The Financial Fraud and Breach of Trust Law, alongside general taʿzir principles, punishes anyone who takes another person's money through fraudulent means, and these cases have grown more serious year over year with the spread of online fraud through apps and social platforms. The decisive factor in every fraud case is the presence of deliberate "fraudulent means" used to deceive the victim (whether impersonation, forged documents, or intentionally false promises), as opposed to a simple breach of an ordinary contractual obligation. This distinction matters because many ordinary commercial disputes are wrongly labeled fraud by the complaining party, and the reverse is equally true: some genuine fraud is dressed up by its perpetrator as a simple commercial disagreement.
Courts rely on specific markers to distinguish the two: was there a concrete act of deception (a forged document, impersonation, a false ownership claim), or merely delay or shortfall in performance? Did the defendant have premeditated intent to take the money from the outset, or did circumstances change later after a good-faith agreement? The answer determines whether the case proceeds criminally before the Criminal Court, or civilly/commercially before the Commercial Court: each with its own procedures and compensation ceiling.
In most fraud cases, we recommend pursuing both tracks together: the criminal report to the Public Prosecution to punish and deter the offender, and a parallel civil claim to actually recover the lost money. Relying on the criminal track alone may secure a conviction without guaranteeing recovery of your money, while relying on the civil claim alone may neglect the deterrent dimension. Combining both, with the right timing coordination between them, delivers the best practical outcome for the victim.
Most fraud cases are built on indirect indicators that prove or disprove intent: did the defendant vanish suddenly after receiving the money? Did documents or licenses he provided later turn out to be forged? Did he repeat the same pattern with other victims? These indicators are what turn a "he didn't keep his promise" complaint into a fully established fraud report, which is why gathering them early, before the defendant disappears or covers his tracks, is critical to the case's success.
In investment fraud cases, or those connected to financial products or securities, the Capital Market Authority or the Saudi Central Bank (SAMA) may intervene with regulatory powers running parallel to the criminal track, particularly where the perpetrator was conducting financial activity without a license. Coordinating between the criminal report and a complaint to the relevant regulator increases the chances of recovering funds and punishing the offender, since each body has different investigative and enforcement tools.
In fraud schemes involving several people (a lead organizer, intermediaries, and promoters), it is important to precisely fix each party's role, since criminal and civil liability differ according to each party's actual knowledge of the scheme and their genuine level of participation in it. Some individuals who appear to be part of the operation may themselves be victims used without full awareness of the scheme's reality, and drawing this distinction protects our clients from liability they do not deserve.
To pursue fraud you've experienced, or an accusation of fraud brought against you in Jeddah, contact us on WhatsApp.
Reach out now on WhatsApp or by phone: a licensed Jeddah lawyer will respond quickly.
💬 Message us on WhatsApp