UAE: Employee Found Guilty Of Misusing Power Of Attorney, Ordered To Pay Over Dh1 Million

The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation has ruled in favour of an employer, upholding a previous ruling that found a former employee guilty of misusing the power of attorney and financial misconduct.

The case began when the employer filed a lawsuit against a former employee and another individual, claiming the misappropriation of two cheques.

In his filing, the employer alleged that the former employee had misused the power of attorney granted to him to issue two cheques totaling Dh1,049,600 in favour of the other individual. The sum was withdrawn from the company's bank account without any justification.

Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels.

The company's owner asked for the repayment of Dh1,049,600 plus a compensation of Dh500,000. Abu Dhabi's Court of First Instance has partly ruled in his favour, ordering the former employee and the other individual to jointly repay the amount of money in full plus Dh200,000 in compensation for material and moral damages.

An appeal in the case was filed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed it and upheld the ruling, so the appellant referred the case to the Court of Cassation, arguing that the judgment was flawed because:

• The court relied on a police report, which is not conclusive evidence.

• A report filed by an expert in the case was incomplete and contradictory.

• There are invoices proving partial payment, but the court ignored them.

• The Public Prosecution had not even charged him.

Court of Cassation ruling

After reviewing the documents, the Court of Cassation issued its ruling on September 3, saying:

• Courts have discretion to evaluate evidence and are not required to appoint a new expert if the existing report is sufficient.

• The expert report in this case showed that the cheques were issued without any valid contract, agreement, or purchase order. The invoices presented by the appellant did not match, and even had handwritten changes without signatures from both parties.

• The appellant's statements were contradictory: at one point, he denied receiving the cheques, at another he admitted there were transactions leading to them.

Therefore, the court rejected the appeal, saying that his defence was unconvincing and his objections were merely arguments about how evidence was weighed, which is outside the Court of Cassation's scope.

The rejection of the appeal means that the court confirmed that both the appellant and the employee who breached trust are jointly liable to pay the amounts owed to the plaintiff, rejecting the appellant's attempts to escape responsibility.

The appellant was also ordered to pay court fees and expenses plus Dh1,000 in legal fees.

MENAFN07092025000049011007ID1110028115