Signing a Blank Document Under Syrian Law
Trust That May Become a Legal Obligation
Some believe that stating before the court, “I signed the document blank”, is enough to invalidate the instrument and the obligation contained in it. However, Syrian law and judicial precedents do not approach the matter so simply.
An ordinary instrument derives its evidentiary force primarily from the signature of the person from whom it originates, pursuant to Article /9/ of the Syrian Evidence Law. The instrument does not lose its probative value merely because the signature preceded the recording of its particulars.
What Does Signing a Blank Document Mean?
The Syrian Court of Cassation has consistently held that signing a blank document is permissible in principle, and that it grants the person to whom the document is delivered authority to complete it within the limits of what was agreed.
Accordingly, merely alleging that the document was blank when signed does not invalidate it. Rather, the person alleging that the particulars were added contrary to the agreement bears the burden of proving that allegation.
In Decision No. /379/ of 1995, the Court of Cassation held that signing a blank document is permissible and that the burden of proving that what was written contradicted the agreement falls on the person making that allegation. In other decisions, it also confirmed that signing a document while it is blank does not, merely for that reason, deprive it of its evidentiary force.
Can the Signatory Prove That the Particulars Were Added Contrary to the Agreement?
Yes, but in accordance with the rules of evidence.
As a general rule, the contents established by a written instrument may not be rebutted merely through statements or witnesses when the rules of evidence require written proof, unless a statutory exception applies, such as the existence of a commencement of proof in writing or established circumstances permitting proof by other means.
If, however, obtaining the document or signature was connected with fraud, deception, or unlawful means, the scope of admissible proof may differ. The court determines the legal characterization and the civil or criminal consequences according to the circumstances of each case. Syrian judicial precedent has distinguished between the voluntary delivery of a document signed in blank and cases tainted by fraud or deception.
The Rule to Remember:
Saying “I signed it blank” is not, by itself, a sufficient defense.
The real question before the court will be:
Can you prove that what was written above your signature contradicts what you authorized the other party to write?
At that point, the case moves beyond simply denying the instrument and becomes a battle of proof whose outcome may be highly significant.
CounselO Lens:
Signing a blank document is not a signature without consequences… it may be an extension of trust that imposes significant legal consequences on its signatory.
Therefore, the simplest and safest legal advice remains: Do not sign a document whose contents are blank; if you must do so, specify its purpose in writing and retain independent evidence of the limits of the authorization.
Syrian Evidence Law
Syrian Legal Encyclopedia – Ordinary Instruments and Signing a Blank Document