Saturday 06/December/2025 – 03:11 PM
The Giza Criminal Court – Circuit 31 – held at the Shubra El Kheima Court, issued a historic ruling in one of the largest cases of seizing customer funds and forgery of a famous Egyptian bank. The court ruled life imprisonment for the first and second accused, 15 years’ aggravated imprisonment for the third and fourth accused, and 5 years’ aggravated imprisonment for the rest of the accused, obliging them all to return the amount of 21,375,500 (twenty-one million three hundred and five Seventy thousand five hundred pounds) jointly, and the first and second defendants will be removed from their jobs, the forged documents will be confiscated, they will be required to pay criminal expenses, and the civil lawsuit will be referred to the competent court.
This comes after they were convicted of illegally seizing public and private money – forgery of official and electronic documents – using forged documents – participating in crimes of seizure and forgery – intentionally damaging clients’ funds – misusing the job – agreeing and assisting in committing crimes – money laundering through fictitious bank transfers, in the Al-Warraq District Department in Giza Governorate.
The ruling was issued under the chairmanship of Counselor Hani Louis Abdel Malik, and the membership of Counselors Salah El-Din Diab Abdel-Gawad, Ahmed Hassan Mohamed, and Ahmed Ahmed Dabas, and the secretariat of Ashraf Salah and Raafat Abdel Tawab.
Referral to criminal prosecution
The Public Prosecution referred the accused, in Case No. 12080 of 2025, Al-Warraq Felony, registered under No. 3993 of 2025, north of Giza, because during the period from 1/1/2018 until 9/30/2024 in the Al-Warraq District Department in Giza Governorate, the first and second defendants: – in their capacity as public employees, the first a branch manager, and the second “Customer Service Controller Platinum Money” Their employer by seizing for themselves an amount of (23,375,500, twenty-three million, three hundred and seventy-five thousand and five hundred pounds) from the funds of a number of clients deposited with their employer. This was a trick by exploiting their position and specialization, as stated in the statement as follows:
A – They submitted applications that they falsely attributed to those mentioned above, in which they proved, contrary to the truth, that customers had come forward to carry out cash withdrawal operations, deceiving the relevant employees of the presence of these customers, and then they received those amounts.
B) They submitted requests that they falsely attributed to the passers-by, contrary to the truth, which was a request to transfer sums from their accounts to the accounts of the third to eighth defendants, deceiving the relevant bank employees that the account holders were present to carry out these operations and seizing those sums from them.
T) – They submitted requests that they falsely attributed to the passersby, contrary to the truth, to implement a request to transfer amounts from their accounts to the accounts of others of good faith, deceiving the relevant bank employees that the account holders were present to carry out these operations, thus financing financial transactions between them.
We were able to illegally seize these amounts, with the intention of possessing them, as shown in the investigations.
The referral order added that this crime was linked to two crimes of forgery in the documents of one of the joint-stock companies in which the state contributes) and another electronic one and using them in an inseparable connection, because at the aforementioned time and place: they committed forgery in the documents of one of the joint-stock companies in which the state contributes, which are requests for transferring sums and requests for cash withdrawals (issued by a famous Egyptian bank, and attributed to the bank’s customers), and they committed forgery in the electronic documents of the bank itself, which are the electronic system sheets of the aforementioned bank designated for proving the procedures for carrying out the banking operations in question. The above-mentioned paper documents, and this made the forged fact appear as a valid fact since they were functionally competent to write them, by proving, contrary to the truth, the presence of the aforementioned clients before them and their request to carry out the banking operations mentioned above, and after that they wrote the aforementioned forged documents by writing them down, forgetting about them, contrary to the truth, and appending the ones attributed to the clients with signatures that they forged on them.
The referral order continued, stating that they used it for what it was forged as soon as they knew it was forged by claiming what was falsely recorded in it against the employees and officials of the bank in which they work in order to effect its effect by completing the banking operations in question, which would cover the aforementioned crime of seizure, as shown in the investigations.
This is the matter punishable by Article 214 bis/20 of the Penal Code, and Articles Raqi 2301/Al-Samin Ib Ma,” of Law No. 15 of 2004 regulating electronic signature and establishing the Information Technology Industry Development Authority.
The referral order explained that, secondly, the third and fourth defendants participated with the first and second defendants in committing the crime under accusation, first/b, by means of agreement and assistance, by agreeing with them to commit it and assisting them by providing them with their bank account data, so the first and second defendants used it to transfer money on those accounts to extract the money as a trick without the right of each to the extent of what was transferred to them. Then they handed over the money to the first and second defendants, so the crime was committed based on that agreement and that assistance, as shown in the investigations.
The referral order indicated that, thirdly, the defendants from five to eight participated with the first and second defendants in committing the crime under accusation, first through agreement and assistance, by agreeing with them to commit it and assisting them by providing them with their bank account statements and the account information of others of good faith, so the first and second defendants used them to transfer money on those accounts to extract the money as a trick without right, then they handed over the money to the first and second defendants, so the crime was committed based on that agreement and that assistance, as shown in the investigations.
The referral order concluded that the ninth accused participated with the first and second accused in committing the crime in question, first by means of agreement and assistance, by agreeing with them to commit it and assisting them by providing the second accused with requests to withdraw cash sums, which the latter signed in front of her with forged signatures on the customers who held the accounts, and she disbursed the sums of money in exchange for those requests and handed them over to the second to withdraw the money by deceit and without right, so the crime was committed based on that agreement and that assistance, as shown in the investigations.
