A disputed statement is often labeled perjury before anyone checks who made it, whether it was under oath, what the person actually knew, and whether the statement was intentionally false or simply mistaken.
That label can distract from the exact wording, context, translation, documents, and role of the person in the proceeding.
The UAE Crimes and Penalties Law separates the core witness offense from related misconduct by experts, translators, and investigators.
A party challenging a false account or defending an allegation should identify the correct provision and preserve the complete procedural record instead of extracting one sentence from a hearing or report.
Quick Answer
Perjury in the UAE most commonly refers to Article 302 of Federal Decree-Law No. 31 of 2021, which addresses a person who gives false testimony under oath before a judicial authority or body with jurisdiction to hear witnesses, or who denies or conceals the truth.
Article 306 separately addresses an expert, translator, or investigator who knowingly provides a false statement or interpretation concerning the matter assigned to that professional role.
The distinction matters because a witness describes facts, an expert offers a specialized assessment, a translator renders meaning between languages, and an investigator reports findings.
A contradiction, poor memory, disputed opinion, or translation error is not automatically proof of intentional falsity.
Identify the speaker’s legal role, locate the complete statement or report, compare it with reliable contemporaneous evidence, and test knowledge and intent before making or responding to a criminal allegation.
Article 302: The Core Witness Scenario
Article 302 addresses false testimony delivered under oath before a judicial authority or a body with jurisdiction to hear witnesses, including denying or concealing the truth.
The analysis should confirm the oath, forum, capacity as a witness, exact question and answer, and whether the disputed point was material to the proceeding.
A transcript or official record is more reliable than a party’s memory of what was said.
Where the hearing involved interpretation, the source-language statement and translated rendering should be examined separately.
A person should not be accused on the basis of an isolated phrase that changes meaning when the preceding question or later clarification is read.
Article 306: Experts, Translators, and Investigators
Article 306 addresses professionals whose assigned role can shape the court’s understanding: experts, translators, and investigators.
It concerns knowingly false statements or interpretations within that function.
The appointment, scope of assignment, materials received, method used, and final report or translation are essential to deciding whether the allegation concerns dishonesty or a professional disagreement.
Accused of Perjury or False Testimony in the UAE?
Not every contradiction or inaccurate statement amounts to perjury. The legal position can depend on the oath, the person’s role, the exact statement, surrounding evidence, and whether intentional falsity is alleged. Leaders Advocates can review the complete record before you respond.
These roles should not be collapsed into ordinary witness testimony.
An expert may make a technical judgment based on incomplete data; a translator may face ambiguity; an investigator may summarize competing material.
Error or disagreement can be serious without automatically establishing that the person knowingly provided a false account.
The evidence must connect the individual to the specific false content and required mental element.
A Contradiction Is Evidence to Examine, Not Automatic Perjury
Statements can differ because of memory, language, question wording, stress, time, later-discovered documents, or an honest correction.
The review should place each version on a timeline and identify what the person knew at that moment.
Material changes should be explained, but inconsistency alone does not answer whether the earlier or later statement was deliberately false.
Counsel should compare the testimony with objective records such as messages, contracts, bank entries, location data, meeting notes, medical documents, or system logs.
A contradiction about a minor detail may have a different legal significance from a deliberate denial of a central fact.
The complaint should explain the connection rather than simply list inconsistencies.
How to Review a Disputed Expert Report
Start with the court’s appointment and questions.
Determine whether the expert answered the assigned issues, identified the records reviewed, disclosed missing information, used a coherent method, and addressed the parties’ comments.
A weak or incorrect opinion may support a procedural challenge without necessarily proving a knowingly false report under Article 306.
A party may need to submit focused objections, produce omitted documents, request clarification, or seek another expert step through the competent procedure.
Technical disagreement should be expressed with evidence and method, not personal accusation.
If intentional falsity is alleged, the file should identify the exact statement, source that disproves it, the expert’s knowledge, and why an innocent explanation is not sufficient.
• Obtain the complete official testimony, report, translation, or investigation record.
• Confirm the oath, appointment, jurisdiction, assignment, and person’s legal role.
• Identify the exact statement alleged to be false and why it matters.
• Compare each version with contemporaneous records and source-language material.
• Preserve lawful evidence and avoid coaching, pressure, threats, or public accusations.
Translation Issues Need a Source-Language Comparison
A translated answer can change meaning through word choice, dialect, legal terminology, or omission.
The review should compare the original words, audio or official record where available, the translation, the question, and any correction made during the proceeding.
A later alternative translation does not automatically prove that the court translator acted knowingly or dishonestly.
Parties should raise a genuine interpretation concern through the proper procedure as soon as it becomes clear.
They should identify the phrase, competing meanings, context, and practical effect.
Creating a private transcript without establishing authenticity or completeness may add confusion.
Certified language support can help counsel formulate a precise issue for the court.
Investigators and the Difference Between Findings and Fabrication
An investigator may be required to collect facts, analyze records, and report findings.
A party may disagree with the investigation’s scope or conclusion, but Article 306 analysis focuses on a knowingly false account within the assigned function.
The underlying notes, interviews, documents, methodology, and omitted material should be reviewed before alleging criminal dishonesty.
Where a finding is challenged, a structured response should identify each inaccurate statement and the evidence that corrects it.
Broad claims that the entire investigation was biased are less useful than a documented comparison.
Counsel should also consider the procedural route for objection, cross-examination, clarification, or supplemental review in the original case.
Faris Raian, Founder and Managing Partner at Leaders Advocates, said that false-testimony cases are sometimes assumed to involve only a witness on the stand. He explained that a case can turn on an expert’s report or a translator’s rendering just as much as on witness statements, and that each role carries distinct exposure if handled dishonestly.
The practical lesson is to map the role before choosing the allegation or defense. A witness-focused strategy may miss the assignment and source materials behind a false expert report, while an Article 306 theory cannot simply be applied to an ordinary party statement. Precision protects both the integrity of the proceeding and a person wrongly accused because of an honest mistake or contested opinion.
How to Make or Defend a Perjury Allegation Responsibly
A complainant should build a neutral chronology, attach the complete official record, identify the exact false statement, show what reliable evidence contradicts it, and explain knowledge and materiality without exaggeration.
Public accusations, witness pressure, edited recordings, and selective screenshots can undermine the file and create additional legal risk.
A person accused should preserve drafts, source materials, instructions, notes, translations, and communications, then explain the statement in its full context.
The defense may address truth, ambiguity, memory, correction, scope of expertise, reliance on supplied information, translation alternatives, or lack of knowing falsity.
No record should be altered after the dispute begins.
The Original Proceeding and the Criminal Issue Must Be Coordinated
The disputed testimony or report usually arose inside another civil, commercial, family, or criminal case.
Challenging it may require action in that original proceeding as well as consideration of a separate complaint.
The lawyer should coordinate deadlines, evidentiary objections, expert comments, appeals, and any criminal report so that positions remain consistent.
A perjury allegation should not be used only as pressure in settlement.
The strategy must protect lawful advocacy while avoiding threats or retaliation against a genuine witness.
Confidentiality, privilege, data protection, and the court’s control of the record should be considered before documents or allegations are circulated outside the proper channel.
Related Success Story
The firm’s published Corporate Fraud & Embezzlement Case Successfully Resolved in Dubai is relevant to the importance of organizing financial records, statements, and professional evidence.
It was not presented as a perjury judgment and does not establish the outcome of a separate Article 302 or Article 306 allegation.
Concerned About False Testimony or a False Report?
Leaders Advocates can review the speaker’s role, official record, source evidence, materiality, knowledge, and the correct procedure for a complaint or defense.
Concerned About a False Expert Report or Incorrect Translation?
Allegations involving experts, translators, or investigators require careful review of their assigned role, source materials, methodology, original language, and the exact disputed content. Leaders Advocates can help assess whether the issue concerns an error, professional disagreement, or alleged knowing falsity.
Common Mistakes
• Calling every contradiction or inaccurate memory deliberate perjury.
• Using Article 302 and Article 306 as if they cover the same legal role.
• Relying on an isolated quote rather than the complete official testimony or report.
• Treating a disputed expert opinion as automatically knowingly false.
• Ignoring the original language and context of translated testimony.
• Pressuring witnesses or publishing accusations instead of using lawful court channels.
Relevant Legal Services
A Criminal Defense Lawyers in Dubai can advise on a false-testimony allegation, statement, prosecution file, trial, and defense.
A Litigation Lawyer in Dubai can challenge or defend testimony, expert reports, translations, and findings in the original proceeding.
A Corporate Lawyers in Dubai can organize company records, authority, investigations, and governance where the dispute is business-related.
People Also Ask
Conclusion
Perjury in the UAE requires a role-specific and evidence-led analysis.
Article 302 concerns false witness testimony under oath, while Article 306 addresses knowingly false work by experts, translators, and investigators.
The safest approach preserves the full official record, tests intent and context, and coordinates any criminal issue with the proceeding in which the statement arose.
Has False Testimony Affected Your UAE Court Case?
A disputed statement, expert opinion, translation, or investigation finding may need to be addressed in the original proceeding as well as through any separate criminal complaint. Faris Raian and Leaders Advocates can review the court record, supporting evidence, and available procedural options.
