Regarding Al-Sagar v. Jalal Hamoodi: This case exemplifies special conditions which require perhaps special actions and circumstances for extensive cross-border litigation proceedings.
First court litigation in Dubai could be used for a request for extradition from Canada to face his trial based on the possible fraud of Mr. Hamoodi at Al Sagar Enterprises which resulted in his taking 1.7 million dollars cash from the company and absconding from the country illegally which added considerable charges to his case such as failure to appear in court and exiting the country illegally.
His attainment of a passport in Pakistan might also be considered an additional crime as well as entering the country illegally. Furthermore his proceedings having been delayed necessarily due to his abscondment and would implicate his status as a landed immigrant in Canada which would have been acquired under issues of false pretense.
Through his repeated and collective malfeasance Mr. Hamoodi has turned his commercial fraud case into an international criminal case in several nations and as attainment of landed immigrant status is also perhaps guilty of a criminal act in Canada.
Proceeding in Canada would result in a relitigation or re-trial of his case with evidence provided from the plaintiffs in Dubai who may or may not have already attained a legal verdict. Obviously the Dubai based prosecutors are pursuing the likelihood that Mr. Hamoodi has purchased or attained considerable assets or properties either in Canada or Pakistan. However judicial proceedings might be considered more reliable and asset recovery on the part of Al Sagar might be challenging otherwise.
Dubai has neither signed The Brussels Regulation or the Lugano Convention, The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 nor The Administration of Justice Act 1920.
"Enforcing English Judgments Abroad" (Pinsent Masons with caveats attached)
However Canadian enforcements of Dubai judgements may be made based upon the facts that:
a) Mr. Hamoodi was resident of Dubai during the alleged fraud and when the litigation proceeding commenced as he was served there prior to abscondment.
b) Dubai courts were in full jursidiction and was bound by their decisions.
c) The jurisdiction of Dubai over Mr. Hamoodi is strongly related to his abscondment and illegal landed immigrant status in Canada and in fact helped perpetuate it.
Proceedings in Canada may only require clarification of Dubai judgement as terms of fraud are quite similar in both nations due to a familiar context of Commonwealth status or the historical colonial connections to the UK similar between both nations. Dubai court decision must provide evidence that the verdict was reached without local fraudulent means. Some proceedings of UAE governing legal law might appear inconsistent with Canadian principles of natural justice however.
Most likely a Dubai prosecution team would be sent to Canada to litigate under Canadian laws in Quebec because it is likely that Mr. Hamoodi has dispersed his assets internationally with ample opportunities to do so through extensive EDI and transactionary services globally. This would be to take advantage of Quebec's Marvena injunction which would prevent any expatriation of current assets prior to judgement and an Anton Piller order to search and secure all assets and premises of Mr. Hamoodi in Canada to prevent offshoring of any Al Sagar damages awarded.
The result would most likely proceed either as:
a) Enforcement of Dubai court verdict.
b) Canadian proceedings in the event of difficulties with a).
c) The imprisonment or confinement of Hamoodi.
d) Proceedings on Hamoodi's criminal attainment of Canadian landed immigrant status.
e) Extra-judicial evidence gathering in Pakistan.
f) Global assets search through record Hamoodi's wire transfers or remittance history.
g) Eventual repatriation of Hamoodi to Dubai following either enforcement or re-trial in Canada.
h) Court imposed judgments in Dubai generally, "life in prison followed by deportation."
No comments:
Post a Comment