(1) Apprehending the factual circumstances of the case, evaluating evidence, and considering presumptions fall within the jurisdiction of the trial court, subject to specific conditions.

(2) Conditions for materialisation of the crime of coercing others to surrender money through threats. Independent of the motivating factor behind the offender's actions, which is not a prerequisite for its materialisation.

(3) The contested ruling, as well as the previously appealed ruling, meticulously examined the case's facts, validating the elements of the crime with sound justifications. Any objection to this aspect is unfounded, representing a substantive disagreement concerning the court's evaluation of case evidence, a matter beyond the purview of this court.

(4) The trial court is authorised to evaluate mitigating circumstances and exercise clemency, subject to specific conditions

(5) Applying the mitigating factor by the trial court falls within the permissible bounds defined by Article 99 of the Penal Code, contingent upon the court's determination that the incident and circumstances of the accused warrant such consideration.

(6) The contested ruling found the respondents guilty under Article 398 of the Federal Penal Code, imposing a fine of five thousand dirhams on each defendant. This penalty contradicts the stipulation in the article, which mandates both imprisonment and a fine. The ruling's imposition of only a fine constitutes a violation of the law.

Whereas in the facts, as apparent pursuant to the perusal of the contested ruling and other documents, the Public Prosecution levelled accusations against the appellant, alleging that prior to 19/10/2021 in the district of ..........:

- They coerced the victim/....... by means of threats (threatening to terminate her employment) to surrender money, as detailed in the investigative records

In a session held on 14/2/2022, the court of first instance ruled as follows:

First: Imprisonment of ....... for a term of six months, coupled with a fine of ten thousand dirhams for the charge against him, and subsequent deportation from the country upon completion of the sentence.

Second: Imprisonment of ....... for a term of six months, coupled with a fine of ten thousand dirhams for the charge against him, and subsequent deportation from the country upon completion of the sentence.

Third: Imprisonment of ...... for a term six months, coupled with a fine of twenty-five thousand dirhams for the charge against him.

Fourth: Confiscation of the computer deemed an instrument used in the commission of the crime.

Fifth: Imposition of judicial fees upon all parties.

Dissatisfied with this judgment, the convicts filed appeals, and during the session held on 18/4/2022, the Court of Appeal, unanimously and in presence, ruled as follows:

First: Acceptance of the appeals in form.

Second: On the merits, modification of the appealed ruling to impose a fine of five thousand dirhams on each of the defendants for the charges against them. Additionally, the annulment of the deportation penalty imposed on the defendants ....... and ......., confirmation of the appealed ruling regarding the confiscation of seized items, and the imposition of fees on the defendants.

Discontent with this decision, both the convicts and the Public Prosecution have contested it through the present appeals in cassation.

The appellants raise objections to the contested ruling, citing deficiencies in reasoning, flaws in inference, and a breach of the right of defence. They contend that the ruling erred in convicting them despite their denial of the charges and the absence of elements constituting a material or moral offence. Specifically, it was not established that their actions induced fear in the complainant, who alleged the threat occurred on 14/2/2021, yet she did not file the complaint until 30/9/2021. The appellants argue that if the incident were true, the complainant would not have waited for eight months to report it. Furthermore, the appellants put forth a meritorious defence, asserting the occurrence of an emergency circumstance and force majeure due to the spread of the Coronavirus. This situation led to the facility's closure and an economic downturn, prompting the establishment to request salary reductions to sustain operations—an arrangement accepted by employees, including the complainant. The appellant.... contends that his actions were carried out at the behest of his employer, placing him under moral coercion. Given the alleged contradiction in the contested ruling, the appellant argues that it is flawed and shall be reversed.

Whereas the objection is incorrect, since It is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that that the trial court has the authority to comprehend the reality in the case and assess the evidence and presumptions, provided it grounds its ruling on valid reasons adequate to substantiate it.

Article 398 of the Penal Code specifies that the offence of coercing others to surrender money by threat is materialised when the perpetrator, through intimidation, wrongfully appropriates the victim's funds, compelling the victim to surrender the money under duress.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, foregoing circumstances, the appealed judgment meticulously scrutinised the factual and circumstantial aspects of the case, conducting a thorough examination of its constituent elements. This determination confirmed by the contested ruling, grounded in its articulated rationale. Furthermore, the contested judgment proffered particularized justifications through which it scrutinized the veracity of the accusation. It derived a comprehensive understanding of the factual scenario by synthesising information from all pertinent statements contained in the records and investigations. Consequently, the contested judgment, relying on the victim's testimony, ascertained that she had been subjected to threats by the two appellants, coercing her into relinquishing sums received in consideration of her employment with the ..... The appellant ..... approached her under duress, compelling her to return the sum of 23,220 dirhams, under the implicit threat of termination of her employment in concurrence with the appellants. Consequently, she remitted the aforementioned amount to the appellant. Despite compliance, her employment was terminated. This narrative was corroborated by the deposition of the witness ....., substantiating the assertions made by the victim, and fortified by the confession of the appellant ..... acknowledging his solicitation of funds from the victim at the behest of the appellants, .... and ..... The judgment articulated the aforementioned findings in its rationales, expressing as follows “Whereas Article 398 stipulates: 1 of the Penal Code: “Anyone who forces another, by means of threats, to hand over money or other items other than those mentioned in the previous article shall be punished with imprisonment and a fine.” Whereas the legal construct denoting "threat" is expansive, embodying diverse manifestations and lacking a precise statutory definition, it constitutes a form of psychological pressure wielded in various manners upon the victim to compel the surrender of monetary assets to the perpetrator. Furthermore, the inquiry conducted in the present case reveals that the complainant, in the course of her employment with ....., received an incentive from its lessor amounting to 23,220 dirhams. However, the defendants ...... and ......., an accountant within the aforementioned company, acting pursuant to the directive of his manager ........ and under the recommendation of the appellants, assumed the responsibility in his capacity as ..... to demand the return of funds from female employees ........., including the victim in the present case. These funds, constituting incentives deposited in their accounts, were subjected to coercive tactics, specifically the threat of termination, should they decline to return said amounts to the institution of their employment. Through these means, the defendants effectively coerced and subjugated the victim into remitting the sum of money, quantified at 23,220 dirhams, thereby substantiating the commission of the imputed crime against them.

The determinations reached by the contested judgment were both reasonable and adequate to buttress its ultimate finding, and the trial court judiciously exercised its authority within the bounds of evidence evaluation. Consequently, it rendered a conviction against the appellants for the attributed charge. Therefore, the appellants' objection amounts to a mere substantive disagreement concerning the court's assessment of the evidence in the case, a matter beyond the purview of this court. As such, the objection lacks merit. * Article 450 of Federal Decree Law No. 31 of 2021, promulgating the Crimes and Penalties Law, has been superseded by Article 398.

Whereas, the Public Prosecution raises an objection to the contested ruling, asserting an error in the application of the law. It contends that the ruling imposed the penalty designated for the offence of threatening under Article 398, first paragraph of the Federal Penal Code, which mandates both imprisonment and a fine. The objection asserts that the ruling failed to specify the circumstances, mitigating factors, or reasons upon which it relied for mitigation, thereby rendering the ruling flawed and necessitating its reversal.

Whereas this objection is incorrect and rejected, since it is established that the authority to evaluate mitigating circumstances and exercise clemency lies within the purview of the trial court, without further review by the Supreme Court, and remains immune to review in determining penalties, provided the imposed penalty falls within the statutory boundaries.

It is prescribed, pursuant to Article 99 of the Federal Penal Code that “In the event of a mitigating factor in the commission of a misdemeanour, the commutation of penalties shall be as follows:

“a) If the penalty stipulates a specific minimum, the court is not bound by it in determining the appropriate penalty.

b) In cases where the penalty encompasses both imprisonment and a fine, the court is empowered to impose either of the two penalties exclusively.

c) In instances where the penalty entails imprisonment without a specified minimum threshold, the court holds the discretion to substitute a fine in lieu of imprisonment.