Photo used for illustrative purpose.

Adnan Akasha, Staff Reporter

Ras Al Khaimah Criminal Court of First Instance acquitted 34 Asian and African suspects aged between 22 and 53, of charges of promoting online gambling and confiscated an electric stick which was seized at the place.

As many as four defendants were charged with managing, organising, and practising gambling in a house, but they denied the charges in court, while their lawyers requested innocence due to the lack of elements of the crime. One of the witnesses stated that he saw the suspects gambling on the Internet inside a villa using the computer and mobile phones which were seized, and another testified that two tables equipped for gambling were found in the house.

Other witnesses also affirmed that the suspects from the first to the fourth, ran the house for gambling, using digital currencies, such as Bitcoin, and through money transfers, which the gambler deposits in a financial wallet belonging to the house manager.

The report of the Digital Evidence Department in the forensic laboratory proved that the seized devices contained data and documents indicating the practice of betting. A lawyer for a number of the suspects said that the court considered that the accusations levelled against the suspects are not accompanied by affirmed evidence proving that they already committed the crimes, and that there were personal disputes between one of the witnesses and some of the suspects, which led the court to lack confidence in his statements.

The court clarified that the investigations did not identify the victims’ identities or the amounts collected as gambling proceeds, nor did they prove there were financial transfers to their bank accounts, which made these accusations incomplete from the information and data which the court needed to make sure that the suspects committed the crimes.

The court also confirmed that what was stated in the forensic laboratory report did not constitute evidence that the suspects committed crimes, in addition to the fact that it was not possible to access the sites through which gambling was practised. Also, the case papers did not contain any evidence indicating that the suspects promoted gambling.