The Administrative Court in Jeddah has sentenced a government employee to four years in prison and a fine of SR400,000 for taking bribes and misusing his official position in awarding contracts.

The court also sentenced an academic in one of the universities to two years and a fine of SR200,000, but the charges were later dropped because he reported the case.

The employee was questioned about receiving a bribe of SR550,000 from the academic to finalize procedures for farm contracts and deed documents.

The accused denied receiving the money, saying he did not know the second accused. He said some friends of the academic told him about the documents and he had only called him to advise him where to go to finalize his business.

The official said he borrowed a sum of SR550,000 from the academic, to import sheep and that it was not a bribe. The official also denied sending text messages to the academic. He stressed that relations between him and the academic were purely commercial.

The court also convicted the official of the crime of forging official reports, and abusing his position. He was sentenced to four years in jail, and a fine of SR400,000. The academic, was convicted of exploiting his position and sentenced to two years in prison and fined SR200,000. But charges were later dropped.

The academic, who testified that he works as a lecturer at the university and specializes in Islamic Culture, told the court about the money allegedly taken by the official. He said a bribe is meant to inflict harm, but he only meant it as a price for a service.

He said he was introduced to the official through a Saudi Post employee, after his documents were reserved in the Royal Court.

He then communicated with the official in question and was advised to fill out another application because it was difficult to reactivate reserved applications.

At first the official asked for SR8,000, but then demanded more money, saying that many employees are following up on the application, bringing the total sum to SR225,000, he said.

When the academic refused to oblige, the official declined to finalize the documents or return the money, causing the academic to file a complaint.

The official’s testimony was contradictory: at one point he said he purchased sheep and at another time he said he sold them. The testimony of the witnesses was also unreliable.

The official used false witnesses to testify in the case. Apparently, no deals had been made in the sheep trade.