An (Asian) man could not resist the temptation of a Rolex watch worth more than 100,000 dirhams that his friend left on the bed, so he seized it and fled and sold it for less than a third of its price to someone else. months and expelled him from the state.
The case papers stated that the accused was staying in a residence with his friend, who loves valuables, including a Rolex watch, and the accused took advantage of his friend’s sleep and saw the watch next to him, so he begged himself to steal it and sell it to another person who was arrested later and charged with obtaining money in circumstances that carry on belief in its illegality.
When the friend woke up from his sleep, he inspected his watch and did not find it. He searched for his friend and discovered that he had left the house. He realized that he had stolen his watch and informed the police, who conducted their investigations and arrested the accused.
By asking the accused in the police report and the prosecution’s investigations, he admitted that he saw the watch with other movables on the bed of his friend who was sleeping, so he stole it and sold it for 37 thousand dirhams, despite realizing that it was worth more than that, and transferred 33 thousand dirhams to his country through a person.
By questioning him before the court, the accused renewed his confession, and it convicted him and sentenced him to three months in prison, and to deport him from the state in the light of the conviction that he might repeat his crime.
In addition, the Criminal Court issued a fine of 20,000 dirhams against the second defendant who bought the watch. The accused admitted in the investigations of the Public Prosecution that he had bought it for 37,000 dirhams, and the buyer did not ask about its source or how to obtain it, nor did he ask for documents confirming its ownership of it.
The accused denied before the court the charge of possession of items obtained from a crime, pointing out that he bought the watch from the first accused, believing that he was the original owner and did not know that it was stolen, but the court did not count on his denial because it was reassured by the evidence and the testimony of the rest of the parties.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news