Should the Clients of the National Bank of Iran’s Safe Deposit Bear the Burden of Proof?

Abstract

The burden of proof is one of the most important issues that judges would encounter with. According to Article 1257 of Iranian Civil Code, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. But sometimes it may be difficult to recognize this seemingly simple phrase. In the incident of 2022-6-3 (robbery from the National Bank of Tehran), as far as it was seen and heard from the lawyers, the burden of proving the lawsuit was on the clients(victims). The purpose of this paper is to answer two basic questions about this incident in a descriptive-analytical way: 1- Who must bear the burden of proof in the current case i.e., in the lawsuit of clients and the National Bank? 2- By what criteria are the damages evaluated? In short, the answer to the first question is that the bank in the present lawsuit should bear the burden of proof. As for the answer to the second question, it should be noted that among the theories of national and foreign judges, the theory of the average of the stolen Safe deposit boxes should be accepted.

Keywords

• evaluation of damages
• burden of pproof
• iran’s bank-e-melli robbery
• safe deposit box
• bank legal responsibility