What is the ruling when the possessor initially denies the existence of a deposit but later admits to its existence and loss from secure storage?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Deposits
Primary text
If a claimant alleges a deposit, and the possessor denies having received it, but later it is proven that a deposit was made, and the possessor then states it was lost from secure storage, the initial statement of denial is not accepted, and liability for the loss is established. This view is held by Malik, Al-Awza'i, Al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, and the Companions of the Opinion (Ashaab al-Ra'y). This is because the initial denial contradicts the subsequent admission and implies dishonesty inconsistent with the nature of trust. If the possessor admits to the loss from secure storage before denying the deposit, no liability is established. If the admission of loss occurs after the denial, liability remains because the denial removed the obligation of trust, making the possessor liable like a usurper (Ghasib). Testimony regarding loss from secure storage after the denial does not remove liability.
Supporting text
If testimony confirms the loss occurred from secure storage before the denial, there are two opinions: one holds that the testimony is inadmissible because the possessor contradicted it by denying the deposit; the second holds that testimony is admissible because if the depositor had admitted this fact, their claim would have been dismissed. If testimony proves loss occurred from secure storage, but it is unclear whether this happened before or after the denial, liability is not removed because the default ruling is liability, which cannot be negated by an ambiguous event.