'Crimes Department' Acquits Defendants in 5,850 KD Electronic Fraud Case
The Criminal Court, presided over by Advisor Abdulwahab Omar Al-Muwallad, acquitted defendants in a case in which the Public Prosecution accused them of forging bank documents, committing fraud via the information network, and misappropriating 5,850 Kuwaiti dinars from one of the victims’ accounts through banking links, after finding that the evidence presented in the case was insufficient to prove the charges.
The Public Prosecution had attributed to the defendants the misappropriation of the victim’s banking data after misleading her with an online investment opportunity, persuading her to download a remote control application and enter her banking details, which led to the deduction of funds from her account without her knowledge, in addition to misappropriating 80 dinars under the pretext of investment.
Kuwait Events
Opinion Articles
Army
During the hearing of the case, lawyer Jaraah Al-Sharika represented the second defendant, arguing for his client’s acquittal due to the absence of any direct evidence linking him to the incident, and the lack of technical or material evidence in the case file proving his participation in the withdrawal or fraud operations. He also pointed out the lack of seriousness in the investigations and the reliance of the charges on circumstantial evidence that did not meet the standard of conclusive proof.
The court emphasized in the reasoning of its judgment that criminal convictions must be based on certainty and firm conviction, not on suspicion or probability. It noted that the police investigations failed to determine the role of several defendants, and that merely depositing money into some of their accounts was insufficient to prove the commission of the crime without corroborating evidence.
The court concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to reach the threshold required for conviction, and was dominated by doubt and probability. It therefore acquitted the defendants, reaffirming that doubt must always be interpreted in favor of the accused.
