Remedies to Fraud in Documentary Letters of Credit: A Comparative Perspective / Opravné Opatrenia Pri Podvodoch S Dokumentárnymi Akreditívami: Komparatívna Perspektíva

Open access

Abstract

Article 4 of the Unified Customs and Practices of Documentary Letters of Credit establishes the notion of autonomy principle by separating credit from underlying contract between account party and beneficiary. Article 5 by recognizing the autonomy principle confirms that effectuate the payment under credit, banks only deal with documents and not with goods. As a result, while documentary letters of credit are meant to facilitate the process of international trade, their sole dependency on compliance of presented documents to bank by beneficiary to actualize the payment will increase the risk of fraud and forgery in the course of their operation. Interestingly, UCP (currently UCP600) takes a silent status regarding the problem of fraud in international LC operation and leaves the ground open for national laws to provide remedies to affected parties by fraudulent beneficiary. National Laws have different approaches to the problem of fraud in general and fraud in international LC operation in particular which makes the access of affected parties to possible remedies complicated and difficult. Current paper tries to find answer to the questions of (i) what available remedies are provided to affected parties in international LC fraud by different legal systems? (ii) And what are conditions for benefiting from such remedies under different legal systems? In achieving its objective, paper will be divided in two main parts to study remedies provided by intentional legal frameworks as well as the ones offered by national laws. Part one will study the position of UCP and UNCITRAL Convention on Independent Guarantees and Standby Letters of Credit (UNCITRAL Convention) and remedies, which they provide to LC fraud in international trade. Part two in contrary will study available remedies to LC fraud and condition for access them under English and American legal system.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Alavi H. (2016). “Mitigating the Risk of Fraud in Documentary Letters of Credit.” Baltic Journal of European Studies 6.1: 139-156.

  • 2. Alavi H. (2015) “Autonomy Principle and Fraud Exception in Documentary Letters of Credit a Comparative Study between United States and England”. International and Comparative Law Review Vol. 15 No. 2 (2015) 45-67.

  • 3. Aslett P (2003) ‘Cross-border Asset Protection: An Offshore Perspective’ Journal of Financial Crime 10(3) 229-245.

  • 4. Atiyah P. S. & Smith Stephen A. (2005) An Introduction to the Law of Contract Oxford: Oxford University Press 6th ed pp. 377-388.

  • 5. Barnes James G. & Byrne James E. (2001) ‘Letters of Credit: 2000’ 56 Business Law. 4 reprinted in Annual Survey of Letter of Credit Law & Practice 13 18 (2002).

  • 6. Barnes James G. & Byrne James E. (2007). ‘Letters of Credit’ in Byrnes James E. & Byrnes Christopher S. (Eds.) 2007 Annual Survey of Letter of Credit Law and Practice MD: The Institute of International Banking Law & Practice Inc. pp. 39-42.

  • 7. Barski. K A. (1996) ‘Letters of Credit: A Comparison of Article 5 of the Uniform Commercial Code and the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits’ 41 Loy. L. Rev. 735 p. 751.

  • 8. Buckley Ross P. & Gao Xiang (2002) ‘The Development of the Fraud Rule Letter of Credit Law: the Journey So Far and the Road Ahead’ University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 663 (Winter) 676.

  • 9. Buckley Ross P. (1995) ‘The 1993 Revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits’ Journal of Banking & Finance Law & Practice 77 p. 97.

  • 10. Capper D (2007) ‘Case Comment: Asset Freezing Orders - Failure to State the Cause of Action’ C.J.Q. 26 (APR) 181-184 p. 181.

  • 11. Capper D. (1996) ‘The Trans-Jurisdictional Effects of Mareva Injunctions’ C.J.Q. 15 (JUL) 211-233 p. 219.

  • 12. D’Arcy Leo (2000) Schmitthoff’s Export Trade - The law and Practice of International Trade London: Sweet & Maxwell 10th ed p. 166.

  • 13. De Ly F. (1999) ‘The UN Convention on Independent Guarantees and Standby Letters of Credit’ 33 Int’l Law 831 (Fall) p. 843.

  • 14. Devonshire P.(1996) ‘The Implications of Third Parties Holding Assets Subject to a Mareva Injunction’ LMCLQ (May) Part 2 p. 269.

  • 15. Dolan John F. (1997) ‘The UN Convention on International Independent Undertakings: Do States with Mature Letter-of- Credit Regimes Need It? 13 B.F.L.R.1 p. 23.

  • 16. Dolan John F. (2002) ‘Commentary on Legislative Developments in Letter of Credit Law: An Interim Report’ 8 Banking & Fin. L. Rev. 53p. 63.

  • 17. Ellinger E. P. and Neo D. S. S. (2010). “The Law and Practice of Documentary Letters of Credit”. Hart.

  • 18. Enonchong N (2011) The Independence Principle of Letter of Credit and Demand Guarantees Oxford University Press.

  • 19. Fletcher George P. & Sheppard Steve (2005) American Law in a Global Context: The Basics Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press p. 511.

  • 20. Gao Xiang & Buckley Ross P. (2003) ‘A Comparative Analysis of the Standard of Fraud Required under the Fraud rule in Letter of Credit Law’ 13 Duke Journal of Comparative and International law p. 333.

  • 21. Goode R. (1995) ‘Abstract Payment Undertakings and the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce’ 39 Saint Louis University Law Journal 725 p. 727.

  • 22. Goode Roy (2004) Transnational Commercial Law - International Instruments and Commentary Oxford: Oxford University Press 1st ed. p. 341.

  • 23. Gordley James (1995) ‘Comparative Legal Research: Its Function in the Development of Harmonized Law’ 43 Am. J. Comp. L. 555 Autumn.) p. 560.

  • 24. Gorton L (1996) ‘Draft UNCITRAL Convention on Independent Guarantees’ LMCLQ Part 2 May 42 p. 49.

  • 25. Hapgood M (1989) Paget’s Law of Banking London & Edinburth: Butterworths 10th ed. p. 332.

  • 26. ICC edited by Bernard Wheble (1987) Opinions of the ICC Banking Commission - On Queries relating to Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits 1984-1986 ICC Publishing S.A. ICC Publication No. 434 p. 23.

  • 27. ICC Opinions of the ICC Banking Commission 1995-1996 ICC Publication No. 565 p. 22.

  • 28. ICC (1997) ‘Query: Rights of Recourse to the Beneficiary in the event of Fraud in ‘Latest Queries Answered by the ICC Banking Commission’’ DCI (ICC) Spring 1997 Vol. 3 No. 2 p. 7.

  • 29. Ingman Terence (1994) The English Legal Process London: Blackstone Press Limited 5th ed. p. 313.

  • 30. Kelly-Louw M. (2009). Selective legal aspects of bank demand guarantees (Doctoral dissertation). 179.

  • 31. Kuo-Ellen Lin S. (2002) ‘UCP Needs to Change’ Journal of Money Laundering Control Vol. 5 No. 3 p. 231.

  • 32. Kurkela M (1985) Letters of Credit under International Trade Law: UCC UCP and Law Merchant New York London & Rome: Oceana Publications. Inc. pp. 31-32.

  • 33. Leacock S J. (1984) ‘Fraud in International Transaction: Enjoining Payment of Letters of credit in International Transactions’ 17 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 885 (Fall) p. 912.

  • 34. Liu Yuxia (2007) ‘Study on l Legislation on Court Injunction in L/C Fraud’ Economic and Social Development Vol. 5 No. 7 Jul. 117.

  • 35. Malek A & Quest D (2009) ‘Documentary Credits - The Law and Practice of Documentary Credits Including Standby Credits and Demand Guarantees’ 4ed Tottel. 264.

  • 36. Meisel Frank (2007) ‘Case Comment: Worldwide Freezing Orders - the Dadourian Guidelines’ C.J.Q. 26 (APR) 176-180 p. 176.

  • 37. Mooney J. Lowell & Blodgett Mark S. (1995) ‘Letters of Credit in the Global Economy: Implications for International Trade’ Journal of International Accounting Auditing and Taxation Vol. 4 Issue 2 Pages 175-183 p. 183.

  • 38. Rowe M (1998) ‘Do We Need a Transnational Law on Documentary Credits? Michael Rowe & Bernard Wheble Debate’ DCI (ICC) Spring Vol. 4 No. 2 pp. 16-17.

  • 39. Sealy L.S. & Hooley R.J.A. (2005) Commercial Law - Text Cases and Materials Oxford: Oxford University Press 3rd ed p. 852.

  • 40. Suen H & Cheung S (2007) ‘Mareva Injunctions: Evolving Principles and Practices Revisited’ Const.L.J. 23 (2) pp. 120-121.

  • 41. Takahashi. K (2009) “The introduction of article 12(b) in the UCP 600: Was it a really step forward?” JIBLR 24 (6) 285-286.

  • 42. Treitel Guenter (2003) The Law of Contract London: Thomson Sweet & Maxwell 11th ed. pp. 1040-1048.

  • 43. Wunnicke B & Wunnicke Diane B. (1996) Standby and Commercial Letters of Credit New York: Wiley Law Publications 2nd ed pp. 165-179.

  • 44. Xiang Gao (2002) The Fraud Rule in the law of Letters of Credit Hague 126.

  • 45. Zhang Y. (2011). Approaches to Resolving the International Documentary Letters of Credit Fraud Issue. University of Eastern Finland. pp. 74.

  • 46. Ziegel. J S. (1979) (Chief Ed.) International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law Volume IX Commercial Transactions and Institutions under the auspices of the International Association of Legal Science Martinus Nijhoff Publishers’ pp. 123-124.

  • 1. 31 NYS 2d 631 (1941) 633.

  • 2. Aiglon Ltd v. Gau Shan Co Ltd [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 164.

  • 3. Allen v. Jambo Holdings Ltd [1980] 2 All E.R. 502 CA.

  • 4. American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC396.

  • 5. Angelica-Whitewear Ltd v Bank of Nova Scotia 36 D.L.R. (4th) EYB 1987-67726.

  • 6. Banco Santander SA v. Banque Paribas [2000] CLC 906.

  • 7. Bank Mellat v. Nikpour [1985] F.S.R. 87 p. 92.

  • 8. Bankers Trust Co. v. Shapira [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1274.

  • 9. Banque Saudi Fransi v Lear Siegler Services Inc. [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 47 18.

  • 10. Bolivinter Oil SA v Chase Manhattan Bank [1984] Lloyd’s Rep 251.

  • 11. Czarnikow-Rionda Sugar Trading Inc. v Standard Bank London [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 187([1999] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 197.

  • 12. Derby & Co Ltd v. Weldon (No. 3 and 4) [1989] 1 All ER 1002 p. 1007 [1989] 2 WLR 412 p. 419.

  • 13. Discount Record Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd [1975] 1WLR 315.

  • 14. Edward Owen Engineering Ltd v. Barclays Bank International [1978] QB 159.

  • 15. Great Future International Ltd v. Sealand Housing Corp [2003] EWCA Civ 682.

  • 16. Group Josi Re v Walbrook Insurance Co Ltd [1996] 1 WLR 1152.

  • 17. Horbottel v. National Westminster Bank [1978] QB 146.

  • 18. International Ltd [1978] QB 159.

  • 19. Kavaerner Jhon Brown Ltd v Midland Bank Plc (1998) CLC 446.

  • 20. Lorne Stewart plc v Hermes Kreditversicherungs AG (1999) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 187 .

  • 21. Safa Ltd v Banque du Caire [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 600.

  • 22. Sirius International Insurance Corp v FAI General Insurance Co. Ltd (2003) 1 All ER (Comm) 865.

  • 23. Siskina (Cargo Owners) v. Distos Compania Naviera SA [1979] AC 210 HL.

  • 24. Solo Industries UK Ltd v Canara Bank [2001] 1 WLR 1800 [2001] EWCA Civ 1059.

  • 25. Szetjn v. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation (1941) 31 N.Y. S.2d 631.

  • 26. The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgement’s Act 1982 (Interim Relief) Order 1997.

  • 27. The Niedersachsen [1984] 1 All ER 398 pp. 414-415 [1983] 1 WLR 1412 p. 1417 CA.

  • 28. Themehelp Ltd v West and Others [1996] QB 84.

  • 29. Third Chandris Shipping Corpn v. Unimarine SA [1979] QB 645 pp. 668-669.

  • 30. UCC Article 5 Letters of Credit UCC§5-109 Forgery and Fraud Official Comment.

  • 31. United Trading Corp. SA v Allied Arab Bank Ltd [1985] 2 Lloyds Rep 554 561.

  • 32. Z Ltd v. A-Z [1982] 1 Q.B. 558 574.

Search
Journal information
Target audience: experts, teachers and students in the field of agrarian law and related topics, as well as on general public.
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 342 183 1
PDF Downloads 181 123 0