Judicial principles and studies
Risk Allocation and Central Bank Experts in Forged-Check Cases
Examines whether expert selection must follow the official registry, the status of Central Bank employees serving as experts, and allocation of liability for forged checks under Article 270.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
The study addresses whether expert appointments must come from the official registry, parties' contractual right to name an expert, the court’s discretion to appoint outsiders when the registry cannot supply an expert, the status of Central Bank employees called as experts, and allocation of liability for forged checks under Article 270.
Summary
The experts regulation does not create an automatic nullity for appointing an expert outside the registry. Parties may agree on an expert; absent agreement the court selects from the approved registry but may appoint an outsider for justified reasons. Lack of objection by the parties can imply consent to an out-of-registry appointment. Central Bank employees invited as experts act in a personal capacity if they disclose neutrality and no contrary fact is proven. Under Article 270 the drawee bank bears responsibility for payment of a forged check unless fault is attributable to the drawer; proven failure by the drawer to safeguard checkbooks can reduce the bank’s liability. A technical expert report that meets the statutory requirements (Article 83) and is free of legal challenge may be relied upon as evidence.
Practical significance
Courts should state reasons when deviating from the registry, treat expert neutrality disclosures as material, and rely on technical expertise to apportion fault between banks and the drawer under Article 270 when the expert report is legally sound. This content is an educational summary and not a judicial text or legal advice.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.