Defenses in Public Fund Embezzlement Cases

Translation of the attached article:

The crime of embezzlement is considered one of the serious crimes in society because of its negative effects on society and the economy. Saudi law gives great attention to combating this serious crime by imposing strict penalties, such as imprisonment and fines, on its perpetrators to deter anyone from committing this crime, which negatively affects society as a whole.

In this article, we will explain the defenses in public fund embezzlement cases and the penalties prescribed for this crime if it is proven under the Saudi Anti-Fraud Law.

What Is Meant by Public Fund Embezzlement?

Public fund embezzlement refers to an employee or a person entrusted with guarding the funds of others, whether private or public, unlawfully taking those funds with the aim of harming the owner or personally appropriating them.

Embezzlement is committed only by a public employee or a person treated as such. The offender must have received the funds legally by virtue of their position, then unlawfully appropriated them.

Defenses in Public Fund Embezzlement Cases

Certain conditions and elements must exist in any crime for the law to consider it a punishable offense under Sharia or statutory law. The law has clarified the crime of embezzlement, its elements, and the conditions that must be met for the prescribed penalty to apply.

Therefore, there are many defenses in public fund embezzlement cases that may be submitted to obtain non-conviction or acquittal in such cases. Below are the most prominent defenses in public fund embezzlement cases:

• The absence of any element of the crime, such as the moral element, which refers to the accused’s intention to transfer ownership of the public funds they received to themselves and embezzle them.
• If the offender does not have the status of a public employee or a person treated as such, the act is not considered a crime of public fund embezzlement.
• If the embezzled property was not movable property.
• If there is insufficient evidence against the accused in the embezzlement case to convict them or file an indictment against them.
• Proving the absence of anything indicating that the accused committed the act of embezzlement, meaning the absence of the material element of the crime of embezzlement.
• Clarifying that the accused’s purpose and intention in withdrawing the funds was not embezzlement or theft, but rather to develop the work, pay amounts due for the work, or because the employer authorized them to dispose of those funds.
• Submitting defenses confirming that the money in the accused’s possession was not public money.
• Proving that the lawsuit filed against the accused is malicious and false, such as the existence of unfair competition in the workplace between the employee and a colleague, which led to the accusation.

Penalty for Public Fund Embezzlement in Saudi Arabia

The legislator clarified the penalties prescribed for public fund embezzlement under the Anti-Financial Fraud and Breach of Trust Law.

Article (1) of this law states:

“Anyone who unlawfully takes another person’s money by committing one or more acts involving the use of any fraudulent method, including lying, deception, or illusion, shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years and a fine not exceeding five million riyals, or by either of these two penalties.”

This article makes the unlawful appropriation of funds, whether public or private, a punishable crime. It is used as a primary legal basis in cases where an employee or official uses any fraudulent method to unlawfully take money, such as lying, misleading, or deception.

The legislator clarified the penalty in this case: imprisonment for seven years, a fine of five million riyals, or either of these two penalties.

Article (2) of the Anti-Financial Fraud and Breach of Trust Law also states:

“Anyone who unlawfully takes money that was delivered to them by virtue of their work, or as a matter of trust, partnership, deposit, loan, lease, pledge, agency, or who disposes of it in bad faith or deliberately causes damage to it, other than public money, shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years and a fine not exceeding three million riyals, or by either of these two penalties.”

This article clarifies that if the embezzled money is public money and is under the responsibility of a government employee or a trustee by virtue of their position, the penalty of five years’ imprisonment and a financial fine of SAR 3 million, or either of these two penalties, applies.

Read more to learn everything related to the penalty for embezzlement under Saudi law in greater detail.

How Can Nawaf bin Awad Al-Harbi Law Firm Help You in Embezzlement Cases?

If you are accused in an embezzlement case, Nawaf bin Awad Al-Harbi Law Firm can greatly help you prepare defenses in public fund embezzlement cases, as its lawyers will prepare a defense memorandum that refutes the prosecution’s allegations and highlights your innocence.

They will carefully analyze all aspects of the case, including the circumstances of the incident, the evidence submitted against you, and the applicable laws. Below, we explain what the defense memorandum in embezzlement cases prepared by the firm’s team will include:

• The memorandum will focus on any defects or gaps in the evidence relied upon in the public prosecution’s indictment for the crime of embezzlement, such as the invalidity of evidence collection procedures, insufficiency of evidence, or the absence of any connection between the evidence and the facts of the case.
• The memorandum will include logical explanations for your actions and will clarify the circumstances surrounding the accusation that confirm you did not commit the crime of embezzlement.
• The memorandum will provide proofs and evidence that no money was appropriated in the first place, or that you had no intention to personally appropriate the money.
• Official documents will be submitted in the memorandum proving the existence of legal justifications that permitted you to dispose of the funds.

Contact the best criminal cases lawyer now to handle a public fund embezzlement case, prepare legal defenses, prove violations, and begin statutory procedures to protect your rights and hold the offender accountable under Saudi law.

Conclusion

Defenses in public fund embezzlement cases are what prove the accused’s innocence in such cases and show that they did not commit the crime. Therefore, if you are accused in an embezzlement case, choosing a specialized lawyer will greatly help you prepare these defenses and submit them to the court to prove your innocence of the acts attributed to you.

Learn about the concept of money laundering and the most prominent cases covered by the law.

Frequently Asked Questions

How is embezzlement proven?

Embezzlement can be proven by all legally available methods of proof, whether under the Evidence Law or the Criminal Procedure Law. These include investigating and questioning the accused, the accused’s confession to the crime, presenting digital or written evidence proving the commission of embezzlement, administering an oath, witness testimony, or the emergence of factual and legal presumptions indicating that the offender committed the crime of embezzlement.

What is the difference between embezzlement and breach of trust?

The difference between embezzlement and breach of trust is that embezzlement applies to money placed in a person’s hands as a result of the nature of their work, such as being an employee in the private sector or a government employee. Breach of trust, on the other hand, occurs when money is placed with another person as a deposit or trust, and that person takes the money for themselves.

What are the elements of embezzlement?

The elements of embezzlement consist of the material element, which is the act of appropriating another person’s money; the offender’s status, meaning the act is committed by a public employee; the subject matter of the crime, meaning that the appropriation involves public money; that the money is under the employee’s control; and the employee’s intention to appropriate and own the public funds by converting their possession from incomplete possession to full possession.