【正文】 ? 是指在肯定信用證獨立性原則的前提下，允許銀行在存在信用證欺詐的情況下，不予兌付，法院亦可以頒發(fā)止付令對銀行的兌付行為予以禁止。 ? UCP中也沒有規(guī)定信用證欺詐的救濟(jì)。 ? 尋求司法救濟(jì) —信用證欺詐例外原則。 ? 三個理論基礎(chǔ) ? 欺詐使一切變得無效（ fraus omnia corrumpit) ? 誠實信用原則 ? 公共秩序保留原則 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 信用證欺詐認(rèn)定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn) ? 美國的標(biāo)準(zhǔn) ? A) PreUCC Position ? B) Prior UCC Article 5 Position ? C) Revised UCC Article 5 Position Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? A) PreUCC Position ? The Sztejn Case ? (1941年里程碑式的判例： Sztejn v. J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp(31 631) ) ? Intentional fraud/egregious fraud/a more flexible equitable standard of fraud Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? B) Prior UCC Article 5 Position ? 4114（ 2）條 : ―除非另有協(xié)議，當(dāng)各項單據(jù)表面符合信用證條款，但其中某項必要單據(jù)事實上不符合所有權(quán)憑證之流通或轉(zhuǎn)讓中的擔(dān)保（ warranty made on negotiation or transfer of a document of title）（第 7507條）或保付證券之流通或轉(zhuǎn)讓中的擔(dān)保（第 8306條）時 ，或 某項必要單據(jù)屬于偽造、帶有欺詐或在交易中存在欺詐時， ? ，如果提出兌付要求的是議付銀行；或是取得信用證項下之匯票或支付命令的其他執(zhí)票人，只要該執(zhí)票人取得匯票或支付命令的方式使其可以成為正當(dāng)執(zhí)票人（第 3302條），或在適當(dāng)情況下，使其可以成為所有權(quán)憑證正常流通后的受讓人（第 7502條）或保付證券的善意購買人（第 8302條）；以及 ? ，相對于客戶來說，開證人只要善意作為，就可以兌付匯票或支付命令，即使客戶已經(jīng)發(fā)出通知，說明單據(jù)上存在欺詐、偽造或其他表面上不能顯見的缺陷；但具有適當(dāng)管轄權(quán)的法院可以禁止此種兌付。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD 對 “ material fraud‖的把握： ★ 對于 單據(jù)中的欺詐 而言， “ 實質(zhì)性欺詐 ” 達(dá)到令單據(jù)無效的嚴(yán)重程度，破壞了其作為信用證交易所特定要求的本質(zhì)； ★ 對于 基礎(chǔ)交易中的欺詐 而言，受益人非根本性的違約一般不能被認(rèn)為構(gòu)成欺詐，只有受益人的行為嚴(yán)重違背包括基礎(chǔ)合同在內(nèi)的整個交易安排，導(dǎo)致對方的根本合同目的或主要目的已經(jīng)落空時，才構(gòu)成 “ 實質(zhì)性欺詐 ” 。 ? Q： Applicant是否可以欺詐為由向法院申請支付該筆信用證下的付款 ？ Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? Under New York law, the essential elements of a mon law fraud claim include: a. A material, false representation。但備用證中并未明確是對應(yīng)于具體的工程。 (2) its falsity。 (5) his intent that it should be acted on by the person and in the manner reasonably contemplated。 (8) his right to rely thereon。 英國一直對欺詐例外原則的適用有相當(dāng)嚴(yán) 格的限制。 ? Q:是否可以以欺詐為由拒絕付款 ? Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 一審法院 :如果是賣方個人的欺詐行為或不道德行為去提交這樣的倒簽單據(jù)，銀行應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù) “ 違反道德之對價不生訴權(quán) ” 的原則有權(quán)拒絕付款，但該案中的欺詐行為不在賣方，其在提交單據(jù)時也不知悉，因而賣方有權(quán)得到信用證下的償付。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 學(xué)術(shù)界對該案的評論更多的是批評： ? 《 Export Trade》 by . Schmitthoff:“The decision of the Court of Appeal represented sound mercial sense.” ? 《 Benjamin?s Sale of Goods》 ： “ It is disturbing that whilst a document stating the true loading date could have been rejected by the bank in the light of the doctrine of strict pliance, a document in which the loading date was fraudulently misrepresented by its maker constituted a valid tender in the beneficiary?s hands.” ? 《 Bank Credits And Acceptances》 by H. Harfield: Although it is not explicitly stated in every letter of credit that the documents should be genuine, it is logically and generally recognized that there is an implied warranty by the beneficiary that documents tendered are genuine. Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? Montrod Ltd. V. Grundkotter FleischvertriedsGmbh(2021) ? 該案中賣方為信用證的受益人，而買方委托另一家公司作為申請人開立了信用證。當(dāng)申請人發(fā)現(xiàn)檢驗證不是其出具并簽署時，馬上要求開證行拒絕付款。s presentation of documents that its employees signed for the Applicant in the honest belief that the buyer rightfully authorized them to do so did not fall within the fraud exception, and English law did not recognize a separate nullity exception for documents honestly created and presented. Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 聯(lián)合國獨立擔(dān)保和備用信用證公約（ UNCITRAL CONVENTION）的標(biāo)準(zhǔn) ? Article 19. Exception to payment obligation 1) If it is manifest and clear that: (a) Any document is not genuine or has been falsified。 (c) The underlying obligation has undoubtedly been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the beneficiary。 ? 該第三方必須在上述開證行的授權(quán)范圍內(nèi)行事。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 開證行的授權(quán) ? 對于被指定議付行而言，開證行的授權(quán)為： 議付 根據(jù) UCP修訂稿中的 “ HONOR‖定義： ? 對于被指定即期付款行而言，開證行的授權(quán)為： 即期付款 。貼現(xiàn)后一周， 開證行通知受益人提交了偽造的單據(jù)并存在確鑿的欺詐。如果保兌行沒有在到期日前貼現(xiàn)，當(dāng)?shù)弥嬖诖_鑿欺詐時，完全可以在到期日以欺詐例外的抗辯來拒絕付款。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 注意兩點： ? 1） 該匯票必須是在票據(jù)法上合格的流通票據(jù)。 Energy Bank((1984)450 So 2d 1, aff‘d in part,rev‘d in part(1985)464 So 2d) Copyright2021 Cheng Jun KEY ISSUE TWO NEGOTIATION 議 付 MISSION IMPOSSIBLE? Copyright2021 Cheng Jun NEGOTIATION 議付的定義？？？ ? UCP500 ? POSITION PAPER NO. 2 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun NEGOTIATION 什么是 “ undertaking an obligation to make payment”——承擔(dān)付款責(zé)任？ ? 加拿大信用證專家李道安的觀點 ? GARY COLLYER的觀點 ? 馮敬德律師的觀點 ? RABO BANK v BANK OF CHINA Copyright2021 Cheng Jun NEGOTIATION UCP中 “ 對價 ” 概念的法律基礎(chǔ) ——英美法中的 “ 對價 ” 概念 ? 英美合同法中 的對價概念 ? 英美票據(jù)法中 的對價概念 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun NEGOTIATION ? 不可撤銷的允諾符合英美法中的對價概念，這正是“承擔(dān)付款責(zé)任”的淵源。 ? 回避了 “ 支付對價 ” 的概念 。 僅僅審核單據(jù)不構(gòu)成議付 。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun NEGOTIATION 一個期望： ? 期望修訂小組能推出一個明確、確切、為各國銀行委員會所接受的定義。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun NEGOTIATION 個人的一個建議 ? 將原先定義中的 “ 承擔(dān)付款責(zé)任 ” 改為“ 作出付款允諾并在該允諾到期日付款 ” ，即作出允諾和在允諾到期日（在信用證兌付到期日之前）付款兩個行為方才構(gòu)成議付。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun STANDARD FOR EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS ? ICC意見 TA593Rev. ? 信用證中有一個單據(jù)要求為： “ Health certificate is required‖，議付行在提交的單據(jù)中有兩份 “ health certificate‖,一份由受益人出具，一份由該國農(nóng)業(yè)食品部出具。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun STANDARD FOR EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS ? Q： 此時開證行是否能堅持拒付理由？ ? ICC： “ On the basis that the negotiating bank did not indicate that the health certificates, ., those in the form of statutory declarations, were to be considered as additional documents (and therefore subject to the conditions of subArticle 13(a)) it is understandable that the issuing bank will have faced a decision as to which of the two certificates were to be considered as the required health certificate. However, given that the negotiating bank at the time of receipt of the refusal provided clarity as to the document to be considered for review under the L/C, the issuing bank should, on the basis of the L/C not being specific as to the issuer of the required health certificate, have reviewed the document that had be