The Dubai Criminal Court convicted an Asian man of promoting fake products of an international brand, fined him 50,000 dirhams and exiled him from the country, and forced him to publish the verdict in any widely circulated newspaper in Arabic and English.

In detail, the facts of the case stated that a large quantity of fake goods such as bags, clothes, shoes of international brands were seized from the possession of the accused, and on investigation he traded them, so the Public Prosecution Dubai referred him to the Mischief Court, which convicted him in absentia.

On the specified date, the accused objected to the judgment in absentia, which ordered him to be fined 50,000 dirhams, exiled from the state, confiscation of counterfeit goods, and publish the judgment in widely circulated newspapers in Arabic and English. own expense.

In a legal brief submitted by his lawyer, the accused contended that the verdict was void, that no investigation was conducted due to the absence of a complaint filed by the owner company, and that the public prosecutor's permission was invalid. Serious and non-existent investigations. However, the court responded that the objective issues entrusted to them include assessing the investigations and the adequacy of the order of inquiry. The trial court and the public prosecutor had decided to grant its sanction after reviewing the report, which was assured of its seriousness. The court believes that the prosecution is correct in its conclusions and therefore dismisses the case.

His counsel also argued that the statement of the accused in the witness statement was invalid due to the absence of an interpreter while recording his statement. The court responded that the original evidence, interrogation and trial proceedings should be in Arabic. If the accused is unaware of this, the judicial officer, prosecutor or competent court judge shall seek the assistance of an appointed or licensed interpreter. In all cases, the judicial officer, the public prosecutor and the court may seek the assistance of an interpreter from any other party after taking an oath to perform his duties honestly and faithfully.

The court explained that it is clear from the case documents that the statements of the accused and the translation of their recording and the translation of the records were made by the police belonging to the Economic Offenses Department of the General Department of Criminal Investigation. Investigations. He proved this by speaking fluently to the accused, without denying that he had been told otherwise than he had told the accused, or by asking an interpreter. is taken into account, and it is up to the person claiming to prove otherwise.

She was satisfied that the defendant's claim was “true and free from ambiguity or ambiguity,” that the counterfeit goods seized belonged to him and that he was responsible for selling and advertising them. He obtained from the market in the emirate knowing that the seized place and the seized goods were fake. Another “the court rejects his contention in this regard.”

The accused contended that he had nothing to do with the incident and there was an error of imputation in the absence of corroborating evidence. The court replied that the accused was established in its view by perusal of the case documents. Acknowledgment in the minutes of collection of evidence that the flat from which counterfeit goods were seized belonged to him, the nature of the seized goods and his consent, his responsibility for the same and the place of arrest. This was supported by a report from the General Department of Criminal Evidence and Criminology, which concluded that the tested sample was counterfeit and that, when compared with an original sample bearing the same trademark, it could expose consumers to imitation. Commercial fraud and it must be defrauded so that the court can extract the correct picture of the incident from it.

The court decides that the reasons on which the adverse judgment is based are appropriate and then takes it and orders the reasons for the judgment against the accused on the basis of verification and validity of the evidence. A fine of 50 thousand dirhams should be imposed, he should be deported from the state and the judgment should be published in two widely circulated newspapers at his expense, in both Arabic and English.