A fine of 5,000 dirhams due to a message in English in the UAE
The Ras Al Khaimah Court of Appeal issued a judicial ruling punishing an expatriate with a fine of 5,000 dirhams because of a message in English in the Emirates that he sent to another person that contained insulting phrases.
In the United Arab Emirates, a message written in English might result in a punishment of 5,000 dirhams.
The Ras Al Khaimah Court of Appeal has issued a verdict that an expatriate will be punished with a fine of 5,000 dirhams because of an insulting communication that he sent to another person in the Emirates in English. The letter in question contained terms that were considered offensive.
Insulting messages are prohibited in the UAE and require judicial punishment
In the United Arab Emirates, it is illegal to send insulting communications, and doing so might result in legal consequences, The victim stated in the investigations conducted by the Public Prosecution that the accused sent him an e-mail containing insulting phrases in English. This means that the accused is a disrespectful and delusional person; however, the accused denied what was attributed to him and added that he actually sent the e-mail but did not intend to insult the victim. The victim stated that the accused is a delusional and disrespectful person.
A fine of 5,000 dirhams is the penalty for insulting someone via email
If you insult someone by electronic mail, you will be subject to a fine of 5,000 dirhams, The accused has been charged by the Public Prosecution in Ras Al Khaimah with insulting the victim through the use of information technology in such a way that it is damaging to the victim's reputation. The accused person spoke with the victim by e-mail, sending communications that contained derogatory language in English, implying that the victim is a disrespectful and self-deluded individual. The accused person was found guilty by the court of first instance and given a 5,000 dirham fine. The Ras Al Khaimah Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that had fined a foreigner 5,000 dirhams, ordered the end of the criminal case so that the accused could make amends with the victim, and ruled that the implementation of the penalty should be suspended for a period of three years. All of these decisions were made in response to what was assigned to him.
Cases of obstructing the implementation of the judicial ruling in insult cases in the Emirates
In the Emirates, there have been instances of people impeding the implementation of legal rulings in situations involving insultsHanan Al-Bayed, the lawyer who represents the accused, stated that the ruling of the court of first instance inferred the accusation against her client from those statements that were merely an interpretation from the victim, and that the ruling did not examine the possibility that the victim had merely attempted to bargain with her client and pressure him to give up his rights due to the existence of an exchange. The statements in question came from the victim. commercial transaction between them, and she added that her client and the victim reached a reconciliation, and her client was forced to give up his rights in exchange for a reconciliation between them, due to the incomplete accusation directed against him, and she requested that the appeal be accepted, the appealed ruling be canceled, and her client be acquitted of what was charged to them, and the ruling from the Court of Appeal stated that it is not permissible to do so. commercial transaction between them, and she added that her client Waiving the criminal case or halting its progression except in the cases specified in the law, and it is legally established that the criminal case shall end with the death of the accused, the issuance of a final judgment in it, a final penal order, reconciliation, its waiver from those who have a right to it, a comprehensive amnesty, or the repeal of the law. Waiving the criminal case or halting its progression in the event that the law is repealed. Which is punishable for the act, and she added that what was established for the court from reviewing the papers was that the victim's agent appeared before the court of first instance and decided that the case had been waived, and a waiver was attached via the electronic system. Additionally, what was established was that the victim reconciled with the accused, and the victim waived his claim according to a certified reconciliation report. She added that the notary public told her that according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court decides that the criminal case be closed by conciliation since the appealed ruling made a mistake in applying the law, and the ruling must be deleted. This information was obtained from the notary public. The court makes the decision to accept the appeal, overturn the ruling that is being appealed, and bring the criminal matter to a conclusion through conciliation.
