The plaintiffs, a group of private companies, brought a motion seeking to find Dr. Saad Aljabri and his son, Mohammed Aljabri, in contempt of court for allegedly breaching a Mareva Order.
The plaintiffs claimed the defendants used assets frozen under the Mareva Order to pay for legal and living expenses, arguing that a purported gift of assets from Dr. Aljabri to Mohammed before the order was a fiction.
The defendants contended that the Mareva Order did not clearly apply to the gifted assets and that the gift was valid.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding that they failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Mareva Order clearly and unequivocally applied to the purportedly gifted assets, or that Dr. Aljabri retained an interest in or control over them.
The court emphasized the high standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) required for civil contempt and that findings from prior civil proceedings (e.g., 'badges of fraud' on a balance of probabilities) do not shift the burden of proof in quasi-criminal contempt proceedings.
