Alexandria criminal court dismisses phone theft charge over unproved dishonest intent

The Criminal court in Alexandria dismissed the theft charge against Hossam Farouk, denying the prosecution’s request for a guilty finding over a coworker’s phone. It found that Hossam took the phone home and kept it overnight, but that the prosecution had not proved dishonest intent.

The dispute turned on the limits of permission to charge the phone. The owner said charging was allowed only at work; Hossam maintained that he understood he could take it home for that purpose. The court distinguished proof that he removed the phone from proof that he intended to steal it.

Two records supported the finding of overnight possession: the owner’s signed complaint and a WhatsApp screenshot supplied by Hossam. The screenshot showed an 8:12 a.m. message saying the phone was charged and would be brought back when the shop opened. Its visible extract contained no reply.

The complaint was direct evidence of the owner’s account that permission extended only to charging at work. But it did not independently establish what Hossam understood. There was no testimony about the conversation, no earlier message recording it and no other evidence resolving the disagreement.

The morning message carried limited but real weight. It supported a planned return while confirming that the phone was away from the shop. It proved neither permission to take the phone home nor Hossam’s intent at the moment he took it.

Applying the supplied rules requiring reliable evidence for each element, the court declined to fill the gap with suspicion. Hossam’s inability to produce express permission left his account unconfirmed, but did not shift the prosecution’s burden onto him.

The prosecution relied on the signed complaint to argue that Hossam removed the phone without asking and exceeded workplace-only charging permission. In its final submission, it acknowledged that no further evidence established exactly what he understood about those limits.

Hossam accepted overnight possession and acknowledged that he had no message expressly authorizing removal. He argued that the morning message supported an intended return, while accepting that it did not settle the earlier agreement. His position was that possession alone could not establish dishonest intent.

The phone had been left on the counter of an Alexandria stationery shop where Hossam and its owner worked. Charging had been discussed before Hossam took it home after his shift. The owner’s complaint and Hossam’s account differed over how far that permission extended.

The judgment does not establish that Hossam had permission to remove the phone. It decides only that the evidence did not prove the dishonest intent required for the requested guilty finding. No monetary relief was sought or ordered, and the court made no findings on matters outside that request.