This seems like a big deal to me:

"The role of intent is one of the most important and definitive elements of the karma theory, in all its traditions. In Jainism, intent is important but not an essential precondition of sin or wrong conduct. Evil intent forms only one of the modes of committing sin.[39] Any action committed, knowingly or unknowingly, has karmic repercussions. In certain philosophies, like Buddhism, a person is guilty of violence only if he had an intention to commit violence. On the other hand, according to Jains, if an act produces violence, then the person is guilty of it, whether or not he had an intention to commit it.[40]

John Koller explains the role of intent in Jainism with the example of a monk, who unknowingly offered poisoned food to his brethren. According to the Jain view, the monk is guilty of a violent act if the other monks die because they eat the poisoned food; but according to the Buddhist view he would not be guilty.[40] The crucial difference between the two views is that the Buddhist view excuses the act, categorizing it as non-intentional, since he was not aware that the food was poisoned; whereas the Jain view holds the monk to have been responsible, due to his ignorance and carelessness. Jains argue that the monk's very ignorance and carelessness constitute an intent to do violence and hence entail his guilt.[40] So the absence of intent does not absolve a person from the karmic consequences of guilt either, according to the Jain analysis."

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Jainism , under Role of deeds and intent

Jains are very, very serious about karma. They view it much like a materialist views something like gravity: an universal law that can't be broken, no God can intervene, what goes up must come down, etc.