چکیده:
The check, whose usefulness in settling claims is indisputable, has caused problems since its initial introduction into the Iranian legislative system. These problems are mostly summarized in the fact that because banks provide checkbooks to issuers, those who accept checks from their debtors assume that the bank has exercised the necessary authority in selecting the check issuer as a customer during the opening of the current account; however, in many cases, it later turns out that the check lacks sufficient funds. In such circumstances, the important question is whether the bank should not be considered at fault and responsible for compensating the loss incurred by the check holder if it fails to exercise necessary precautions in selecting the customer? The answer to this question depends on the role that the legislator assigns to the bank in the creation and circulation of bad checks. Regarding the extent of the bank's role in this regard, two opinions can exist: 1- The non-liability of the bank, because the bank is a drawee of the instrument and, similar to the case of a bill of exchange, bears no responsibility unless it has committed to paying the check (in guaranteed checks); 2- The absolute liability of the bank to pay the amount of the check instead of the issuer, with the bank having the right of recourse against the latter. Of course, these two opinions are extreme, and in this article, an attempt is made to propose a middle-ground solution; a solution that has been experienced in other countries and has yielded desirable results in reducing bad checks.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The result of this specific situation is that fraud through the issuance of this instrument is carried out more frequently; with the explanation that: a person who does not have sufficient funds in their bank account, by presenting a bank checkbook and issuing a check on one of the leaves provided to them by the bank, attracts the attention of the instrument recipient and induces them to enter into a transaction in exchange for receiving the check leaf; but when the check holder visits the bank to receive its value, it turns out that the check, for some reason, is not payable, and the holder has, in fact, become a victim of the deception and lies of the check issuer.
Regarding French law in this regard, see: Ripert (Georges) et autres,: 2000, no 2186 3 ـ In fact, the opening of a current account, regardless of its legal nature, is a contract whereby the customer requests and the bank accepts that the bank shall continuously hold certain amounts for the customer, and the bank, upon their request, shall return the held funds to them or to someone designated by them.
Opening Current Accounts, has stipulated: "Banks are obliged to refrain from opening current accounts and providing checkbooks within the legal period to persons whose names are included in the list of persons subject to Article 21 of the Check Issuance Law (meaning persons who have issued more than one dishonored check and whose prosecution has resulted in an indictment).
(
, 
, 
)
