A man exploited the trust of his friend and their relationship to deceive him by issuing a power of attorney that included a clause regarding "the right to receive and disburse," allowing him to receive checks and financial amounts, taking advantage of his friend's ignorance of those terms.
In detail, a man filed a lawsuit before the Abu Dhabi Primary Court, demanding that the "defendant bank" pay sums exceeding 65 million dirhams. He explained his lawsuit, stating that he is one of the heirs of the deceased and is acting as an agent for the other heirs. He prepared a power of attorney for one of his lifelong friends to represent them in follow-up of one of the enforcement cases. Checks, which are the subject of the lawsuit, were issued in favor of each heir from the amounts deposited for them, drawn on the name of the defendant bank.
He added that the agent received checks for amounts collected from the enforcement file, exceeding 40 million dirhams, and cashed several checks totaling about 20 million, while endorsing the remaining checks to himself and depositing them into his personal account.
He clarified that his case against the bank is based on the fact that the power of attorney lacked any phrases that allow for disbursement, receipt, or endorsement, which entailed the bank facing liability for committing a grave error.
The court noted in its ruling that Article 924 of the Civil Transactions Law states that the power of attorney is a consensual contract based fundamentally on the agreement between its parties that one party, the agent, replaces the original principal in performing the action or legal act as long as the act concerned by the power of attorney is legally permissible and can be delegated, and is known to both parties.
It indicated that the disbursement was executed based on valid legal evidence rooted in the case, represented by the existence of a valid and effective power of attorney granting its owner that right, which renders the appeal against the ruling, on grounds of legal violation, mere argument.
The first instance court ruled to reject the lawsuit on the basis that it is evident from the provisions of the power of attorney that the principal (the complainant), on his own behalf and as an agent for the other heirs, granted the attorney the right of receipt and disbursement. Therefore, he gave him the right to receive checks, cash them, and deposit them in his personal account, which absolves the bank (the defendant) of any responsibility.
