Reports stated that the Appeal Public Prosecution Office in the Bekaa issued, on Tuesday evening, a decision to seize the $50,000 that the courier had obtained, along with an arrest warrant against him for detaining people by force, threatening their lives, and possessing a weapon.
The man, who was described as a “hero” and “Qabaday”, is now paying the price for what he did to get his right from the bank. The price is paid twice, the first by depriving him of his right again, and the second by suing him and imprisoning him as a punishment for what he has done.
There are many discussions on the communication sites about what the courier has done, and what the judicial authorities have implemented. The discussion mainly revolves around the legality of storming the bank and seizing employees and customers and treating them as hostages, a point of contrast between many who were divided over describing the matter as “thuggery” and “threatening innocent lives,” and between those who said that it was a right to be taken after the inability of the authority and the law to collect it. Supporters of his actions did not hesitate to say that he will be tried, according to the law, for what he did.
But what people were not divided about is the anger at the judicial decision to control the amount that the courier collected from the bank. The least accusation directed to the judiciary now, says that he is “accomplice” with the banks, and he is commanding their orders, and implements a malicious policy against depositors, and is keen to seize their money and encourage banks to exaggerate their practices, which is what appeared in the solidarity stand with him, and in the hypothetical supportive and solidarity activity. with him.
But the discussion lacks a basic approach that stems from the question: What if the courier were allowed to seize his money without penalty? What would the scene be like in return?
This debate is taking place in the judicial corridors and in the Lebanese political and security mind. Any leniency with this work will encourage others to take the same role to get their money and, therefore, will put the security related to this aspect in jeopardy. The right will be unleashed outside the institutions, and the issue cannot be controlled, which will inevitably lead to tensions, and possibly deaths in banks if the branch does not have the required amount of money.
From this point of view, the judiciary blocked the way for any attempt to obtain the right by force. Al-Sa’i’s imprisonment, for a period ranging between 3 and 7 years, as part of a criminal court trial, will not deter the recurrence of the incident, if he is allowed to keep the money with him.
In return for the depositors’ solidarity with the courier, the bank employees in Jub Jenin showed solidarity with their colleagues in the “Bank of Beirut and the Arab Countries” branch. There are two parties suffering from the crisis, and the two sides are surrounded by highly problematic humanitarian conditions. The state bears responsibility for this chaos and security tension.
The two parties are wronged, and the solution is inevitable by releasing the depositors’ money in full, at least the money of the small depositors.