RECEPTUM ARGENTARII AS A FORM OF BANKING TRANSACTION IN ROMAN LAW

Receptum argentarii constitutes one of the principals yet insuffi ciently elucidated legal institutions in Roman banking law. Th rough this institution, a banker undertook the obligation to discharge a debt owed by the client to a third party. In practice, the receptum implicated three parties – the banker, the client, and the third party (creditor). However, the legally binding relationship was exclusively established between the banker and the creditor. Should the banker fail to perform the undertaken obligation, the creditor was entitled to sue via the actio recepticia, introduced by the praetor in the 2nd century BCE. Although fundamentally a form of suretyship, the receptum diff ers from traditional forms of personal security (sponsio, fi depromissio, fi deiussio) by virtue of the direct legal relationship arising between the banker and creditor, independent of the debtor’s consent or presence. While some scholars regard the receptum argentarii as a formal verbal contract, the predominant view holds that it was concluded by an informal declaration by the banker to the client’s creditor, undertaking payment of the client’s debt. Initially confined to argentarii, its application later extended to nummularii, underscoring the significance of professional bankers within the legal and economic framework of ancient Rome. As intermediaries between debtors and creditors, Roman bankers not only provided custodial and financial services but actively contributed to legal security and efficiency in payment transactions through institutions such as the receptum. Th eir capacity to assume clients’ obligations toward third parties, coupled with praetorian legal protection, established them as pivotal agents in the evolution of the Roman law of obligations. An analysis of pertinent excerpts from Justinian’s Codification reveals that in post-classical law, the receptum argentarii was deemed unacceptable due to its abstract character – it permitted the banker to effect payment to the creditor absent prior establishment of the client’s actual obligation. Accordingly, Emperor Justinian repealed the actio recepticia and transferred the function of the receptum to the institution of constitutum debiti, which was grounded on an existing debt. This latter institution involved an informal undertaking to pay an extant debt, whether one’s own (constitutum debiti proprii) or another’s (constitutum debiti alieni), within a defined time and place. The formal abolition of the receptum in the 6th century epitomized a profound conceptual shift in legal transactions – from formality and abstraction toward causality and informality. Consequently, receptum argentarii remains an exemplary institution whose analysis provides deeper insight not only into the development of banking activities in Rome but also into the transformation of the Roman law of obligations during late antiquity. In contemporary law, the demand guarantee is most similar to the Roman receptum argentarii