عنوان مقاله [English]
Always in the duration of banking activities, there is the possibility of damaging some customers, and then the question arises in accordance of tort, who and on what basis of the rules should pay the damage compensation. Regardless of the fact that, today the foundations of the negligence theory has collapsed in our law and should have used the attribution theory or citation as its alternative, based on the numerous Islamic Judicial-Legal evidences raised in this research, regarding the liability of banks in lieu of customers, the theory of liability without negligence will be done as the base theory of banks responsible. Specific liability for vocation owners in Islamic Jurisprudence and finally Paragraph (c) of Article 35 of the Monetary and Banking Law, is our most important evidence to prove the theory of liability without negligence, in particular, the Strict Liability of Banks. At the same time, the nature of the money causes the banks debt to restoration their customers' deposits is indebtedness in the assumption of any damage of the customer, and the trust possession of the bank's is to be canceled in investment accounts. In England law, deliberately and improvidence, are the two independent lawsuits for civil liability claims, but ultimately, with regard to the banks liability, the rights of England are also milder than our rights tend to the theory of liability without negligence of the banks.