Fes Court Upholds Sentence for Lawyer and Notary Involved in Property Fraud

In a significant legal development for the city of Fes, the Appeals Chamber of the Fes Court of Appeal reviewed the initial ruling against a well-known lawyer and a notary public, both implicated in a serious case involving allegations of contract forgery and fraudulent transactions concerning properties built on land belonging to the state. On Tuesday, the court upheld the initial verdict while modifying certain aspects of the sentence. The court ordered that the prison sentence for the accused lawyer be enforced for one year, with the remaining year suspended, and reduced the fines imposed on both defendants to 40,000 dirhams each. The court also maintained other provisions of the ruling while ordering that the costs be shared jointly by the defendants, with a minimum requirement for the notary public. Furthermore, the court decided to refund the bail amount to the lawyer after he pays the imposed fine. Following the announcement of the verdict, the president of the Appeals Chamber informed the convicted defendants that they have the right to appeal the decision within a full period of ten days from the date of the ruling, in accordance with Article 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Exclusive information reveals that the defendants were involved in drafting and approving contracts for properties located in the Labita neighborhood of Fes and Benslimane, which were built on land that is part of state-owned property. The legal troubles began in 2015 when the notary public was found to have forged documents related to an apartment in collaboration with its owner, identified as "Khadija." This fraudulent act allowed him to sell the apartment twice, leading to Khadija's conviction of two years in prison, while the notary fled the country. Further complaints indicated that in 2021, in conjunction with the lawyer, the notary engaged in a scam targeting the father of the first complainant by drafting a forged informal sales contract bearing questionable fingerprints that were not certified, which indicated the sale of a shop. Subsequently, he created another sales contract for the same shop, listing himself as the seller and his wife "Wafa" as the buyer, thereby transferring ownership to her after it was validated by the administrative annex in Labita. By 2022, the notary executed another fraudulent deed of ownership in the name of a deceased person, "Ahmed.H," concerning a house with one basement and three floors in the Labita area, despite the fact that the property originally only had two floors as of 1994. This forged contract was later used to complete a sale to an individual who worked as a police officer, after being approved by the implicated lawyer and validated by the administrative annex, facilitating the fraudulent transaction. The investigation also revealed that the notary public had no authorization to practice as a notary, despite his involvement in drafting various contracts related to multiple properties without verifying their legal status. This was corroborated by witness testimonies and statements from the contract parties during both the preliminary investigation and the judicial inquiry phases. Moreover, confrontations conducted in front of the investigating judge revealed inconsistencies between the testimonies of the parties involved and those of the lawyer, with many claiming they had never met or dealt with him, despite his signatures on their contracts. The investigations concluded with evidence of the lawyer's involvement in signing contracts of sale and promises of sale for properties built on state-owned land, in exchange for monetary compensation, without the actual presence of the parties involved. Additionally, in 2022, he endorsed a forged sales contract that was used as proof of ownership for a deceased individual, which contained a false date from 1994. The case highlights serious breaches of the property rights code, as the defendants executed sales and promises of sale contracts in violation of legal provisions, with the investigations confirming that it was the notary public who primarily drafted these contracts.

As reported by goud.ma.