信用证案例分析中行程军.ppt

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 Jun,KEY ISSUE ONE,LC FRAUD(信用证欺诈问题),Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,1、UCP中没有信用证欺诈的规定。2、UCP中也没有规定信用证欺诈的救济。3、寻求司法救济信用证欺诈例外原则。1）什么是信用证欺诈信用证欺诈的认定标准问题。2）信用证欺诈例外的例外问题。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,信用证欺诈例外原则是指在肯定信用证独立性原则的前提下，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。三个理论基础欺诈使一切变得无效（fraus omnia corrumpit)诚实信用原则 公共秩序保留原则,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,信用证欺诈认定的标准1、美国的标准A)Pre-UCC PositionB)Prior UCC Article 5 PositionC)Revised UCC Article 5 Position,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,A)Pre-UCC PositionThe Sztejn Case(1941年里程碑式的判例：Sztejn v.J.Henry Schroder Banking Corp(31 N.Y.S.2d 631)Intentional fraud/egregious fraud/a more flexible equitable standard of fraud,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,B)Prior UCC Article 5 Position4-114（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（warranty 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，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 b.在所有其他情况下，相对于客户来说，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 Jun,LC FRAUD,判例中出现了大量不同的认定信用证欺诈的标准 1)Intentional Fraud NMC Enterprises Inc v.Columbia Broadcasting System Inc.(1974)14 UCC Rep Serv 1427)2)Letter of credit fraud Emery-Waterhouse 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),Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,4)Constructive fraudDynamics Corp of America v.Citizens&Southern National Bank(1973)356 F Supp 991)5)Egregious Fraud:Gross fraudIntraworld Industries Inc v.Girard Trust Bank(1975)336 A 2d 316)The court judged:“the circumstances which will justify an injunction against honor must be narrowly limited to situations of fraud which the wrongdoing of the beneficiary has so vitiated the entire transaction that the legitimated purposes of the independence of the issuers obligation would no longer be served”,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,C)Revised UCC Art 5 Position Material fraud(5-109:a)如果一次交单在其表面上严格和信用证的条件和条款相符，但是其中所要求的一个单据是伪造的或实质上是欺诈的（forged or materially fraudulent），或者兑付该交付的单据将促成受益人对开证行和开证申请人的实质上的欺诈（facilitate a material fraud）一个凭善意行事的开证人，可以兑付也可不兑付交单b)如果一个开证申请人提出，该信用证所要求交单的单据是伪造的或实质上欺诈性的或兑付该单据将会实质上促成受益人对开证人和开证申请人的欺诈，那么一个法律上有合格管辖权的法院（competent court）可以临时或永久性地禁止开证人兑付某一提示，或者针对受益人或其他人采取其他相类似的补救方法。）,Copyright2005 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.”一个通俗易懂的例子。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,对“material fraud”的把握：对于单据中的欺诈而言，“实质性欺诈”达到令单据无效的严重程度，破坏了其作为信用证交易所特定要求的本质；对于基础交易中的欺诈而言，受益人非根本性的违约一般不能被认为构成欺诈，只有受益人的行为严重违背包括基础合同在内的整个交易安排，导致对方的根本合同目的或主要目的已经落空时，才构成“实质性欺诈”。5-109及正式评论都没有明确规定要举证受益人的欺诈意图。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,CASE STUDIES：Hyosung America,Inc.v.Sumagh Textile Co.信用证及基础合同中要求受益人出运“fabric with a 65%rayon/35%wool content”。受益人实际出运“fabric with a 70%rayon/30%wool content”，但提交的单据中却虚假地显示与信用证相同的货物且单据相符。Q：Applicant是否可以欺诈为由向法院申请支付该笔信用证下的付款？,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,Under New York law,the essential elements of a common law fraud claim include:A material,false representation;Intent to defraud;Reasonable reliance on the representation;Causing damages to the plaintiff.,Copyright2005 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 comply with L/C terms were presented.,Copyright2005 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.“,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,Western Surety Co.v.Bank of Southern Oregon Bank 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。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 Jun,LC FRAUD,COURT：“First,there is no evidence of a representation by the beneficiary.Indeed,the only evidence 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,date,expiration date and aggregate amount,and there is no indication anywhere on them that they were for specific construction projects.,Copyright2005 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;(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 its truth;(8)his right to rely thereon;and(9)his consequent and proximate injury.,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,结论虽然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 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,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 Jun,LC FRAUD,CASE STUDYUNITED CITY MERCHANTS(INVESTMENTS)LTD.v.ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 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。Q:是否可以以欺诈为由拒绝付款?,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,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 Jun,LC FRAUD,上诉法院推翻了一审判决: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。风险分摊的角度 银行担保权益角度,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,贵族院又推翻了上诉法院的判决，维持一审法院的判决:仍然强调由于是第三方欺诈，受益人并未参与，也不知悉该欺诈，不应对受益人适用欺诈例外原则。另外还认为，该带有虚假装船日期的提单并未完全失去法律效力，毕竟货物已经装运，提单持有人仍可以用以提货。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,学术界对该案的评论更多的是批评：Export Tradeby C.M.Schmitthoff:“The decision of the Court of Appeal represented sound commercial sense.”Benjamins 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 compliance,a document in which the loading date was fraudulently misrepresented by its maker constituted a valid tender in the beneficiarys hands.”Bank Credits And Acceptancesby 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.,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,Montrod Ltd.V.Grundkotter Fleischvertrieds-Gmbh(2001)该案中卖方为信用证的受益人，而买方委托另一家公司作为申请人开立了信用证。为了能将信用证下的付款权控制在自己手中，以便在收到买方的货款后再在信用证下付款，开证申请人在信用证中要求受益人提交由其出具并签署的检验证。买方让卖方信以为真地认为买方完全能够代表信用证申请人，包括申请人的签字，并特此给卖方寄去了申请人的公司章以示证明，并授权卖方的一名员工为申请人的有权签字人。于是受益人就让该员工签发检验证，并妥当地提交了与信用证表面相符的单据。当申请人发现检验证不是其出具并签署时，马上要求开证行拒绝付款。而此时买方已提了货，逃之夭夭。Q:开证行是否应该在知悉该检验证无效时而拒绝付 款？,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,Trial Court:it was satisfied that the beneficiary did not know that the buyer had no authority from the applicant to authorize the signature of the inspection certificates on the applicants 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 committed.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”,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,Court of Appeal:Beneficiarys 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.,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,3、联合国独立担保和备用信用证公约（UNCITRAL CONVENTION）的标准Article 19.Exception to payment obligation 1)If it is manifest and clear that:(a)Any document is not genuine or has been falsified;(b)No payment is due on the basis asserted in the demand and the supporting documents;or(c)Judging by the type and purpose of the undertaking,the demand has no conceivable basis,the guarantor/issuer,acting in good faith,has a right,as against the beneficiary,to withhold payment.,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,(2)For the purposes of subparagraph(c)of paragraph(1)of this article,the following are types of situations in which a demand has no conceivable basis:(a)The contingency or risk against which the undertaking was designed to secure the beneficiary has undoubtedly not materialized;(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;(c)The underlying obligation has undoubtedly been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the beneficiary;(d)Fulfilment of the underlying obligation has clearly been prevented by wilful misconduct of the beneficiary;(e)In the case of a demand under a counter-guarantee,the beneficiary of the counter-guarantee has made payment in bad faith as guarantor/issuer of the undertaking to which the counter-guarantee relates.,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,我国的最高人民法院关于审理信用证纠纷案件若干问题的规定第八条凡有下列情形之一的，应当认定存在信用证欺诈：（一）受益人伪造单据或者提交记载内容虚假的单据；（二）受益人恶意不交付货物或者交付的货物无价值；（三）受益人和开证申请人或者其他第三方串通提交假单据，而没有真实的基础交易；（四）其他进行信用证欺诈的情形。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,几点值得注意：未强调欺诈的“实质性”但从（二）中也能够体现出“实质性欺诈”的标准 明确了信用证欺诈的形式“提交记载内容虚假的单据”标准太低？,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,信用证欺诈例外豁免原则（信用证欺诈例外的例外原则）信用证欺诈例外的豁免的理论基础保护善意第三方风险分摊的角度 在什么情况下，将适用信用证欺诈例外的豁免原则呢？,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,必须符合四个条件：该第三方必须支付了对价 该第三方必须要有开证行的授权去兑付或议付，或以自己的名义提交单据索款。该第三方必须在上述开证行的授权范围内行事。该第三方的行为必须是善意的。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,受欺诈例外的豁免原则保护的第三方1）保兑行保兑行如果仅仅作为保兑行，那么在其履行完独立于开证行的保兑责任，即兑付后将享有豁免权。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,2）被指定付款/议付/延期付款/承兑行 被指定行必须在开证行的授权范围内行事，同时必须善意地支付对价，这样才能受到豁免权的保护。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,开证行的授权对于被指定议付行而言，开证行的授权为：议付根据UCP修订稿中的“HONOR”定义：对于被指定即期付款行而言，开证行的授权为：即期付款。对于被指定延期付款行而言，开证行的授权为：作出延期付款允诺并在到期日付款。对于被指定承兑行而言，开证行的授权为：承兑并在到期日付款。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,Banco Santander v.Banque Paribas 案情：在提单日后180天的延期付款信用证下保兑行凭一份款项让渡书贴现了远期付款款项。贴现后一周，开证行通知受益人提交了伪造的单据并存在确凿的欺诈。在到期日，开证行以欺诈为由拒绝付款。Q：保兑行能否享有欺诈例外豁免权？,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,一审法院、上诉法院：在延期付款信用证下，开证行对被指定行的指定是被指定银行作出延期付款的允诺并在到期日付款，被指定银行仅仅作出延期付款的允诺只是执行了开证行指令的一半，此时不能得到开证行的偿付。开证行并未要求保兑行在到期日前贴现或支付任何对价，这只是保兑行自己的决定，尽管这样做也没有与指令相违背。如果保兑行没有在到期日前贴现，当得知存在确凿欺诈时，完全可以在到期日以欺诈例外的抗辩来拒绝付款。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,该判决遭到众多信用证权威学者及评论家的质疑 JAMES E.BYRNE 和 JAMES G.BARNES 美国法上判决结果会相反First Union National Bank v Arab African International Bank and Others 2002(USA)中，FUNB（伦敦）与Banco Santander 处于几乎完全相同的状态，因害怕受上述判例的影响，FUNB曾寻求美国法院的管辖，但未果。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,可参看下列判例：Banque Nationale de Paris v.Credit Agricole IndosuezBanque 2000-4 SLR 254(27 June 2000)Singapore；Credit Agricole Indosuez v.Banque Nationale de Paris Court of Appeal,2001-2 SLR 1 Singapore Bank of Joliet v.Firstar Bank Milwaukee,N.A.A.No.96 C 1145,1997 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 15384(N.D.Ill.26 September 1997)；Industrial Bank of Korea v.BNP Paribas 2001 DA 68266(Supreme Court,2nd Div.2003)Korea Federal Bank Ltd.v.VM Jog Engineering Ltd.2002 4 LRI 204(Sup.Ct.of India)India United City v.Punjab Bank（1982）V2 LloydS Rep.4法院一致观点：被指定议付行在不参与信用证欺诈或不知晓信用证欺诈的情况下，其对开证行的索偿权不受信用证欺诈例外抗辩的影响。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,3）正当持票人（Holders in Due Course）只有在信用证要求提交远期汇票，且在开证行作为该汇票的承兑人作出承兑时，该汇票的正当持票人才能享受开证行欺诈例外的豁免权。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,注意两点：1）该汇票必须是在票据法上合格的流通票据。美国判例Regent Corp USA v Azmat Bangladesh,Ltd.2）汇票的受款人不能成为正当持票人。可参看Credit Agricole Indosuez v.Banque Nationale de Paris Court of Appeal,2001-2 SLR 1 Singapore RE Jones Ltd.V.Waring and Gillow Ltd.(1926)AC 670.,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,4）转让证下的第二受益人在转让证下，如果由于第一受益人实施了欺诈，第二受益人的索款权应得到欺诈例外抗辩的豁免。Cromwell v.Commerce&Energy Bank(1984)450 So 2d 1,affd in part,revd in part(1985)464 So 2d),Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,KEY ISSUE TWO,NEGOTIATION议 付MISSION IMPOSSIBLE?,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,议付的定义？UCP500POSITION PAPER NO.2,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,什么是“undertaking an obligation to make payment”承担付款责任？加拿大信用证专家李道安的观点GARY COLLYER的观点冯敬德律师的观点RABO BANK v BANK OF CHINA,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,UCP中“对价”概念的法律基础英美法中的“对价”概念英美合同法中的对价概念英美票据法中的对价概念,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,不可撤销的允诺符合英美法中的对价概念，这正是“承担付款责任”的渊源。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,UCP600修订组在对DRAFT 2的评论中提到：“Negotiation is a method of finance.”议付的本质特性一种融资行为。而所谓融资必然是提前支付”ADVANCE TO PAY”，也只有提前支付才会给被指定议付行带来风险，形成损害（detriment),才构成对价。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,DRAFT 2中的议付定义:在单据相符时，被指定行对受益人提交的汇票及/或单据的付款或付款责任。回避了“支付对价”的概念。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,DRAFT 3中的议付定义：议付被分为动词形式（negotiate）和名词形式（negotiation）来分别定义如下：“negotiate”是指被指定行与受益人间根据约定条款进行议付的行为。如果该被指定行是保兑行，那么它对受益人的议付没有追索权。“negotiation”是指议付信用证下，被指定行以预付款项或同意预付款项给受益人的方式对汇票（该汇票的受票行不是被指定行）及/或单据的买入。仅仅审核单据不构成议付。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,引入了“PURCHASE”概念但“Purchase”和“giving of value”相比是否更好呢？定义中将“Purchase”的方式特定为“预付款”和“同意预付款”“Advancing funds”and“Agreeing to advance funds”,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,问题：1、“AGREEING”的具体形式是什么？口头的还是书面的？可撤消的还是不可撤消的？显然简单地用“AGREEING”来表达不能诠释清楚究竟什么是另一种形式的议付。2、“AGREEING TO ADVANCE FUNDS”后，被指定议付行是否已成为合格的议付行，从而享有欺诈例外抗辩的豁免权？,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,DRAFT 4中的议付定义：对“negotiate”和“negotiation”定义作了合并，同时将“if the credit is available by negotiation”删除了，其他并无实质上的改动。产生的新问题：会带来在其他类型信用证下的对单据及或汇票的“purchase(买入)”也被视为议付。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,一个期望：期望修订小组能推出一个明确、确切、为各国银行委员会所接受的定义。一个态度：如果不能推出一个这样的定义，与其引发纠纷，不如将其删除。修订过程中有过要删除议付概念的声音。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,不是办法的办法修订小组内唯一亚洲成员，新加坡信用证专家苏志成先生仍然倾向于删除议付概念，同时建议如果信用证当事方有融资需求，可在信用证内添加允许融资的授权条款，以期彻底解除议付问题。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,个人的一个建议将原先定义中的“承担付款责任”改为“作出付款允诺并在该允诺到期日付款”，即作出允诺和在允诺到期日（在信用证兑付到期日之前）付款两个行为方才构成议付。,Copyright2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,信用证专家李道安先生的一句话：“Please dont try to ride on the elephant named negotiation,we may fall unless we can fly.”UCP600中的议付定义是否能给我们以飞翔的翅膀呢？我们翘首以待！,Copyright2005 Cheng Ju