An Asian man was found guilty by the Dubai Misdemeanor Court of advertising counterfeit products from an international brand. He was sentenced to a fine of 50,000 dirhams and deported from the country. Additionally, the court ordered him to publish the verdict in any of the widely distributed publications in both Arabic and English.
The facts of the case stated that the accused was found to be in possession of large quantities of counterfeit products from an international brand of bags, clothes, shoes, and other items. The investigation revealed that the accused was trading these items. As a result, the Public Prosecution in Dubai referred him to the Misdemeanor Court, which ultimately decided to convict him in absentia.
The accused objected to the verdict in absentia on the date that was mentioned. The ruling, which stated that he would be fined 50,000 dirhams and deported from the state, confiscate the counterfeit articles, and publish the ruling in any of the widely distributed publications in Arabic and English at his own expense, was challenged by the accused.
In a legal memorandum that was submitted by his attorney, the accused argued that the ruling was invalid, that there were no investigations because the owner company did not submit a complaint, and that the permission granted by the Public Prosecution was invalid because it was based on investigations that were not serious and actually did not exist. On the other hand, the court answered by stating that one of the objective concerns that are assigned to them is the evaluation of the investigations and whether or not they are sufficient to provide an authorization for inspection. Under the supervision of the trial court, the matter was sent to the investigative body, and the Public Prosecution had reached the conclusion that it would provide its authorization after reading the report, which it had been assured of the seriousness of. The court has reached the judgment that the prosecution's conclusions were accurate, and as a result, it has decided to dismiss the investigation.
A further argument that was made by his attorney was that the confession that was included in the evidence report was not valid because there was no translator present while the statement was being recorded. In response, the court stated that the process of the trial, the inquiry, and the original evidence should all be conducted in Arabic. There is a requirement for the judicial officer, prosecutor, or competent court judge to seek the assistance of a translator who is either appointed or licensed if the accused is unaware of this information. In every instance, the judicial officer, the Public Prosecution, and the court have the authority to request the aid of a translation from any other party, provided that the translator has taken an oath to carry out his duties in an honest and truthful manner.
The court explained that what is clear to it, according to the case papers, is that a police officer from the Department of Combating Economic Crimes in the General Department of Criminal Investigations and Investigations was the one who translated the statements made by the accused and did the recording of those statements in the record. He demonstrated this by asking the accused in the language that he was proficient in, without the accused questioning his comments or requesting a translator. He did this without the accused arguing that his statements were communicated in a manner that was different from what he stated. Because of this, it has been shown that the necessary procedures were taken into consideration, and it is up to the one who asserts differently to provide evidence to the contrary.
She confirmed that she was satisfied with the information that was included in the evidence report, which stated that the defendant's statement was "true and without ambiguity or ambiguity," that the counterfeit products that were seized belonged to him, and that he was responsible for selling and promoting them, guiding him to the location of the seizure, and knowing that the items that were seized were counterfeit, which he obtained from a market in the emirate. On the other hand, "the court does not accept the argument that he presented in this regard."
The accused further contended that he had no link to the incident and that there was an error in the attribution because the papers did not contain any information that could be utilized to support the claim. The accused acknowledged in the minutes of collecting evidence that the apartment in which the counterfeit products were seized belonged to him, and that he was aware of the nature of the goods that were seized, as well as his acknowledgment. The court responded by saying that what was established in its view from reviewing the case papers was the accused's acknowledgment. Both the location of the arrest and his responsibility for it are of interest. It was supported by the report of the General Department of Criminal Evidence and Criminology, which came to the conclusion that the sample that was being examined was a counterfeit. This conclusion was reached after comparing the sample in question to the original sample that bore the same trademark. The report also stated that the degree of imitation could expose the consumer to commercial fraud and cause them to be deceived by it. The court is able to extract the correct picture of the incident from the report. The legal action.
The court came to the conclusion that the opposing ruling was appropriate for the reasons on which it was based. It then took the opposing ruling and made it complementary to the reasons for its ruling in terms of the validity of the attribution and evidence of proof. The court then ordered the accused to be fined fifty thousand dirhams, deported from the state, and compelled to publish the ruling in two newspapers that are widely circulated and published in both Arabic languages. Also, English, at the expense of him.
