The appellate criminal court in Fes has decided to postpone the trial of a lawyer and a notary involved in a significant fraud case, which includes serious charges related to the forgery of contracts and the manipulation of properties built on land owned by the state. This decision was made on Tuesday, with the next session scheduled for October 13, 2026. The court mandated the re-summoning of the accused lawyer under the supervision of the public prosecutor, while denying temporary release to the second accused, Hicham Chakchak.
Previously, the primary criminal chamber had found the lawyer guilty of the charges against him and sentenced both him and Hicham Chakchak to two years of imprisonment along with a hefty fine of 100,000 dirhams. Additionally, both were required to cover court costs and had their mobile phones and seized financial amounts confiscated for the benefit of the state.
The lawyer is being prosecuted by Judge Rachid Ousguir from the third chamber for the crime of forgery in contracts drafted by a legally qualified lawyer, while the notary faces charges for the forgery of official documents and their use, as well as participating in the forgery of contracts prepared by a qualified lawyer and engaging in fraud.
Exclusive information obtained by 'Kood' reveals that the accused are implicated in the preparation and endorsement of contracts concerning properties located in the La Bitta district of Thursday and the Ben Slimane hole. These properties were built on land that legally belongs to the state.
According to complaints and reports, Hicham Chakchak, who previously worked as a notary, was involved in the forgery of documents related to an apartment in 2015, collaborating with its owner, named Khadija. This scheme allowed him to sell the apartment twice before Khadija was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison, while Chakchak managed to flee the country.
Further complaints indicate that in 2021, along with the lawyer, he was involved in a fraudulent scheme targeting the father of the first complainant. This involved drafting a forged informal contract, with a questionable and unverified fingerprint, indicating the sale of a shop in his favor. He later created a new sale contract for the same shop, listing himself as the seller and his wife, Wafa, as the buyer, thereby transferring ownership to her after validation at the administrative annex in Thursday.
In 2022, evidence suggests that Chakchak, through deceit, prepared a property ownership document in the name of a deceased person, Ahmed H., which was a forged informal sales contract related to a house consisting of a ground floor and three upper floors in La Bitta, despite the fact that the property originally had only two floors in 1994. This document was later used for a sale to a police officer after being endorsed by the implicated lawyer and validated at the administrative annex, facilitating the fraudulent transactions.
The investigations revealed that the notary did not possess any authorization to practice as a notary, yet he had prepared contracts for multiple properties without verifying their legal status, a fact he acknowledged during both the preliminary investigation and the investigatory phase, corroborated by witness testimonies and the statements of the contract parties.
Confrontations held before the investigating judge highlighted inconsistencies in the statements of the parties compared to those of the lawyer, with many asserting they had never met or dealt with him, despite his endorsement of contracts related to their properties.
As for the lawyer, investigations concluded his involvement in endorsing contracts of sale and promises of sale for properties built on state-owned land, in exchange for financial remuneration, without the actual presence of the parties involved. Moreover, in 2022, he endorsed a forged sales contract that was used as ownership proof for a deceased individual, with a document dated back to 1994 that was fabricated.
It was further established that the accused had executed sales contracts and promises in violation of the provisions of the property rights code, with the results of confrontations indicating that the notary had taken the lead in drafting these contracts.
As reported by goud.ma.
