【正文】 ? 2）如果開(kāi)證行判斷出單據(jù)不相符，有權(quán)聲稱(chēng)單據(jù)不符而拒絕兌付。在美國(guó)法上，根據(jù)1995修訂的 UCC 5117，申請(qǐng)人在償付開(kāi)證人后可代為取得開(kāi)證人對(duì)任何受益人、提示人、或被指定人的權(quán)利，其權(quán)利范圍如同申請(qǐng)人是對(duì)開(kāi)證人負(fù)有的義務(wù)之第二債務(wù)人。 ? 如果被認(rèn)定為一種代理關(guān)系 ：開(kāi)證行應(yīng)承擔(dān)由于單據(jù)遺失而導(dǎo)致的損失 。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun DOCUMENTS LOSS 特例 ?—♂ ： 如果是由于 UCP500第 17條中規(guī)定的 不可抗力而導(dǎo)致的遺失，被指定行雖不能援用 UCP第16條但可援用第 17條免責(zé)。 ” 該條規(guī)定銀行在單據(jù)寄送過(guò)程中的遺失給予免責(zé)。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun STANDARD FOR EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS ? 2）拼寫(xiě)或打字錯(cuò)誤有可能導(dǎo)致歧義或產(chǎn)生實(shí)質(zhì)性影響的，則要結(jié)合語(yǔ)境、聯(lián)系提交的其他單據(jù)作出綜合判斷。但其他單據(jù)，比如提單上顯示了正確的貨物明細(xì)數(shù)量，但沒(méi)有顯示貨物總的數(shù)量。Industrial Park39。. ? c) AWB shows beneficiary39。 named in the AWB as 39。 instead of 39。交單的議付行聲稱(chēng)受益人證明的出具日期是打字錯(cuò)誤，是將 “ Feb 14‖錯(cuò)打成了 “ Feb 4‖。（ Pasir Gudang Edible Oils SDN BHD v. Bank of New York 1999） Copyright2021 Cheng Jun STANDARD FOR EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS ? Q6： 信用證要求的一份單據(jù)的出具時(shí)間是1998年，但受益人提交的該單據(jù)卻錯(cuò)誤地顯示成了 1997年。（ Boston Hides amp。 ? 實(shí)務(wù)中須具體問(wèn)題具體分析，涉及到訴訟中法官的自由裁量權(quán)。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun STANDARD FOR EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS ? 一則不妥的 ICC意見(jiàn) R251 ? ICC： “ 一致 ” 要求相同信息（比如相同的重量、體積、麥頭）在不同單據(jù)之間顯示出相同細(xì)節(jié)，不管該信息是否是信用證要求顯示的。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun STANDARD FOR EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS ? “ 不是不一致 ” 與 “ 一致 ” 的微小區(qū)別 ? ICC意見(jiàn) R11:單據(jù)之間 “ 一致 ” 不僅要求單據(jù)間沒(méi)有不一致，還必須建立關(guān)聯(lián)。第二天（在信用證效期和交單期內(nèi)）議付行發(fā)來(lái)電報(bào)，由受益人出具的HEALTH CERT為其在該信用證項(xiàng)下提交的應(yīng)被審核的單據(jù)。 Animal Byproducts Corp.(1966 1 Lloyd’s Rep 367) ? MidAmerica Tire, Inc. v. PTZ Trading Ltd. Import and Export Agents（ 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 5402 [.]） 對(duì)于額外單據(jù)，銀行不應(yīng)審核，如果該額外單據(jù)不符，銀行不能以此拒付。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun NEGOTIATION 不是辦法的辦法 ? 修訂小組內(nèi)唯一亞洲成員，新加坡信用證專(zhuān)家蘇志成先生仍然傾向于刪除議付概念，同時(shí)建議如果信用證當(dāng)事方有融資需求，可在信用證內(nèi)添加允許融資的授權(quán)條款，以期徹底解除議付問(wèn)題。 ? 產(chǎn)生的新問(wèn)題： 會(huì)帶來(lái)在其他類(lèi)型信用證下的對(duì)單據(jù)及或匯票的 “ purchase(買(mǎi)入 )”也被視為議付。 ? “ negotiation”是指議付信用證下 ， 被指定行以預(yù)付款項(xiàng)或同意預(yù)付款項(xiàng)給受益人的方式對(duì)匯票 （ 該匯票的受票行不是被指定行 ） 及 /或單據(jù)的買(mǎi)入 。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun NEGOTIATION DRAFT 2中的議付定義 : ? 在單據(jù)相符時(shí) ， 被指定行對(duì)受益人提交的匯票及 /或單據(jù)的付款或付款責(zé)任 。 ? Cromwell v. Commerce amp。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 3） 正當(dāng)持票人（ Holders in Due Course） ? 只有在信用證要求提交遠(yuǎn)期匯票，且在開(kāi)證行作為該匯票的承兌人作出承兌時(shí)，該匯票的正當(dāng)持票人才能享受開(kāi)證行欺詐例外的豁免權(quán)。開(kāi)證行并未要求保兌行在到期日前貼現(xiàn)或支付任何對(duì)價(jià)，這只是保兌行自己的決定，盡管這樣做也沒(méi)有與指令相違背。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD Banco Santander v. Banque Paribas ? 案情： ? 在提單日后 180天的延期付款信用證下保兌行憑一份款項(xiàng)讓渡書(shū)貼現(xiàn)了遠(yuǎn)期付款款項(xiàng)。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 2）被指定付款 /議付 /延期付款 /承兌行 ? 被指定行必須在開(kāi)證行的授權(quán)范圍內(nèi)行事，同時(shí)必須善意地支付對(duì)價(jià)，這樣才能受到豁免權(quán)的保護(hù)。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 幾點(diǎn)值得注意： ? 未強(qiáng)調(diào)欺詐的 “ 實(shí)質(zhì)性 ” ? 但從（二）中也能夠體現(xiàn)出 “ 實(shí)質(zhì)性欺詐 ”的標(biāo)準(zhǔn) ? 明確了信用證欺詐的形式 ? ―提交記載內(nèi)容虛假的單據(jù) ” —標(biāo)準(zhǔn)太低？ Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 信用證欺詐例外豁免原則（信用證欺詐例外的例外原則） ? 信用證欺詐例外的豁免的理論基礎(chǔ) ? 保護(hù)善意第三方 ? 風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分?jǐn)偟慕嵌? ? 在什么情況下，將適用信用證欺詐例外的豁免原則呢？ Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 必須符合四個(gè)條件： ? 該第三方必須支付了對(duì)價(jià) ? 該第三方必須要有開(kāi)證行的授權(quán)去兌付或議付，或以自己的名義提交單據(jù)索款。 (b) The underlying obligation of the principal/applicant has been declared invalid by a court or arbitral tribunal, unless the undertaking indicates that such contingency falls within the risk to be covered by the undertaking。s behalf at the time of presentation of the documents. Therefore, the court concluded that the beneficiary had not acted dishonestly and that no fraud had been mitted. ? it found no support for the submission that there exists in parallel with the fraud exception a second exception covering documents which are nullities to the knowledge of the bank at the time of payment through the beneficiary is innocent of any deception” Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? Court of Appeal: ? Beneficiary39。于是受益人就讓該員工簽發(fā)檢驗(yàn)證，并妥當(dāng)?shù)靥峤涣伺c信用證表面相符的單據(jù)。另外還認(rèn)為，該帶有虛假裝船日期的提單并未完全失去法律效力，畢竟貨物已經(jīng)裝運(yùn)，提單持有人仍可以用以提貨。而該倒簽行為是航運(yùn)代理人瞞著受益人作出的，受益人并不知曉。 （ MidAmerica Tire, Inc. v. PTZ Trading Ltd. Import and Export Agents ） Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 英國(guó)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 英國(guó)因信用證欺詐而給予禁令救濟(jì)的第一 宗判例出現(xiàn)在 1977年（ Edward Owen v. Barclays Bank)。 (7) his reliance on its truth。s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth。s drafts acted as some sort of representation, there is no evidence that it was false. The letters of credit are identical on their face, except for the number, date, expiration date and aggregate amount, and there is no indication anywhere on them that they were for specific construction projects. Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD COURT： “ to establish a claim for fraud, the Bank had to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the following elements: (1) a representation。 d. Causing damages to the plaintiff. Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? The beneficiary admitted that it had known that the fibre content of the goods shipped did not match the description of the goods stated in the presented documents. The beneficiary also knew that the issuing bank would be liable to pay under the L/C if documents that appear on their face to ply with L/C terms were presented. Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? The court therefore concluded that the beneficiary had intended to defraud the issuer and that a 5% discrepancy in fabric content was material to the underlying sales transaction. ? “ misrepresentation was material because the issuer would not have honored the credit had the misrepresentation not been made. “ Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? Western Surety Co. v. Bank of Southern Oregon ? Bank of Southern Oregon 開(kāi)立了兩份以Western Surety ，用來(lái)反擔(dān)保 Western Surety 函，該保函一份對(duì)應(yīng)于 Washington的工程，一份對(duì)應(yīng)于 Oregon的工程。 ? 受益人實(shí)際出運(yùn) “ fabric with a 70% rayon/30% wool content”， 但提交的單據(jù)中卻虛假地顯示與信用證相同的貨物且單據(jù)相符 。） Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? OFFICAL COMMENTS： ? “ The use of the word requires that the fraudulent aspect of a document be material to a purchaser of that document or that the fraudulent act be material to the participants in the underlying transaction.‖ ? 一個(gè)通俗易懂的例子。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 信用證欺詐例外原則