with the understanding that they would not be liable for any of that, and they did not receive a substitute for what they became liable for. If they knew that it was usurped, the liability is established upon them, because the destruction occurred under their control without anyone deceiving them, so the liability is established upon them; if they paid anything, they do not seek recourse for it. If he holds the usurper liable, he seeks recourse from them, because the destruction occurred while in their hands. If the usurper injured it, then left it as a trust or returned it to its owner, and it was destroyed due to the injury, the liability is established upon the usurper in all cases, because he is the one who caused the destruction, so the liability is upon him, just as if he had directly caused the destruction while it was in his hands.

Section: If he lends the usurped asset, and it is destroyed while in the possession of the borrower, [the owner may hold either of them liable for its rent and value. If he holds the borrower liable] while he knew of the usurpation, he does not seek recourse from anyone, and if he holds the usurper liable, he [the usurper] seeks recourse from the borrower. If he did not know of the usurpation, and he holds him liable, he does not seek recourse for the value of the asset, because he received it with the understanding that he would be liable for it. Does he seek recourse for what he paid in terms of rent? There are two views: one is that he does seek recourse, because he entered into the contract with the understanding that the usufruct is for him and not liable for it. The second is that he does not seek recourse, because he benefited from it, so he has received the substitute for what he paid. The same rule applies to what is destroyed of the parts due to usage. If the asset was of higher value at the time of taking possession than on the day of destruction, and he became liable for the higher amount, it is appropriate that he should seek recourse for the difference between the two values, because he entered into it with the understanding that he would not be liable for it, and he did not receive its substitute. If the borrower returns it to the usurper, the owner may also hold him [the usurper] liable, because he deprived the owner of his property by handing it over to one who is not entitled to it. The liability is established upon the usurper if the destruction occurred in his hands. The same rule applies to the trustee and others.

Section: If he gifts the usurped property to someone who knows of the usurpation, the liability is established upon the donee,