四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.81

2.81

First: The owner suffering loss through custodial protection. The Samantapāsādikā states: If a bhikṣu guards and protects property on behalf of another individual, or even the Three Jewels, and if he exercises cautious custody, firmly locking the doors of the storehouse; yet a thief-bhikṣu steals it by taking it through an aperture or inside the building, or takes it by force and intimidation, which exceeds the limit of what the custodial owner could prevent; then the offense is incurred with reference to the original owner, and it is not permissible to demand restitution from the guardian of the property (if one demands restitution, one commits a grave offense). If the owner is habitually negligent and lazy, failing to diligently oversee and keep record, and it is stolen by a thief; then the guardian bhikṣu must make restitution for it, not with reference to the original owner; if he does not return it, the custodian incurs an offense.