【正文】 第三 類針對(duì) 欺詐 行為的措施就是開證行要求 申請(qǐng)人償 付的 行 為 。同樣， 這個(gè) 問題在于由 開證 申請(qǐng)人作出的 指明受益人欺詐的斷言是否有欺詐存在 以及 開證行在開證 申請(qǐng)人提出證據(jù)證明 交易有欺詐行為后 仍然履行信用證 項(xiàng)下付款的 決定是否 合理。我們必須牢記 的是開證行最終只 是作為有償付能力的 中 間方 處理文件和付款。 。當(dāng) 考慮 到開證行 可能 因?yàn)?訴訟 得 結(jié)果 而終止付款所造成損失時(shí) ，這 種 司法程序的后果是惡劣 的 ，即 貿(mào)易 雙方已成功 地將他們的問題 轉(zhuǎn) 嫁 給 了開證行 。令人驚訝 的是 欺詐源于開證行 不 熟悉的業(yè)務(wù)關(guān)系 。 盡管 開證行事先 收到 了開證申請(qǐng)人對(duì)于 受益人因 欺 詐 行為而 無權(quán) 要求付款的通知，但是開證行仍對(duì)受益人進(jìn)行了付款。 其次，與這 相關(guān)聯(lián)的問題是 ，對(duì)于 欺詐 的證據(jù)和說明文件 是否足以證明 開證行是為了 減輕其支付 的 義 務(wù)。 受益人針對(duì)開證行的行為 在發(fā)生欺詐 行為的 情況下 ， 通常 所采取的 第二類法律程序是 受益人針對(duì)開證行錯(cuò)誤地拒絕止付信用證時(shí)的行為。因此，在這種情況下 ，各州級(jí)的法律就適 用 了 。這 種情況就 是發(fā)生在 Sztejn的案例中 ，申請(qǐng)人 需要在 受益人 企圖用虛假的信用證議付前向法院申請(qǐng) 。 在 信用證 交易中 ， 受益人 的 不當(dāng)行為可能會(huì)引起多種的司法程序。 因?yàn)殂y行 對(duì)于代表貨物的單據(jù)付款時(shí)是 極其確保自身 的利益的。 這樣的裁決， 使 法 院奠定了今天在信用證交易 中信用證 欺詐例外 原則 的基礎(chǔ)。 第一 ，它 認(rèn)定 堅(jiān)持獨(dú)立自主原則 的 前提是 堅(jiān)持嚴(yán)格 相符的原 則。 就在 銀行 支付貨款之前 ，該案 原告發(fā)現(xiàn)了欺詐 行為 ，并尋求 法院的 禁令救濟(jì)，以宣布信用信無效 來阻止銀行 的付款 。為了支付 刷毛的貨款 ， Sztejn向開證行，即 意亨利施羅德銀行 申請(qǐng) 開 立 不可撤消信用證 。 再次， 在 符合法律規(guī)定的情況下，審查欺詐的當(dāng)事 雙 方的法律補(bǔ)救措施。過去，加拿大和美國的法院都愿意為了 阻止信用證 因 偽造或 欺詐 的行為而獲得支付，而不顧 信用證的 獨(dú)立原則。 為了防止 掉進(jìn)信用證欺詐的 陷阱，一個(gè)好 的建議就是與熟悉的 客 戶交易。 另一 種信用證欺詐的形式是空頭信用證。然后，買方指定第三方 申請(qǐng)開立信用證，這樣 一個(gè)合法的 信用證 將被發(fā)送給賣方。如果銀行未能及時(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn) 該 騙局，它 就 會(huì)釋放資金給賣方，然 而 ，案件直到買方 實(shí)際 收到貨物后 后才會(huì)被發(fā)現(xiàn)。畢竟，銀行只檢查 相關(guān)的 文件，而 不是檢查在港口的貨物。這種付款方式是獨(dú)立于基本 的 業(yè)務(wù)交易。 買方 為了 從開證行那 獲得這些文件 ，就 須完成其付款或 按照與開證行的 共同商定 在到期日付款 。 在收到 信用證 時(shí)，賣方將與通知行核對(duì)其真實(shí)性。但是，在國際貿(mào)易相當(dāng)數(shù)量的案例中，信用證的獨(dú)立性受到了挑戰(zhàn)，主要因?yàn)樵诨A(chǔ)交易中的欺詐行為。s demand for payment. This is what occurred in Sztejn, in which the applicant learnt prior to honor that the beneficiary had attempted to wrongfully draw under the credit. The court will only order an interlocutory or provisional injunction preventing the issuer from paying the beneficiary upon proof being made by the applicant that it would suffer irreparable prejudice even before the institution of an action as a result of the alleged fraud. In general, however, courts are reluctant to grant such injunctive relief and in only few cases will the injunction be maintained in subsequent judicial proceedings. Canada In Canada, there is no specific federal law governing the issuing of interlocutory injunctions in a fraud in the transaction scenario. Thus, in such cases provincial law applies. A distinction, however, must be made between the fraud test in an application for an 6 interlocutory injunction and that in a nonprovisional judicial proceeding. In contrast to a court action, in which fraud must be dearly and obviously established, a strong prima facie case of fraud suffices on a motion for an interlocutory injunction. It is acknowledged, however, that while the conclusions drawn in earlier cases offer valuable guidance, the circumstances of each case must be considered in their own unique light” in order to assess whether injunctive relief should be granted. Action by the beneficiary against the issuer The second type of legal proceeding that monly arises in a fraud context is an action taken by the beneficiary against the issuer when the latter has wrongfully dishonored the letter of credit. Here, the issuer has decided to refuse payment to the beneficiary, since it received notice by the applicant of an alleged fraud mitted by the beneficiary. Consequently, the beneficiary seeks to prove that it mitted no fraud, and that the issuer, therefore, breached its obligation under the credit to honor any documentary presentation in pliance with the terms of the credit. Therefore, the courts must first determine what generally constitutes fraud and whether the particular case before it meets the definition of fraud. The second, but interconnected, question then is whether the proof or demonstration of such fraud suffices in order to relieve the issuer of its obligation to pay under the letter of credit. In other words, the courts must determine the obligations of the issuer when confronted with proof or an allegation of fraud. Action by the Issuer against the applicant In the third fraud scenario, the issuer institutes an action against the applicant in which it seeks reimbursement. Although the issuer has honored the letter of credit the applicant refuses to indemnify the issuer, since the latter paid the beneficiary notwithstanding the fact that it received prior notice by the applicant that the beneficiary was not entitled to payment