Ain Sebaa’s state injunction prosecutor in Casablanca has called for the conviction of Saudi investor ‘Ahmed. a. S., a follower on charges of breach of trust in a case brought against him by a company affiliated with prominent Saudi billionaire Bakr bin Laden.
The Public Law spokesman confirmed at a meeting tonight, Monday, that Saudi Arabia’s further actions in this case did not prove in any way how to pay out the transfers it received, making it a charge of breach of trust. .
He added that the statement of the defense, submitted by the statute of limitations, could not be taken into account, since it took into account the requirements of the decisions delivered by the Court of Cassation, and also confirmed the existence of an act against the accused. and he is to be judged by later chapters.
While the defense of the defendants in their pleadings raised the issue related to the failure of the Egyptian Mohammed Muhammad Ahmed Emar to file a complaint against the Saudi defendant on behalf of billionaire Bakr bin Laden.
Attorney Maryam Jamal Al-Idrisi believes in this context that the civil plaintiff has attached her memorandum to the court with a deed of transfer issued in September 2022, which stated that there was a concept of filing a complaint against her client.
She added that it appears from these testimonies that all stages up to the date included in them confirm “begging and speaking without legal capacity”.
She explained that “the statements of the illegal representative of the plaintiff (company) and the documents drawn up by him remain arguments on facts and financial transfers, and never contain evidence or arguments about theft or embezzlement and are not considered even simple evidence.” it allows the formation of a conviction, and therefore it will not be able to convince.”
Al-Idrisi’s lawyer confirmed that the file presented to the court does not contain the fact of detention, and it does not contain evidence, and it did not present accurate statements, and no confessions were made in it.
And she stressed that “there is no evidence in the complaint that indicates from the very beginning that the direction chosen by the applicant (company) is a manipulation of numbers and terminology in a technical and accounting matter, which is far from simplicity and clarity.”
The Saudi Arabian defense sought the expiration of the public action over the statute of limitations and the establishment of validity, as well as the innocence of his supporters in the charge against him.