DUBAI // The conviction of five former Tamweel executives over Dh45 million in financial irregularities and abuse of office was upheld yesterday.
The Dubai Cassation Court said the defendants had to serve their various jail terms and pay back nearly Dh45m appropriated from the Islamic mortgage company.
The defendants were the Emirati chief executive A?A; commercial president A?N; executive director S?M; and the Jordanian director F?K, and his compatriot A?S, the investment department director and Bonyan Holdings’ board chairman.
In a case stretching back to 2008, the five were accused of making the money through illegal land deals involving company-owned properties.
Court records said A?S and A?N requested that A?A transfer three pieces of land at Dubai’s Sama Al Jadaf development to them at the price Tamweel paid for them.
They then sold to Bonyan Holdings, a partner in the development, at higher prices, personally making about Dh21m.
The other men were accused of deals that made them profits of between Dh3.7m and Dh13.8m.
The Appeals Court’s sentences were upheld – three years in prison for A?A and A?N, and a year in jail for S?M, F?K and A?S. The court fined S?M and A?N Dh3.7m, to be paid jointly, and ordered both to repay the same amount to Tamweel.
A?A, A?S and A?N were jointly fined Dh21.28m, while A?A and A?N were jointly fined Dh13.8m and ordered to jointly repay Dh3.8m to Tamweel.
A three-member committee of experts – comprising a financial auditor, a specialist in pricing lands and properties and an accountant – revised the partnership deals between Tamweel and Bonyan in 2007, then prepared a report of its findings.
The committee, chaired by the financial auditor from the Ruler’s Court’s Financial Control Department, examined how much A?A and S?M paid to reserve land plots, and how much the per square foot and overall price would be.
Assigned to find out if Tamweel suffered any losses, the committee investigated whether the plots were sold at a price convenient to the defendants or at market rate.
It also determined how much each defendant profited from the sale process.