the cheque and what the bank has stated is the inadequacy of the balance except for the conduct of the crime achieved by issuing the cheque and giving it to the beneficiary with the criminal intent, whether the incident of this crime occurred or the failure of it, as the criminal intent in that crime is achieved. Once the tug knew that there was no payment for his loyalty on the date of the withdrawal and even fulfilling its value, Which is supposed to be on his side.

Court ruling
I made the next verdict.
After reading the papers and reading out the summary report prepared by Mr. Judge Mohamed Nabil Riad and hearing the pleading and deliberation law.
The appeal met the form established by the law.
Whereas, the prosecution accused ——————— in the misdemeanour of 2164/2003 that from 21/11/2000 to 17/12/2000 he gave in bad faith to the company ————— cheques numbers 1553, 251319, 251320, 251322, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251324, 2513324, 251324, 25132333, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251323, 251324, 25132 All of them were withdrawn on HSBC Middle East bank with a total value of AED 200.970, which is not matched by an adequate and retractable existing balance as fixed in the papers and requested its punishment under article 401/1 penalties and the company claimed a civil before the accused requested a sentence of 10,500 dirhams for temporary compensation, and on 22 December 2003, the Court of First Instance ordered the defendant to fine 1,000 dirhams and referred the civil case to the competent civil court.
The convict did not accept this sentence and appealed no. 3871/2003 and on 6 December 2003 the court ruled against it and upheld the appeal.
The court challenged him in this case of discrimination, which was the subject of a report dated 31 December 2003, with a memorandum of appeal signed by his client lawyer requesting that it be revoked and the payment of the insurance, and the public prosecutor’s office filed a motion requesting that the appeal be rejected.
Whereas the appellant denies the contested judgment the lack of reasoning and corruption in inference and violation of the fixed paperwork and error in the application of the law, as he based the appeal’s condemnation on the bank’s letter of 28 April 2003 that the appellant had facilities for withdrawal. On the same period in the case of AED 500,000 and the value of the cheques 200.970 dirhams this while the constant from the bank letter on 5/4/2003 that the balance of the applicant on the maturity dates of the cheques was sufficient to meet The value of the transaction is not sufficiently valid, and the cheques were not refunded because there is no balance in their due dates, but to be submitted after the time of article 618 of the Commercial Transactions Act, which required the payment of the cheque within six months to spend its value if the beneficiary submitted Cheques two years after due dates and the judgment based his conviction on his confession that this confession was focused on the writing of cheques and that the complaining company from 20/11/2000 until 19 February 2002 paid cheques It also disbursed four cheques of AED 29/039.883 dirhams from the same account withdrawn from the dates of maturity of the cheques, which is a claim bond, which indicates the adequacy of the balance in the appellant’s account, as well as the fact that another person was managing the account, which indicates that the complainant took advantage of the account’s absence of the corresponding amounts of the cheques withdrawn and submitted after two years of due dates, which necessitates the judgment and must be revoked.
Since the contested verdict between the fact of the case and the availability of all the legal elements of the crime that the appellant condemned and provided for its evidence against him is substantiated by the correct statement of the case papers and that would lead to what he arranged for the judgment, derived from his confession of issuing cheques, The statement of the bank withdrawn on it was intended to be the crime of giving a cheque that is not matched by a balance that is made by simply giving the withdrawal to the beneficiary, knowing that there is no payable on the due date of maturity, and that knowledge is assumed against the accused, who knows before when issuing the cheque that he does not meet it in return for an existing and sufficient payment, as he is obliged to follow up on the balance movement of the bank withdrawn to the trust of his ability to meet the value of the cheque until it is fulfilled, This does not change the fact that there are other cheques that were disbursed from the same account because there is a payment for it, as long as the cheque in question did not have a balance when it was submitted to the bank, as it was the constant of the papers and from the statement of the bank dated 28/4/2003 that the company of the appellant It had overdraft facilities for the period from 21/11/2000 to 17/12/2000, which is the same period related to cheques worth 500,000 dirhams and that the total value of the cheques submitted for disbursement is 200.970 dirhams, This statement states that the balance is insufficient and does not change what the appellant raises in his appeal that the reason for not disbursing the cheques is due to the fact that they were not submitted within six months, as article 618/1 of the Commercial Transactions Act stipulates that the failure to submit the cheque on the date stipulated in the article above the statement does not result in the loss of its status and does not entitle the drawer to recover in exchange for the payment, and does not increase its responsibility for fulfilling the value of the cheque unless it is proven that the payment of the payment was in place at the time of submission. It was not used in its benefit, as it was not enough for the balance to be present at the time of the issuance of the cheque, but it must remain so until the date of its payment, because the provision of the cheque for disbursement has nothing to do with the availability of the elements of the crime, but it is a material procedure that tends to meet against the cheque and what the bank has stated is the inadequacy of the balance except for the conduct of the crime achieved by issuing the cheque and giving it to the beneficiary with the criminal intent, whether the incident of this crime occurred or the failure of it, as the criminal intent in that crime is achieved. Once the tug knew that there was no payment for his loyalty on the date of the withdrawal and even fulfilling its value, This is assumed in his part, which is something that the impugned judgment did not misjudge, and the appellant’s in this regard is not supported by the law, Since that was the case, the appellant had admitted in court to issuing cheques where the crime was and giving them to the beneficiary, and therefore what he raised about the confession had no place, Since that was the case and the rest of the appellant’s appeal was nothing more than an objective debate about the court’s appreciation of the evidence and the composition of the case, which is not permissible to raise before the Court of Cassation, Since the above, the whole appeal is not on the basis of the rebuttal.
For these reasons
The court ruled against the appeal and forfeiture of the insurance amount.

Category: Dubai Court
Tags: ,
Previous Post
Appeal of discrimination No. 348 of 2004 petition for review
Next Post
Effortless Systems Of romancecompass.com – A Background

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Fill out this field
Fill out this field
Please enter a valid email address.
You need to agree with the terms to proceed

Menu