Luxury Car Fraud Attempt Ends in Jail, Fine, and Deportation

The First High Criminal Court of Appeal has upheld a three-year prison sentence against an Arab defendant who attempted to buy a BMW 320 valued at BD 25,000 using bank cards that did not belong to him. The ruling also includes a BD 3,000 fine, permanent deportation after serving the sentence, and confiscation of the mobile phone used in the crime.

According to court records, the defendant visited a car dealership and selected the vehicle, opting to complete the transaction through the company’s online payment portal. After receiving a payment link, he began transferring money in December, making 18 separate transactions totaling BD 10,080.

But the payments were not his to make.

Investigations later revealed that he had entered bank card details belonging to individuals in Asian and European countries, including card numbers, expiration dates, and verification codes (CVV). The transactions initially appeared successful until several legitimate cardholders reported unauthorized charges.

A fraud officer at the financial institution flagged five disputed transactions, prompting the bank to freeze the transferred amounts before they could reach the dealership. The car company subsequently informed the defendant that no funds had been received and requested full payment in cash.

Unable to provide the remaining balance, the defendant instead asked to receive a vehicle equivalent to the amount he had “paid.” The dealership refused, as the money had already been blocked.

Authorities were notified, and further investigation by the Economic Crimes Unit revealed that the method used matched other similar cases. Officials determined that the defendant had followed a known pattern in which individuals attempt to legitimize illicit funds through electronic payment gateways, using stolen or fraudulently obtained bank card data to create seemingly lawful transactions.

Prosecutors charged him with unlawfully using electronic signatures and verification codes belonging to others for fraudulent purposes and attempting to seize funds without legal grounds. The attempt ultimately failed due to circumstances beyond his control, namely, the intervention of fraud detection systems.

Finding no error in the lower court’s reasoning, the appellate court rejected his appeal and affirmed the original sentence in full.