7 Girls and Money .. When Does a Promise of Marriage Become Fraud Under Jordanian Law?

Al-Taj News –

Lina Al-Nasser.

Legal expert and lawyer Mohammad Al-Mutaleqa said that an engagement or promise of marriage does not in itself constitute a crime, and that the law does not punish backing out of marriage, explaining that the matter differs if it is proven that the promise of marriage was used as a fraudulent means to obtain money.

Al-Mutaleqa explained in an interview with “Al-Taj News” on Wednesday that the legal standard is not simply saying “I will marry you,” but rather proving that this promise was part of fraudulent means that caused the victim to hand over her money. He noted that if a person knows that he does not intend to marry and uses the promise to lure the victim into paying money or borrowing and handing it over to him, the elements of fraud under Article 417 of the Penal Code may be established.

Al-Mutaleqa’s comments came in the context of an incident in which a person became involved with 7 girls and obtained money from some of them. He pointed out that the number alone does not prove the crime, but it becomes an important indication if accompanied by repeating the same method, requesting money, similarity of the circumstances, and the presence of several victims.

He noted that these elements may reveal a repeated fraudulent pattern, rather than merely failed romantic relationships, stressing the need to distinguish between someone who was actually subjected to financial fraud and someone who merely had a relationship with him.

He explained that if a person became involved with 7 girls, but it was established that only six of them handed him money as a result of fraudulent means, then these six are the focus of the fraud crimes, while the statements of the others may be important in proving the pattern and fraudulent intent.

Al-Mutaleqa pointed out that the original penalty for the crime of fraud under Article 417 is imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years, and a fine ranging from 200 to 500 dinars, explaining that liability and punishment are affected by the circumstances of the incident, most notably the number of victims, repetition of the method, multiplicity of incidents, and the amount of money and damage.

He added that Article 417 includes a special provision concerning multiple victims, whereby the penalty is doubled when there are multiple victims, while it must be examined whether the multiple incidents constitute separate crimes, in which case the rules on the multiplicity of crimes and penalties apply.

He stressed that repetition and multiple victims have a dual importance; from an evidentiary perspective, they may constitute an indication of the existence of a repeated method or scheme, particularly if the incidents are similar, while from a punitive perspective, the multiplicity of victims has an explicit aggravating effect under Article 417.

Regarding victims’ rights, Al-Mutaleqa said that the affected person can file a criminal complaint before the public prosecutor, assume the status of a civil claimant, and demand the recovery of the money and compensation for the damage in accordance with legal procedures.

He pointed out that financial and electronic evidence is of particular importance, including bank transfers, payment receipts, conversations, messages containing the promise of marriage or requests for money, loan requests, and statements from other victims.

He explained that the most important thing is proving the relationship between the promise of marriage and the handing over of the money, so that the sequence is: the promise of marriage, then the fraudulent means, then causing the victim to pay or borrow, then obtaining the money.

Al-Mutaleqa stressed that multiple promises of marriage do not in themselves constitute a crime, but repeating them with a large number of women, combined with requests for money or causing the victims to borrow and hand over money, and the similarity of the method and circumstances, may constitute strong indications that the promise of marriage was used as a fraudulent means.

Al-Mutaleqa told “Al-Taj” that proving fraud against several victims affects the penalty, in addition to the possibility of multiple crimes arising depending on the independence of each incident, pointing out that the matter is not only related to the number of women who were promised marriage, but rather to the number of those who were induced to hand over money, what was said to them before the payment, and the extent to which the same scenario was repeated.

He noted that establishing these elements moves the matter from the scope of personal relationships to the scope of potential criminal liability for fraud.