A court ruling in Kuwait to imprison 3 citizens after seizing “Minor Affairs” funds

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

Kuwait overturned a ruling acquitting 3 citizens following accusations against them of seizing and damaging the funds of a company in which the Public Authority for Minors’ Affairs contributed, and ordered them imprisoned for 10 years and fined, according to Kuwaiti media.

Al-Qabas newspaper published the details of the case, which it described as a “deterrent judicial ruling,” as the Court of Appeal, headed by Counselor Abdullah Al-Sanea and with the membership of Counselors Saud Al-Mutairi and Bassam Al-Ghuwaynem, overturned the acquittal of three citizens, two of whom were public employees (Chairman of the Board of Directors of a joint-stock company, a member of the company, and another businessman), and again ruled that each of them be imprisoned for 10 years, and fined them 9 million dinars, for a total of 27 million dinars, with all of them obligated to pay back about 4.5 million dinars, and the first and second defendants were removed from their jobs.

In a related context, the details of the case go back to accusations related to the seizure and damage of the funds of a company in which the General Authority for Minors’ Affairs contributes, against the backdrop of a deal to purchase a property in Britain with the company’s own funds, despite the existence of violations and conflicts of interest, according to what the investigations and expert reports concluded.

The Public Prosecution accused the first and second defendants, as they are considered public employees, of exploiting their jobs and concluding a contract that harmed the interests of their employer, by purchasing a plot of land in southeastern Britain for an amount exceeding 4.5 million dinars.

The case papers indicated that the first accused held the position of Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors and Chairman of its Executive Committee, while the second accused was a member of the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee, while the third accused was accused of participating with them in committing the crime.

According to the accusation, in 2017 the Executive Committee agreed to purchase the property, before it later became clear that the company from which the purchase was made did not own the property at the time the contract was concluded, and that the company that was said to own the property had not been officially established until after the signing of the initial sales contract.

The case papers also revealed the existence of relationships, ownership, and common interests between some of the defendants and companies related to the deal, in addition to the failure to disclose those interests.

The first defendant was also accused of submitting a document to the company’s board of directors stating that the property was registered in the company’s name, before it became clear, according to what the investigations concluded, that the document did not represent an approved registration certificate for real estate ownership in the United Kingdom.

The Criminal Court had acquitted the defendants, but the Court of Appeal re-examined the case and referred it to expertise, which concluded that violations and conflicts of interest had been proven. It also confirmed that the property in question had not yet been registered for the benefit of the company in which the state contributed.