An appellant said in his grounds of appeal that the appealed ruling by which he was convicted of causing damage to public assets and fabricating formal documents had erred in the application of law and had insufficient evidence of causation. He said that the elements of these two crimes did not exist. He said that the court had established its ruling on the grounds of his confession though he denied it.

The court of cassation said that this argument was invalid. The court said that the court considered all aspects of the incident properly and concluded that the elements of the crime existed in the case. The court said that the court concluded that the appellant chad aused damage to public assets deliberately as stipulated by Article 11 of Kuwait Law No. 1/1993. The court said that the evaluation of the appellant's confession and the testimonies of the relevant witnesses fell under the court's authority. The court said that the court had established its ruling on the grounds of solid evidence including the confession of the appellant and the testimonies of the witnesses.