Recent Dubai Court of Cassation judgment - Legal Notices and the Crime of Blackmail/ Threats
Dispute Resolution / UAE
Omar KhodeirSenior Counsel,Dispute Resolution
Zane AnaniSenior Knowledge Lawyer (Consultant),Dispute Resolution
The Dubai Court of Cassation recently issued an important judgment addressing the intersection of cybercrime, blackmail and the interpretation of criminal intent within the context of legal notices. The case involved two individuals who were initially convicted of threatening and blackmailing their former employer through an email. This article will discuss the details of Dubai Court of Cassation judgment 1001 of 2024, the court's reasoning, and the broader implications of the judgment. The judgment provides essential guidance for legal professionals emphasizing the critical importance of context and intent in the drafting and interpretation of legal communications.
The dispute arose between a company (the Claimant) and an individual (the First Defendant), a former executive director of the company, who, after resigning, asserted that he was owed substantial profits and other dues. To recover these amounts, the First Defendant engaged a lawyer (the Lawyer or Second Defendant) to act on his behalf.
The Lawyer subsequently drafted a legal notice to the company which contained statements that could be construed as threats. Specifically, the legal notice warned that if the company failed to comply with the First Defendant’s demands for payment, he would consider whistleblowing and reporting the company’s alleged violations- actions that could damage the company’s reputation and investments both within the UAE and internationally. The notice also referenced potential media exposure and the negative consequences of revealing banking violations, which could adversely affect the company’s customer base, investments and commercial interests.
Under UAE law, the crime of threat, including blackmail, is a strict criminal offence. The Claimant filed a criminal complaint against the First Defendant, and the Dubai Public Prosecution extended the indictment to include the lawyer who had drafted and sent the legal notice. The prosecution was based on Article 42 of Federal Decree by Law No. 34 of 2021 concerning the combat of Rumours and Cybercrimes (the Cybercrimes Law).
The Dubai Criminal Court of First Instance found both the First Defendant and the Lawyer guilty, imposing fines and ordering them to pay temporary civil compensation. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the accused appealed, but the Court of Appeal upheld the original judgment. The matter was then escalated to the Court of Cassation.
The case serves as a vital reminder for legal professionals to exercise utmost caution and precision when drafting legal notices and other communications on behalf of clients. Each case must be assessed on its own merits, with careful attention to the language used and the context in which demands are made. The judgment also highlights the significant time, cost and reputational risks associated with defending against such allegations.
Upon review, the Court of Cassation identified both procedural and substantive deficiencies in the lower courts’ decisions, particularly regarding the translation of the legal notice and the insufficient analysis of criminal intent. The Court ultimately acquitted both defendants, emphasizing that the lower courts had failed to adequately consider whether the requisite criminal intent for the crime of threat was present.
This landmark judgment underscores the necessity of evaluating both the context and intent behind allegedly threatening communications, especially when such communications take the form of legal notices. The court clarified that while reporting illegal activities, seeking legal recourse, and initiating litigation are legitimate actions protected by law, the manner and context in which such actions are communicated are crucial. For example, reserving the right to initiate civil proceedings for an overdue payment is fundamentally different from threatening to expose unrelated alleged illegal activities unless specific demands are met. The latter, particularly when conveyed in an excessive or intimidating manner, may cross the line into criminal conduct.
The Dubai Court of Cassation’s decision sets an important precedent, reinforcing the centrality of intent and context in legal disputes involving allegations of threats and blackmail, particularly in the realm of cybercrime and electronic communications. This case offers valuable guidance for lawyers and legal professionals, underscoring the need for meticulous drafting of legal notices and the protection of legal practitioners in the course of their duties.
For further information,please contact Omar Khodeir and Zane Anani.
Published in September 2025
