The Public Prosecutor’s Office has launched an investigation into the charge attributed to the defendant, Sayed Tounsi – in his capacity as a public official – Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Suez Canal Company for Technology Tracking and Chairman of the Board of Trustees on October 6 Universities, both owned with public money. With the seizure of ownership documents of the Suez Canal Technology Localization Company and Misr Insurance, proving their share in the capital of the University (October 6), and its unjust appropriation of the two shares estimated at £4 billion with the ownership intention. From £958 million to £20 million, and he attributed only ownership of the university to himself untruthfully,
The incident began with the investigation by the General Department of Public Funds Investigations finding that the defendant exploited his position as chairman of the board of directors of the Suez Canal Company for technology localization and of the board of trustees of the University 6 October – owned by companies – in the period from 2014 to 2016, and during that period illegally seized the assets, assets and rights of the university, the material and intellectual value of which exceeded four billion pounds, by appropriating of the university foundation contract and of the capital contribution documents of the aforementioned company and of the Misr Insurance Company, and substituting them with other false documents in which he proved, contrary to the truth, that the ownership of the university belongs exclusively to him .
The investigations added that the defendant had falsified, in the same period, one of the minutes of the Extraordinary General Assembly of the Suez Canal Company for Technology Tracking; Dove made the value of the company’s contribution to the university’s capital the value of the debt it owed to the company, with the intention of stealing that share and excluding the company from the university’s founders, including falsifying the university’s balance sheet during 2016 reducing its capital in the shareholder’s rights item for an amount of only 20 million pounds, excluding the two companies of the Suez Canal Locating the technology and the Misr Insurance to the founders of the university, seizing only the assets, obtaining the difference between the nominal value of the university and its actual value, which exceeds four billion pounds.
The investigation confirmed the defendant’s attempt to seize £209m of university funds, claiming they had been unlawfully spent on its establishment in 1993, the disbursement of which amount having been approved during his presidency of the board of the university and had demonstrated it as a debt owed to it by the university in the budget for the years 2015 and 2016 untrue, but the investigations showed that it did not actually receive the amount and the Authority’s investigations administrative control confirmed that the defendant committed these crimes.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office moved into the university headquarters, inspected the administrative building and seized the university’s budgetary assets from 2002 to 2018 and some minutes of the university’s board of directors. Examining these documents, it is it emerged that the Suez Canal Technology Localization and Misr Insurance companies owned the university’s capital in their balance sheets up to 2015. A 2016 balance sheet review showed that the university’s capital had been reduced from £958 million to £20 million pounds, and this reduction was confirmed by the clarifications supplementing this budget and that all shares of the foundation became the property of the defendant pursuant to a contract of incorporation issued in the year 1993 without explaining the reason for the reduction or the origin of the contract. and 2018 budget.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office has received a report from the committee made up of illicit profit experts, in which it is ascertained that the defendant committed the crimes charged against him and that he damaged the funds of the Suez Canal Company for Technology Localization, a joint stock company whose funds are considered public funds, and the Misr Insurance Company, in violation of accounting principles.
The report confirmed that the sums of money approved for the defendant under the name of university foundation expenses, estimated at £209 million, were incorrect The investigation was concluded because the defendant did not actually spend that amount .
Legal representatives of The United Bank, Misr Insurance Company, the Chairman of Al-Ahly Investments Company, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Suez Technology Localization Company, and an auditor testified in the investigation, confirming the results of the investigation against the defendant.
Having said that, the Public Prosecutor questioned the defendant, who expressed his defenses with respect to the charges brought against him, and decided he wanted to reconcile with the Suez Canal Company to locate the technology and recognize its ownership of the university and allow the contract to be documented in order to close the dispute with the university and issue a power of attorney to his lawyer to take the necessary measures, therefore the Public Prosecutor ordered his detention. declaration, and transferring the notary to his prison to complete the paperwork.
On 6 December this year, the defendant’s defense was formed which filed a documented declaration of real estate transcription by proxy for the accused, in which the latter acknowledged that he did not own any shareholding in the capital of the university and pledged not to contest the Suez Canal Company’s future liquidation of the technology into its ownership, and its waiver of judgments issued in its favor, and the defendant’s agent confirmed the investigation by filing a copy of this documented statement in the file of the university at the private university Secretariat of the Ministry of Higher Education, providing proof of this, the Public Prosecutor consulted the lawyer of the Suez Canal Company for Technology Localization, who confirmed that the defendant filed the aforementioned documented declaration and filed it with the company.
The issue with which the public complaints damaged and seized by the defendant with the present waiver and acknowledgment presented by the defendant were kept and returned, and consequently the justifications of his pre-trial detention were denied, for which the Public Prosecutor ordered his release, and the investigation is nearing completion.
