"Dismantling the Branches": 544 Nationality Forgers from a Single Family

In one of the most complex and far-reaching nationality forgery cases, the “tracing branches back to the roots” methodology employed by nationality investigators led to the opening of three new files for brothers registered as sons of a single man born in the 1930s. This brought the total number of dependents linked to the six cases uncovered out of 28 children to 544 individuals.

Sources familiar with the matter told Al-Rai that among the 28 children, nationality had previously been revoked from (M), whose dependents numbered 129; from (H), whose dependents numbered 59 sons and daughters; and from (F), whose dependents reached 152. This brought the total number of dependents linked to these three individuals to 340.

The sources added that the committee reopened the case involving three other sons of the same father: (A), (S), and (J). This reflects the practical application of the nationality investigators’ “tracing branches back to the roots” methodology. Detaining one instance of forgery does not conclude the investigation at the individual level; rather, it opens the entire family file, ensuring that scrutiny extends to branches, siblings, children, grandchildren, and all associated documents.

According to inquiries and documents presented to the Supreme Committee for Kuwaiti Nationality Verification, the father is married to six wives and has 28 children registered under his file. Investigations and inquiries led to other branches of the family, identifying the three brothers (A), (S), and (J), whose combined dependents total 204 individuals. The investigations relied on Gulf documents, DNA fingerprint results, inheritance inventories, and confessions from several children.

Sources confirmed that the provisions of the new Nationality Law were applied, stripping nationality from the Kuwaiti national who committed the forgery and from all his children, as they were aware of the forgery committed by their father.

Article 14, Clause 4, stipulates that “by decree, based on a proposal from the Minister of Interior and with the approval of the Supreme Committee for Kuwaiti Nationality Verification, Kuwaiti nationality may be revoked from any person holding it in the following cases: If a person intentionally adds to their nationality file, or the nationality file of another person, any individual who is not their child or descendant, and this is proven through an investigation conducted by the Supreme Committee for Kuwaiti Nationality Verification or by a final court judgment. In such cases, nationality may also be revoked from any of their children or descendants if their knowledge of this is established.”

• He remained imprisoned until 2012... and his sentence excluded deportation because he was a Kuwaiti when the judgment was issued.

• In 2013, he attempted to regain his nationality through the influence of a deputy but failed, leaving the country in 2019.

• His sister’s marriage to a person registered as her “brother” took place in Kuwait under her name and her genuine Gulf identity.

The story of (A), born in 1950 and registered with 18 children under his file, began more than a quarter of a century ago. The total number of dependents linked to his file, including his children, amounts to 21 individuals.

His story dates back to 1999, when he was apprehended following a letter from the Criminal Investigations Department to the Nationality Investigations Department, in connection with a drug trafficking case. During a search of his home, security forces found a passport issued by a Gulf state bearing a first name identical to the one registered on his Kuwaiti ID, while the remaining names, up to the fifth name, were completely different. The passport also bore his photograph. Additionally, a driver’s license issued by the same Gulf state was found in his possession, confirming that he held Gulf nationality.

In 1999, Kuwait contacted the relevant Gulf state to verify the authenticity of these documents. The response in 2000 confirmed that (A) was a citizen holding that nationality and that all his proofs and documents were valid. This proved, according to the conclusions of the investigations, that he held Gulf nationality and possessed Kuwaiti nationality based on false information.

In 2005, the Supreme Committee decided to strip (A) of his Kuwaiti nationality, but at the time treated his case as one of dual nationality rather than fraud in obtaining it. At that time, the loss of nationality did not automatically extend to his dependents; consequently, the children registered under his file retained their Kuwaiti nationality despite their father’s loss of it.

Sources indicated that in 2010, the Nationality Investigation Department discovered that four of (A)’s sons also held Gulf documents under the same real name their father used in the Gulf state. Based on this, the Supreme Committee took the same action against the four sons as it had previously taken against their father: stripping them of their Kuwaiti nationality. This loss then applied to the father and four of the 18 children registered under his file.

(A) had remained in prison until 2012 on a drug trafficking charge. The sentence handed down to him was issued while he was still a Kuwaiti citizen; therefore, the judgment did not include his deportation from the country after serving his sentence, as his loss of Kuwaiti nationality occurred at a later stage, while he was already convicted.

In 2013, after his release from prison, (A) submitted a petition for clemency to regain his Kuwaiti nationality through the intervention of a member of the National Assembly. However, the petition was rejected, and he did not regain his nationality. He remained in Kuwait until 2019, when he left for his original Gulf state, using his Gulf name and identity, after failing to restore his Kuwaiti nationality despite the clemency petition and the arguments he presented.

As investigators completed their inquiries into all suspicious files and scrutinized the files of the other 14 children who had retained their Kuwaiti nationality, they discovered Gulf records for them. It emerged that these children shared the same first name on both their Kuwaiti and Gulf identities, but the remaining names, up to the fifth name, differed completely from those recorded in the Kuwaiti documents.

The evidence was not limited to Gulf documents. Additionally, an inheritance inventory for (A)’s alleged father was obtained, revealing that (A)’s name was not listed among the children’s names in the inventory. According to the investigations, this constituted additional evidence that he was not the son of the man registered as his father in the nationality file.

Thus, a collection of circumstantial evidence and facts accumulated before the Committee, including his arrest in 1999 and the discovery of Gulf documents in his possession, the subsequent finding that four of his sons held similar documents, his absence from the alleged father’s inheritance inventory, and the complete discrepancy between his Kuwaiti name and his Gulf name, except for the first name.

The investigations concluded that the case did not involve “dual nationality,” but rather the acquisition of Kuwaiti nationality based on incorrect information, placing the situation within the framework of fraud rather than dual nationality.

Furthermore, inquiries revealed a notable circumstantial fact: (A) has a sister who is a Gulf national and bears the same name he uses in his Gulf documents. She is married in Kuwait, using her Gulf identity, to a person registered in the Kuwaiti file as one of (A)’s “brothers.” In other words, her husband is recorded in the Kuwaiti registry as (A)’s brother, while her actual Gulf identity reveals that she bears the same Gulf family name as (A).

Sources stated that investigations clarified that the marriage took place in Kuwait under the woman’s real Gulf name and identity. Thus, (A)’s actual sister married a person registered in Kuwait as her brother’s sibling.

Based on the totality of this evidence and circumstantial facts, the Supreme Committee decided to revoke the Kuwaiti nationality of (A) and his dependents.

• (S) left Kuwait in 1999 and died in his home Gulf state, with his dependents—including children and grandchildren—totaling 130 individuals.

The second file concerns (S), also born in 1950, who left Kuwait in 1999 before later dying in his original Gulf state. His file lists 23 children, with total dependents linked to these 23 amounting to approximately 130 individuals.

The threads of this case began in 2005, when one of (S)’s sons, named (K), submitted a request to relinquish his Gulf documents, attempting to regularize his status after it was revealed that he held a Gulf identity and documents.

However, this request became a key point of exposure in the case. Through it, (K)’s real name appeared in the Gulf documents, revealing that it differed from the name recorded in his Kuwaiti documents, except for the first name.

Kuwaiti nationality investigators summoned three of (S)’s sons and collected DNA samples, which were then compared with the DNA samples of their alleged uncles—i.e., their father’s brothers registered in Kuwait, totaling 12 individuals. The results conclusively disproved the paternity of the three sons in relation to the uncles.

Based on these findings, the committee decided to revoke the nationality of (S) and all his dependents.

An examination of the file also revealed that (S) had legally changed his name in 1991, after previously being recorded in Kuwaiti registers under the name of one of his brothers. However, investigations revealed that the true purpose was not merely to eliminate the coincidence of his name with that of his alleged brother, but to alter his Kuwaiti name so that his first name matched his real name in the Gulf state.

Furthermore, one of the witnesses who testified on his behalf in court was later found to be another case of fraud from which nationality was revoked in 2025, indicating a new sign of recurring links between some fraud cases, whether through marriage, testimony, or professional relationships.

• Born in 1954, fugitive from the country since early 2026, with total dependents numbering 53, including children and grandchildren.

• Investigations revealed Gulf restrictions on the father and several of his sons; he was not added to his “father’s” file but was naturalized in 1973.

The third file is linked to (J), born in 1954, who has been a fugitive from Kuwait since early 2026. His file lists 20 children, with total dependents amounting to 53 individuals, including children and grandchildren.

(J)’s story shares some similarities with the cases of his two brothers, but the manner in which he obtained nationality followed a different path.

The case began after one of his sons was apprehended based on information indicating a case of fraud and affiliation with a non-biological father. During the interrogation of the son, investigators found Gulf documents pertaining to him and confronted him with them.

Investigations revealed that (J), along with several of his 20 children, had Gulf restrictions. A review of the file regarding his acquisition of nationality showed that he was not added to his alleged father’s file from the outset; rather, he obtained Kuwaiti nationality in 1973.

When nationality investigators returned to the old documents used to obtain his nationality, it became clear that he had then relied on three members of the National Assembly who testified that he was the son of the Kuwaiti man whose file was involved. The testimonies and signatures of the three MPs remain in his file.

Based on those testimonies, (J) obtained Kuwaiti nationality under Article One, on the basis that he was the son of the Kuwaiti father. However, current investigations concluded, as presented in the file, that this father was not his biological father. Moreover, his name was not included in the inheritance inventory of the alleged father, similar to his two brothers (A) and (S).

Confronted with the documents and records from the Gulf state, one of the sons of “J” confessed and acknowledged the accuracy of the findings reached by the nationality investigation officers, as well as the validity of the Gulf documents proving that his father was not the son of the Kuwaiti man registered as his father in the file.

In his confessions, he revealed that his father had come from the Gulf state in the early 1970s and had agreed with the Kuwaiti citizen, the owner of the file, to have him registered as his son. He also admitted that his father obtained a certificate signed by three members of the National Assembly at the time, confirming that he was the son of the Kuwaiti man, and that these certificates were among the documents relied upon to obtain Kuwaiti nationality in 1973 under Article One.

Sources indicated that the final outcome of the file revealed a wide extension of a long-running forgery scheme. The original figure was a Kuwaiti man born in the 1930s, married to six wives, and registered with 28 children.

Among these 28 children, the files of three sons—designated as “M,” “H,” and “F”—had previously been closed after forgery was established, with their dependents totaling 340 individuals. Meanwhile, the dependents of the files of three other sons currently under review by the committee—designated as “A,” “S,” and “J”—number 204 individuals, bringing the total number of dependents linked to the six cases to 544.

Sources emphasized that unraveling this file is due to the approach followed by the nationality investigation department in forgery cases, where investigations do not stop at the individual whose file is exposed, but extend to sons, grandchildren, siblings, historical documents, networks of lineage and marriage, and witness testimonies, tracing the case from its branches back to the original source from which it began.