What is the ruling on moving trust property to a less secure location without justification?

Primary text

If the custodian moves the trust property from its designated secure place to a less secure one without a legitimate fear for its safety, they are liable because they contravened the required method of safeguarding. If the transfer to a lesser secure place occurred due to fear, the ruling depends on whether an equally or more secure place was available. If such a place was available, liability is incurred for negligence. If the only available alternative was less secure, there is no liability, as this constitutes better preservation than leaving it exposed. If the property is moved to an equally secure location without a valid reason, some scholars hold there is no liability, reasoning that specifying the location implies allowing for an equivalent place, similar to a tenant planting equivalent crops. However, other scholars suggest liability is incurred because an instruction implies specificity, which cannot be abandoned without proof.