Humans sometimes face crises that they cannot overcome or resolve in a timely manner without the help of others. This is why it is said that humans are social by nature, needing community in some form. Some people may struggle to manage their finances, or they may suffer losses due to their own mistakes, the mistakes of others, or even divine intervention. Whatever the case, the harm we are referring to is being burdened with debt beyond one's ability to repay. People differ in their approaches to such situations, but some are willing to seek assistance from others in the form of donations. Some of these individuals seek help out of genuine need, as they perceive it, and they see merit in doing so. However, I am speaking of those who seek help not out of need, but rather out of a desire to increase their debt. Recently, there has been a rise in requests for assistance to help pay court-ordered debts. We have seen the generous and noble Saudi community contribute to helping debtors. A question we must consider is: Do we trust the reason for these debts, their legitimacy, and the eligibility of the debtor to receive assistance? Those wishing to help settle a court-ordered debt cannot ascertain the reason for the debt without the assistance of the debtor or their representative, or through difficult means. It is known that there are various enforcement instruments; for example, a court judgment and a commercial paper. Thamer might (supposedly) borrow 100,000 riyals from Amer. Amer then files a lawsuit against Thamer, claiming that he lent him the aforementioned amount two years prior and failed to repay it. Thamer acknowledges the debt, and a court orders him to repay the amount. Amer obtains an enforcement order, which he presents to the enforcement court, and a payment invoice is issued. After the invoice is issued, Thamer displays it on social media, and people pay the amount. Thamer and Amer then split the money according to their agreement! Similarly, a fictitious commercial paper might be drawn up and submitted to the enforcement court, repeating the same process.
Therefore, we are facing a serious problem that we must address, whether by the courts, the enforcement authorities, or those wishing to offer assistance, and most importantly, at the legislative level. Regarding the courts, the judge—especially in civil courts—verifies the underlying cause of the debt and does not rely solely on the presumption of its legitimacy. This is particularly true if the facts do not reveal a legitimate basis, in which case the plaintiff is required to take an oath, even if the defendant acknowledges the debt. Similarly, the enforcement judge verifies certain enforcement documents that were not reviewed by the lower courts, requiring the party seeking enforcement to provide at least some evidence of the debt's legitimacy. Those wishing to offer assistance verify the debt's legitimacy and the debtor's eligibility for help by seeking legal aid from a lawyer. At the legislative level, I believe that the current widespread practice of requesting assistance should be prohibited. A specialized committee should be established to review such requests, verifying the debtor's eligibility and need for assistance, as well as the legitimacy of the debt. An electronic platform should be created for this purpose, and those who violate its provisions should be held accountable. Furthermore, an electronic platform should be established for documenting personal debts, similar to the documentation of lease agreements.
I realize the difficulty of implementing what I mentioned in reality, but because I see that this problem affects national security and the economy, perhaps this suggestion will find attention from someone capable of adopting it, or better ideas than it. The important thing is to bl