Advisory theory of the judiciary regarding the theft of checks and promissory notes

According to Fars News Agency, in their latest inquiry from the Legal Deputy of the Judiciary, the judges asked questions about the theft of checks or promissory notes as follows:

If the thief steals a check or promissory note First: According to Article 104 of the Amendment to the Islamic Penal Code adopted in 1392, is the value of the stolen property equal to the amount stated in the promissory note or check or the value of the carcass of the check and promissory note? Second: With regard to Article 667 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1975, should the court order the rejection of the same carcass or promissory note or compensate the plaintiff? Third: If the court orders the rejection of the same carcass or promissory note, how will the property be rejected if the same is not available at the execution stage?

Advisory Theory of the General Legal Department of the Judiciary

There are two views on the first question. First view: The criterion for applying Article 104 of the Amended Islamic Penal Code of 1399 in terms of forgivability or not is the theft of a check or promissory note in the text of which the amount is stated, and if the amount stated in the said documents is in accordance with the legal quorum for A forgivable crime is forgivable, given the need to interpret the law in favor of the accused.

Second view: According to the principle of unforgivable theft and the exclusion of forgivable crimes in Article 104 of the Amended Islamic Penal Code of 1399 and the fact that in Article 104, the condition of forgivable theft in terms of determining the quorum, oversees objects. Which has the ability to be financially valued and in the case of items such as cases of presumption of inquiry (ordinary check – promissory note) whose value is not determined solely on the basis of their customary financial value, the subject of Article 104 of the said law is waived and theft of such documents is unforgivable. . The second question, assuming that the ordinary check or promissory note has not been received, the court is obliged to issue a ruling rejecting the same check or promissory note, and if the theft of these documents results in losses, according to Articles 14, 15 and 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure adopted in 1392, damages incurred by a private plaintiff can be claimed.

The third question, although the thief’s responsibility to reject the stolen property continues until it is returned, and therefore must be returned as long as the property exists, provided that the thief is convicted of rejecting the stolen check or promissory note and the check or If the promissory note has been destroyed, no further action by the execution of the rulings seems necessary. Obviously, the destruction of a check or promissory note by a thief will not absolve him of his civil liability.

End of message /