Case studiesCriminal defence2025
Acquitted of forging official seals found in a shared room
Al Faisal defended a client charged with forging official seals that the police had found in a room the client was sharing for a time. The criminal court acquitted our client at first instance, and the travel ban was then lifted on our application within weeks.
Handled by Faysel Al-Mohannadi
The judgment
- Result
- Acquitted at first instance. Travel ban lifted afterwards, on our application.
- Court
- Criminal Court of First Instance
- Time
- About seven months, from our instruction to the acquittal. The travel ban was lifted within weeks of it.
- What was at stake
- A felony charge of forging official seals, and a travel ban
- Our client
- An individual, charged with another accused
The case
In 2024 the police searched a shared room where the client had been staying for a time, and found a set of stamps imitating official seals. The stamps were in another accused's personal cabinet. The client consented to the search and denied knowing about them. A forensic report later found that some of them did not match the genuine seals.
The prosecution charged the client and that other accused with imitating and forging state seals with intent to use them, a felony (Penal Code Art. 211). The client was also under a travel ban. The criminal court heard the case in 2025.
What was at stake
The forgery itself was not in doubt: the forensic report proved it. But the report said nothing about who had used the stamps. The prosecution's case was that both accused shared the room, so both possessed what was in it, and it asked the court to apply the charge and its penalties to both. The real question was whether the client had known of the stamps and meant to use them. Losing meant a felony conviction for forging state seals.
What we did
Obtained the full file at the prosecution stage.We were instructed while the case was with the Public Prosecution. We at once obtained full copies of the police report files and the referral orders.
Attended the trial hearings.We attended the hearings at which police officers gave evidence and the exhibits were shown. The officer whose evidence the prosecution relied on could not say who used the cabinet. The officer confirmed that our client had cooperated, and said that, in the officer's view, our client knew nothing of the stamps.
Filed a written defence built on attribution.Our memo, with a portfolio of documents, made three points. Our client did not know of the stamps, which were in another accused's personal cabinet. Without knowledge there could be no intent to use them (Penal Code Art. 211; Court of Cassation ruling No. 192 of 2008). And there was no conclusive evidence: the officer's own answers, quoted from the hearing record with page references, favoured our client.
Relied on good faith and the benefit of the doubt.The memo pointed to our client's calm consent to the search as a sign of good faith. It asked for acquittal, because doubt must benefit the accused (Court of Cassation ruling No. 729 of 2019; Criminal Procedure Code, Art. 234(1)).
Applied to lift the travel ban.After the acquittal we applied, with the judgment, to have the travel ban lifted. It was lifted within weeks.
What the court held
Under Penal Code Art. 211, the court required proof of each accused's own knowledge and intent. In forgery, criminal intent means the intent to use the forged item for its purpose (Court of Cassation ruling No. 199 of 2010). A conviction needs firm and certain evidence that leaves no room for doubt, because the accused is presumed innocent (Court of Cassation ruling No. 39 of 2009).
The court found that the only link between the client and the stamps was sharing the room for a time. The stamps were in another accused's cabinet, and the officer could not say who used it but confirmed the client's cooperation. Knowledge and intent were not proved, and the evidence was weak and insufficient. The court acquitted the client (Criminal Procedure Code, Art. 234(1)).
Why this result matters
Sharing a room with someone does not make a person answerable for what the other keeps there. The prosecution has to prove each accused's own knowledge and intent, and here the court found that it had not.
If you are in a similar position
- Ask early for full copies of the police and prosecution files. They show what the case against you actually rests on.
- In shared housing, the question is whose items they are: where were they kept, in whose cabinet, and in whose name?
- After an acquittal, apply at once to lift any travel ban, and check whether the prosecution has appealed before treating the case as closed.
Who handled it
Faysel Al-Mohannadilawyer admitted before the Court of Cassation
Charged over items found in shared housing, or still under a travel ban after a case? Bring the charge or referral papers, any judgment and anything that shows the travel ban.