What is the ruling if the agent withholds or delays returning the funds without having promised a specific return date, and then claims loss or prior return?

Primary text

If the agent did not promise to return the funds but deliberately prevented the return or procrastinated (matala) despite being able to return them, and then claims that the money was destroyed or previously returned, his statement is not accepted. This is because his act of prevention makes him liable (damin), thus moving the funds out of the status of a trust (Amanah). However, if the agent presents evidence supporting his claim of prior return or destruction, the evidence is heard because it does not contradict a prior promise from him in this scenario.