The commission of criminal acts by minors, due to their lack of discernment or incomplete intellectual capacity, may result in the exclusion or limitation of their criminal liability. Nevertheless, in light of the need to preserve public order and the La Darar (no-harm) principle, this does not preclude the establishment of civil liability and financial responsibility toward the injured party. The fundamental issue addressed in this study is to clarify the distribution of liability between the minor as the direct perpetrator and his or her legal or customary guardian, as well as to delineate the foundations of compensation for damages in Imami jurisprudence, Iranian law, and leading legal systems. Using a descriptive-analytical and comparative methodology, this study examines the relevant legal evidence and statutory provisions governing the subject. The findings indicate that, in Imami jurisprudence and Iranian civil law, based on the principle of itlaf (destruction or direct causation of damage) and Article 1216 of the Civil Code, the general rule is that the minor who directly causes the damage bears primary and direct financial liability. However, the liability of the guardian is based on the principle of causation (tasbib) and Article 7 of the Civil Liability Act, and is fault-based, arising from failure to exercise adequate supervision or proper upbringing, and is subject to proof. In cases where the guardian is insolvent or cannot be accessed, the legal system, in order to protect the injured party, permits secondary recourse to the minor’s assets. From a comparative perspective, French judicial practice, by moving beyond the rebuttable presumption of fault under Article 1242 of the French Civil Code, has established an objective and statutory liability for parents, whereas common-law systems continue to adhere to the principle that parents are not vicariously liable for the acts of their children and that ...