【正文】 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(xiàng)單據(jù)表面符合信用證條款，但其中某項(xiàng)必要單據(jù)事實(shí)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(shí) ，或 某項(xiàng)必要單據(jù)屬于偽造、帶有欺詐或在交易中存在欺詐時(shí)， ? ，如果提出兌付要求的是議付銀行；或是取得信用證項(xiàng)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(gòu)買人（第 8302條）；以及 ? ，相對(duì)于客戶來(lái)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。 ? 2）信用證欺詐例外的例外問題。 ? 尋求司法救濟(jì) —信用證欺詐例外原則。信用證案例分析 程 軍 中國(guó)銀行總行國(guó)際結(jié)算部總監(jiān) ICC CHINA 信用證專家組成員 2021年 2月 25日 上海 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun KEY ISSUE ONE LC FRAUD (信用證欺詐問題 ) Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? UCP中沒有信用證欺詐的規(guī)定。 ? UCP中也沒有規(guī)定信用證欺詐的救濟(jì)。 ? 1）什么是信用證欺詐 —信用證欺詐的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問題。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 信用證欺詐例外原則 ? 是指在肯定信用證獨(dú)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(duì)銀行的兌付行為予以禁止。 ” ) Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD 判例中出現(xiàn)了大量不同的認(rèn)定信用證欺詐的標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 1)Intentional Fraud NMC Enterprises Inc v. Columbia Broadcasting System Inc.((1974)14 UCC Rep Serv 1427) 2) Letter of credit fraud EmeryWaterhouse Co v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank((1985)757 F 2d 399) 3) Flexible Standard United Bank Ltd v. Cambridge Sporting Goods Corp((1976)392 NYS 2d 265) Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD 4) Constructive fraud Dynamics Corp of America v. Citizens amp。） 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。 ★ 5109及正式評(píng)論都沒有明確規(guī)定要舉證受益人的欺詐意圖。 ? 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 。 b. Intent to defraud。 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。 ? 受益人在對(duì)應(yīng)于 Washington的工程的保函項(xiàng)下遭到索賠，卻分別在兩份備用證下提交匯票索款，開證人對(duì)對(duì)應(yīng)于 Oregon工程的備用證以受益人的實(shí)質(zhì)性欺詐為由拒絕付款。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。 (3) its materiality。s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth。 (6) the hearer39。 (7) his reliance on its truth。 and (9) his consequent and proximate injury. Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 結(jié)論 ? 雖然 UCC5（ 1995）確立了 “ material fraud‖的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，但如何在具體案件中去把握則是取決于法官的自由裁量權(quán)。 （ 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)。 “ Material misrepresentation” Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? CASE STUDY ? UNITED CITY MERCHANTS (INVESTMENTS) LTD. v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA ? 涉及倒簽提單。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。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 上訴法院推翻了一審判決 : ? 申請(qǐng)人給予銀行的是對(duì) 真實(shí)單據(jù) 付款的授權(quán)，因而銀行對(duì)偽造單據(jù)拒絕付款是再正當(dāng)不過的了，第三方欺詐并不能成為受益人對(duì)欺詐例外原則適用的抗辯。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。為了能將信用證下的付款權(quán)控制在自己手中，以便在收到買方的貨款后再在信用證下付款，開證申請(qǐng)人在信用證中要求受益人提交由其出具并簽署的檢驗(yàn)證。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)。而此時(shí)買方已提了貨，逃之夭夭。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。 (b) No payment is due on the basis asserted in the demand and the supporting documents。 (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。 (d) Fulfilment of the underlying obligation has clearly been prevented by wilful misconduct of the beneficiary。 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，