Salesman jailed for stealing Dhs2.1m in cash, gold bar worth Dhs600,000 from workplace

Dubai: A gold salesman misappropriated Dhs2.51 million in cash and a one-kilogramme gold bar valued at Dhs600,000 from his employer’s safe. The Dubai Criminal Court convicted him in absentia, sentenced him to one year in prison, imposed a fine of Dhs3.11 million, and ordered his deportation.

The Dubai Civil Court also ordered him to repay the value of the stolen cash and gold, pay the company Dhs200,000 in compensation for material damages and lost earnings, and cover all legal costs, including attorney fees.

The employee carried out the theft when no other staff was on the company’s premises. Using a key entrusted to him as part of his role, he opened the safe, took the cash and gold bar, and fled. A criminal complaint was subsequently filed, and the Public Prosecution referred the case to the Dubai Criminal Court. The court’s judgment, which included a fine equivalent to the total value of the stolen assets, was later upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The company filed a civil lawsuit seeking the recovery of the funds and gold, along with Dhs1 million in compensation for the damages it had sustained. It argued that the misappropriation had deprived it of the opportunity to invest those assets and earn returns, while also imposing financial burdens as it pursued legal proceedings to recover its rights.

The court examined the case documents and forensic reports relating to footage from surveillance cameras at the company’s premises. The footage showed the employee entering the area, taking the funds, placing them in a backpack, and leaving. The court relied on this evidence to establish the wrongful act and the resulting financial losses to the company.

The court ordered the employee to repay Dhs3.1 million, representing the value of the cash and gold bar, and awarded the company Dhs200,000 in compensation for lost earnings over approximately six months.

However, it rejected the claim for Dhs1 million in compensation, finding no evidence to substantiate the company’s assertion that its financial position had been destabilized or its business operations disrupted to the extent alleged.