Jurisprudential study of the truth of damages based on non-profitability of the delay in payment for bank debtors and the feasibility of proving a guarantee for it

The issue of late payment of bank debtors and how to deal with it is one of the challenges of usury-free banking. After the the Islamic Revolution, many jurists considered the solution of the penalty for late payment to be haram (forbidden) as being ignorant usury. As a result, the banking system stopped receiving late payment penalties. Elimination of late payment penalties led to the abuse of some bank debtors and damage to the banking system. Hence, the alternative solution, which was approved by the jurists of the Guardian Council of the Constitution, was presented under the title of obligation. According to this solution, the fine amount is included in the form of a condition in the contract, and the debtor agrees to pay an amount to the bank in addition to the principal debt for each day of delay. It was clear that this alternative solution had been devised to avoid bank losses due to late payment. But there was never any dialog of damaging the bank and the possibility of forcing debtors to compensate. It was considered that the bankchr('39')s loss is of non-profit type and non-profit is not a case of loss so that it can be claimed not based on loss. In the present article, which has been prepared by the descriptive-analytical method, the author seeks to prove that non-profit can be considered a loss and attributed to overdue debtors under some conditions. In other words, if there is a suitable interest and the delay in repaying the debt is the exclusive cause of the loss for the bank, the non-profit of the is customarily considered a loss. And it is attributed to the debtor, and he is obliged to compensate for the damage. Also, the provide the exclusive causality of debtors in causing damages to the bank, the statistics published by the Central Bank has been used.