A woman of Arab nationality was subjected to fraud by two unknown persons, who used the guise of a well-known trading company, and seized about 1.1 million dirhams from her, under the pretext of investing it and making huge profits in the field of digital currencies. She resorted to the civil court to demand that two people she accused of receiving her money be obligated to return the amount and pay compensation of 400 thousand dirhams, but she was unable to prove this, so the court rejected the case due to the lack of evidence linking the defendants to the money in question or Proves their seizure of it, or reveals the party that carried out the fraud.
The details of the case go back to an Arab woman who entered the world of digital investment to achieve high financial returns, after she met two people who presented themselves as representatives of a well-known investment entity that enjoys the trust of investors inside and outside the country.
According to the lawsuit papers, the plaintiff began transferring sums of money in successive stages after receiving promises of large profits from trading in digital currencies. She transferred thousands of dollars and Kuwaiti dinars in separate operations, before the total amount she paid exceeded one million and 106 thousand dirhams.
The plaintiff said that those in charge of the investment were showing her indicators and numbers that suggested achieving increasing profits, which encouraged her to continue pumping more money, believing that she was building a successful investment portfolio that would generate large returns, within a short period.
However, things took a different turn when she tried to inquire about her money and the profits that were said to have been made from trading operations. She was later surprised by warnings stating that the name of the company she thought she was dealing with had been exploited by unknown parties practicing fraud and defrauding investors.
As a result, she resorted to the judiciary, demanding that the defendants be obligated to return the money she lost, stressing that they were behind luring her and transferring her money under the guise of investing in digital currencies.
During the hearing of the case, the plaintiff submitted a number of documents, including a consulting report, a commercial license, and documents that she said supported her story. She also requested the inclusion of the owner of a commercial establishment in the case, as he is linked to the party that she believes caused her loss.
After studying the requests, the court agreed to introduce the new opponent in form, after it became clear that there was a connection between him and the institution in question, and moved on to examine the substance of the case and the documents submitted to prove responsibility.
However, it stated in its merits that the established legal rule stipulates that whoever claims a right must prove what he claims, and that the principle is acquittal, unless conclusive evidence is presented to the contrary.
She indicated that she examined all the documents submitted by the plaintiff, and found that some of them included forms and documents related to the management of investment portfolios, bearing different names and seals, but these documents did not directly prove that the defendants received or seized the claimed funds.
The court also noted that the advisory report submitted within the case file focused on the value of the money that the plaintiff claims to have lost, but it did not clearly identify the party that committed the fraud, or the person who seized the money, which made the report insufficient to prove the defendants’ responsibility for the incident.
She added that the lawsuit papers did not contain any bank transfers or financial documents proving the transfer of funds to the defendants’ accounts, or the existence of a direct contractual relationship between them and the plaintiff, nor did they include anything proving that they communicated with her, managed her investments, or obtained her money.
She emphasized that merely believing or doubting a person’s responsibility for financial loss is not sufficient to arrange civil liability or oblige him to return the money. Rather, evidence must be established that the error occurred and attributed to the person claiming compensation, in addition to proving the damage and the causal relationship between them.
The court found that although the plaintiff had spoken about her exposure to a potential fraudulent operation, she had not provided evidence that directly linked the defendants to that operation, which makes the elements of civil liability incomplete from a legal standpoint.
Based on this, it concluded that the plaintiff was unable to prove her claim to a sufficient extent that would allow the defendants to be obligated to pay the amounts claimed, and it ruled to reject the lawsuit and oblige her to pay the judicial expenses.
• Those in charge of the “fake investment” were showing women indicators and numbers that suggested achieving increasing profits.
