If the debt is divided into 60 installments, the debtor signs 60 checks and is held accountable for each one separately, as if each check represents a separate offense. This might seem reasonable if the judgment covered the entire debt, but instead, multiple penalties are imposed for multiple checks issued for the same debt to the same creditor. This situation contradicts a recent Court of Cassation ruling, which stated that “all security instruments, including bills of exchange and promissory notes, are merely means of documentation within the framework of the relationship between creditor and debtor, and the amounts already refunded cannot be ignored when calculating the remaining debt.”

This ruling, issued by the highest judicial authority, highlights the contradiction between decades-old laws and citizens’ constitutional rights. While courts currently issue arrest warrants against check signatories who fail to pay an installment, the Court of Cassation acquitted the debtor, recognizing that holding them accountable based solely on these “authentication tools” is unjust. Most countries do not consider a “check without funds” a felony punishable by imprisonment, due to the absence of essential elements of a crime and the lack of sufficient physical evidence. Kuwait is one of the few countries where issuing a check without funds is treated as a punishable felony.

Indeed, this issue is currently under review, with Kuwait aiming to adopt the approach taken by advanced countries in this regard. However, continuing to imprison issuers of checks without sufficient funds and reactivating arrest warrants amid the large number of borrowers will only worsen overcrowding in already crowded prisons. With over 60,000 debtors who have not fully repaid their debts, often involving relatively small amounts, the cost of imprisoning one debtor may exceed the value of the debt itself. I will not delve into the reasons that lead borrowers to borrow, as they are numerous and, in most cases, purely humanitarian.