A New Achievement for ADG Legal: The Court of Cassation Overturns a Conviction in a Multi-Million Dirham Tax Evasion Case
In a ruling reinforcing the principle that "Criminal judgments shall not be based on suspicion or probability, but rather on certainty and conviction" ADG Legal, represented by senior advocate Jaber Al Ameeri, successfully obtained a judgment from the Court of Cassation overturning a conviction in a tax evasion case. The disputed tax amount exceeded AED 4 million, with a corresponding fine of over AED 8 million.
Case Summary:
The Public Prosecution charged the firm's client, in his capacity as a taxable person, with evading payment of the excise tax on a commodity (cigarettes), accusing him of attempting to evade an amount of AED 4,211,400 by possessing the goods without paying the due tax. The same charge was also brought against the company he allegedly represented, holding it liable for the evasion through its representative – the same first defendant.
Despite the defendant denying any connection to the incident, asserting that he was merely a worker who neither owned the goods nor worked for the company that did, he was initially convicted in absentia and fined heavily. His subsequent objection and appeal were later dismissed.
Judgment Overturned Due to Inadequate Reasoning and Lack of Evidence:
ADG Legal filed a cassation appeal, raising several substantial legal arguments, most notably:
- The absence of any connection between the defendant and the smuggled goods.
- The lack of conclusive evidence proving the defendant's knowledge of the nature of the goods or any intent to evade taxes.
- The severe deficiency in the judgment's reasoning, which was based on assumptions and conjecture rather than concrete evidence.
The Court of Cassation upheld the appeal, finding that the challenged judgment violated established principles of criminal law—particularly Article 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires any conviction to be based on clear and detailed reasoning, both factually and legally—requirements the judgment had failed to meet.
In its reasoning, the court confirmed that the judgment suffered from defective reasoning and flawed inference, as it did not specify the acts attributed to the defendant in detail, failed to address his key defenses, and was based on vague and generic grounds that did not indicate the presence of any valid evidence.
Outcome:
Accordingly, the Court of Cassation ruled to overturn the contested judgment and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal to be heard by a different panel.
Comment by Lawyer Jaber Al Ameeri:
This judgment represents a significant victory for the principles of criminal justice and reaffirms that a conviction must be grounded in clear and irrefutable evidence—not mere speculation or circumstantial inference. Once again, the Court of Cassation has proven itself as the final bastion for the protection of rights and freedoms.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
