Gulf news | Administrative violations did not constitute intentional damage to public money. The assistant undersecretary of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the businessman were acquitted of financial abuse charges

The first major criminal court acquitted the “assistant undersecretary in the Ministry of the Interior” and an Asian businessman of the charges of violating the working interests of the first defendant and causing financial and administrative abuses, especially the supply of national aid supplies for the account of the Asian defendant’s trading company, and the court said that the administrative violations that have been monitored, some of which have been proven to be correct. The first accused do not represent the tendency of the accused to deliberately damage public money.

The Public Prosecution referred the two defendants to trial after awarding them that from 2020 to 2022. The first defendant in his capacity as a civil servant entrusted with the supervision of the process of supplying medical supplies to the national clinic and preserving the interest of his employer in the contracts he enters into for the delivery of these claims willfully damaged the funds of his employer in order to obtain a profit for others, by entering into the account of a company that claimed officials of his employer through a series of official correspondence – his communication with a number of foreign companies, including the company in question, and its ability to supply drugs and medical supplies needed for national aid, claiming that local companies that already had contracts with them cannot fulfill their obligations, either in terms of quality or time, which is contrary to the truth.

However, the court stated in the merits of the verdict that the witnesses unanimously agreed that after the expiration of the contract with King Hamad Hospital in May 2020, the first defendant was verbally assigned, due to his expertise, the process of searching for companies and suppliers to conclude a contract with the Ministry regarding the supply of supplies and logistical matters necessary for the operation of the ambulatory center. And he did this by signing contracts with 9 local companies in addition to an external supplier, i.e. with the second defendant’s company, and medical equipment and supplies were delivered.

The court pointed out that the first defendant’s recommendation to the second defendant’s company is actually a non-binding proposal. The owner’s opinion and contract recommendations were received from the first defendant and other relevant departments through official letters. , which is allowed to all bodies that submit a request, according to their experience or previous work with the recommended, and that the recommendation is only a proposal and always explained, and that this recommendation does not reject compliance with established and respected procedures, with which the first defendant’s recommendation for concluding a contract with the company the second defendant has no effect.

The court clarified that the nature of the contract with the second defendant’s company is considered a temporary contract previously approved by the Higher Committee for Tenders and Procurementwithout the intervention of the first defendantThe medical material was delivered to the State Emergency Center based on the request of the competent department and after the purchase orders of the Procurement Department were issued at different intervals, without the intervention of the first defendant.

The court pointed out that it was stated in the report of the Department of Quality and Financial and Administrative Control of the Ministry that there were several administrative violations that were monitored, some of which were proven against the first defendant, but they did not show any tendency of the accused to deliberately damage public money, and also referred to to the testimony of the director of the Department for Emergency Operations, who said in it that the management had already received external technical samples from the company of the second defendant and had reviewed them, and the approval had taken place without the intervention of the first defendant.

The court added that it concluded that the first defendant did not commit a criminal offense because it was not proven to him. There is no reason for the second defendant to have participated in this matter, and he is credited with having committed the fraud. , the charge was minor, given that the defendant submitted the samples before the contract, and they were technically inspected and approved. According to the contract, which did not include delivery details, the defendant supplied goods, some of which were in accordance with international standards. They were consumed over a period of two years and did not result in any damage or complaints from those who worked with these consumables.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *