The High Appeals Court acquitted a defendant, who worked in a fish-selling company, of charges related to seizing sums of money from the company’s “Sadeem” card by receiving cash from the customers of a gas station and charging the company for petrol costs.
Lawyer Siddiqa Al-Mawali indicates that her client was implicated in a case involving four defendants who tampered with “Sadeem” fuel cards as employees of companies affiliated with the victim.
They seized sums of money at a gas station where the first defendant works.
Public Prosecution charged the first to fourth defendants with intentionally harming the interests of the victim company, given that they were employees entrusted with maintaining its interests, through an operation to obtain personal profit.
The fifth defendant was also charged with abetting the first to fourth defendants by misusing the company’s “Sadeem” cards by receiving cash amounts from gas station customers and charging the company for the price, then distributing the profits amongst themselves.
Al Mawali added that her client was employed by that company but had left work months prior to the incident in question.
She explained in her defence memorandum: “All evidence points towards acquittal and not conviction since there is no proof of the appellant’s connection to the accusation laid against him.
The Public Prosecution charged the appellant based on the statements of the fifth defendant, the gas station worker, who was in partnership with the remaining defendants in misusing Sadeem cards for profit.
The card statement submitted by the victim is for the year 2023, which is after the fourth defendant left work in November 2022, making it clear that the accusation is misplaced and should be rejected as a misruling.
It is also established that the confession of a defendant against another is nothing more than evasion by levelling accusations in the hope of escaping or reducing punishment.”
In her memorandum, Al-Mawali maintained her client’s denial of the charges.
She pointed out, “The Public Prosecution charged the appellant based on the fifth defendant’s dubious statement, which contradicts the evidence-gathering records. This confirms before your justice that we are dealing with an unproven incident based on hearsay.”
The Court of First Instance ignored the request of the appellant’s representative to appoint an expert to review the Sadeem card statements and to indicate the numbers of those cards and the number of the appellant’s card, as well as to identify the car in which the appellant travelled and to determine the time period during which the first, second, and third defendants participated with the fifth in misusing the victim’s Sadeem cards, in order to ascertain the appellant’s involvement. However, the request was declined in violation of the right of defence.”
At the end of her memorandum, she demanded that the appealed ruling be annulled and the court acquitted the appellant of the charge due to insufficient evidence and the failure to prove that he committed the crime attributed to him since he had been imprisoned prior to the incident since November 2022 pending another criminal case.
The High Appeals Court ordered the annulment of the ruling issued by the Court of First Instance for 6 months’ imprisonment and permanent deportation from the Kingdom of Bahrain at the end of the sentence, acquitting the first appellant of charges.