Bahraini Lawyer on Trial for Forging Court Ruling to Transfer Property Ownership

TDT | Manama

Email: mail@newsofbahrain.com

A Bahraini lawyer appeared in the High Criminal Court on Monday, facing forgery charges. He is accused of fabricating a civil court ruling to facilitate the transfer of property ownership from two individuals to a real estate company.

The 41-year-old man pleaded not guilty, denying any wrongdoing. As per the case records, the Public Prosecution alleges that the lawyer fabricated a court ruling, purportedly issued by the High Civil Court on October 21, 2024. The prosecution claims the lawyer created a false ruling, mimicking genuine rulings, and then used it, knowing it was forged, by sending it to a representative of the real estate company and presenting it to the individuals involved in the property transaction.

A key witness, the head of legal affairs at the Ministry of Justice, testified that a designated individual submitted the forged ruling in a case brought by the real estate company against the two property owners and the Land Registry. The ruling, falsely claiming the validity of a preliminary sale agreement, was intended to prompt the Land Registry to approve the property transfer.

However, subsequent verification with the Ministry of Justice revealed the ruling to be fraudulent; the numbers cited belonged to other cases, and the court supposedly issuing the ruling was not in session on the date indicated in either 2023 or 2024. The dates on the forged document were also found to be fabricated.

The Director of Court Administration at the Ministry of Justice echoed this testimony, stating that an inquiry into the ruling's authenticity revealed inconsistencies, including discrepancies in the court's composition.

During the investigation, the lawyer admitted to sending the forged ruling after reviewing it, acknowledging its falsity. "I used a computer of another lawyer – whose name appeared on the forged document – to file the case," he told prosecutors.

A witness from the real estate company confirmed that the defendant was solely responsible for pursuing the case and had informed them of the supposedly favourable ruling. A representative of the property owners also testified that the defendant sent the forged ruling, which had previously been marked for use.

" 'My involvement was limited to providing account access,' stated the lawyer whose computer was used. 'Chat logs clearly show the defendant transmitted the forged ruling," he added.

The prosecution presented evidence of the defendant's prior conviction for forging a private document.