《信用证案例分析 中行程军》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《信用证案例分析 中行程军（150页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、信用证案例分析程 军中国银行总行国际结算部总监 ICC CHINA 信用证专家组成员2006年2月25日 上海Copyright2005 Cheng JunKEY ISSUE ONELC FRAUD (信用证欺诈问题)Copyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUDn 1、UCP中没有信用证欺诈的规定。 n 2、UCP中也没有规定信用证欺诈的救济 。n 3、寻求司法救济信用证欺诈例外原则 。n1）什么是信用证欺诈信用证欺诈的 认定标准问题。n2）信用证欺诈例外的例外问题。Copyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUDn信用证欺诈例外原则n是指在肯定信用证独立性原则
2、的前提下，允许银 行在存在信用证欺诈的情况下，不予兑付，法院 亦可以颁发止付令对银行的兑付行为予以禁止。n三个理论基础n欺诈使一切变得无效（fraus omnia corrumpit)n诚实信用原则 n公共秩序保留原则 Copyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUDn信用证欺诈认定的标准n1、美国的标准nA) Pre-UCC PositionnB) Prior UCC Article 5 PositionnC) Revised UCC Article 5 PositionCopyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUDnA) Pre-UCC PositionnTh
3、e Sztejn Casen(1941年里程碑式的判例：Sztejn v. J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp(31 N.Y.S.2d 631) )nIntentional fraud/egregious fraud/a more flexible equitable standard of fraudCopyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUDnB) Prior UCC Article 5 Positionn4-114（2）条 : “除非另有协议，当各项单据表面符合信用证条款， 但其中某项必要单据事实上不符合所有权凭证之流通或转让中的担保 （war
4、ranty made on negotiation or transfer of a document of title）（第7-507条）或保付证券之流通或转让中的担保（第8- 306条）时，或某项必要单据属于伪造、带有欺诈或在交易中存在欺 诈时，n a.开证人必须兑付汇票或支付命令，如果提出兑付要求的是议付银 行；或是取得信用证项下之汇票或支付命令的其他执票人，只要该执 票人取得汇票或支付命令的方式使其可以成为正当执票人（第3-302 条），或在适当情况下，使其可以成为所有权凭证正常流通后的受让 人（第7-502条）或保付证券的善意购买人（第8-302条）；以及n b.在所有其他情况下，相
5、对于客户来说，开证人只要善意作为， 就可以兑付汇票或支付命令，即使客户已经发出通知，说明单据上存 在欺诈、伪造或其他表面上不能显见的缺陷；但具有适当管辖权的法 院可以禁止此种兑付。”)Copyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUD判例中出现了大量不同的认定信用证欺诈的标准1)Intentional FraudNMC Enterprises Inc v. Columbia Broadcasting System Inc.(1974)14 UCC Rep Serv 1427)2) Letter of credit fraudEmery-Waterhouse Co v. Rhode
6、Island Hospital Trust National Bank(1985)757 F 2d 399) 3) Flexible StandardUnited Bank Ltd v. Cambridge Sporting Goods Corp(1976)392 NYS 2d 265) Copyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUD4) Constructive fraud Dynamics Corp of America v. Citizens nIntent to defraud;nReasonable reliance on the representation;nCa
7、using damages to the plaintiff.Copyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUDnThe 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 u
8、nder the L/C if documents that appear on their face to comply with L/C terms were presented. Copyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUDnThe 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 transact
9、ion.n“ misrepresentation was material because the issuer would not have honored the credit had the misrepresentation not been made. “Copyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUDnWestern Surety Co. v. Bank of Southern Oregon nBank of Southern Oregon 开立了两份以 Western Surety Co.为受益人的备用信用证， 用来反担保Western Surety Co.开出的两
10、份履 约保函，该保函一份对应于Washington的工程 ，一份对应于Oregon的工程。但备用证中并未 明确是对应于具体的工程。n受益人在对应于Washington的工程的保函项下 遭到索赔，却分别在两份备用证下提交汇票索款 ，开证人对对应于Oregon工程的备用证以受益 人的实质性欺诈为由拒绝付款。 Q: 开证人的以实质性欺诈为由的抗辩能成立吗？Copyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUDCOURT：“First, there is no evidence of a representation by the beneficiary. Indeed, the only e
11、vidence of record is that the beneficiary merely presented the Bank with the drafts required by the letters. Further, assuming that Westerns 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,
12、date, expiration date and aggregate amount, and there is no indication anywhere on them that they were for specific construction projects.“ Copyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUDCOURT：“to establish a claim for fraud, the Bank had to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the following e
13、lements: (1) a representation; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the speakers knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) his intent that it should be acted on by the person and in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the hearers ignorance of its falsity; (7) his reliance on i
14、ts truth; (8) his right to rely thereon; and (9) his consequent and proximate injury.“ Copyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUDn结论n虽然UCC5（1995）确立了“material fraud”的认定标准，但如何在具体案件中 去把握则是取决于法官的自由裁量权。对 什么是“实质性欺诈”的判决仍有不同的判 例产生。 （Mid-America Tire, Inc. v. PTZ Trading Ltd. Import and Export Agents ）Copyright2005 Che
15、ng JunLC FRAUDn 2、英国的标准 英国因信用证欺诈而给予禁令救济的第一 宗判例出现在1977年（Edward Owen v.Barclays Bank)。 英国一直对欺诈例外原则的适用有相当严 格的限制。 “Material misrepresentation”Copyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUDnCASE STUDYnUNITED CITY MERCHANTS (INVESTMENTS) LTD. v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA n涉及倒签提单。货物实际于1976年12月16 日装船，但提单显示的装运日期为12月15 日(L/C要求的最
16、迟装船日）。而该倒签行为 是航运代理人瞒着受益人作出的，受益人并 不知晓。nQ:是否可以以欺诈为由拒绝付款?Copyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUDn一审法院:如果是卖方个人的欺诈行为 或不道德行为去提交这样的倒签单据 ，银行应当根据“违反道德之对价不生 诉权”的原则有权拒绝付款，但该案中 的欺诈行为不在卖方，其在提交单据 时也不知悉，因而卖方有权得到信用 证下的偿付。 Copyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUDn上诉法院推翻了一审判决 :n申请人给予银行的是对真实单据付款的授 权，因而银行对伪造单据拒绝付款是再正 当不过的了，第三方欺诈并不能成为受益 人对欺诈例外原则适用的抗辩。n风险分摊的角度 n银行担保权益角度 Copyright2005 Cheng JunLC FRAUDn贵族院又推翻了上诉法院的判决，维 持一审法院的判决 :n仍然强调由于是第三方欺诈，受益
