• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.36
• /
• pp.29-46
• /
• 2007

The fraud exception rule allows for the issuing bank to dishonor the claim if it the documents and transactions bear fraud though the documents presented are complied with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit. A question arises whether the fraud exception rule can apply to innocent beneficiary when fraud is made by 3rd party. United City Merchants v. Royal Bank of Canada showed a good example how to handle in case of innocent beneficiary. At this case House of Lord found that innocent beneficiary deserves payment applying nullity exception rule. I believe that the nullity exception rule is employed for the benefit of innocent beneficiary as far as the issuer and applicant get no actual damage by the 3rd party's fraudulent action which is shown on documents.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.34
• /
• pp.55-74
• /
• 2007

The documentary credit has been functioning as an indispensable tool for making international commercial transactions safer throughout the world since ICC adopted the second revision of the Uniform Customs and Practices for Commercial Documentary Credits in 1962. Letter of Credit transaction should be cleared by the principle of the trust and integrity and vile partners sometimes make a fraud on the L/C by the misinterpretation of the documents. As there is no rule but no exception, exception from application of these principles is allowed. The fraud exception nile constitutes contracting out an application of basic principles, this rule should apply restrictively and in many authorities a court does not apply this rule to nominated bank, confirming bank, and bona fide holder of draft even if fraud is involved in L/C transactions. If not, we lose a lot of benefits from the credit as valuable commercial device through reservation of these principles to take a few benefits. So, We need to recognize that the fraud exception rule should be applied restrictively. Therefore, this study reviewed condition of application and exception from application of fraud exception rule in view of Cardozo's opinion, the Sztejn court, and UCC Sections-114(2).

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.47 no.5
• /
• pp.115-128
• /
• 2022

This paper reviewed "unconscionability" as an exception to the independence principle of bank guarantees. Apart from fraud which has been recognized in most international jurisdictions, Uuconscionability would also be recognized as the exception to the legal principle, the so-called "fraud rule" or "an abuse of rights." Unconscionability exception is applied in the same manner as fraud and other exceptions to the principle of independence. The exception should allow guarantor to dishonor the drawings that abuse the independence principle. However, outright or manifest facts of the unconscionability must be established in order to apply the exception. Lots of arguments or conflicts may be caused in applying the unconscionability exception. Therefore, this study aims to prevent institutional abuses or to reduce the disputes from setting up the legitimate scope and standard for application of the exception by reviewing these procedural issues and problems under bank guarantee transactions. This paper also suggested practical implications and countermeasures for the institutional application.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.133-156
• /
• 2011

This paper is to analyze the legality in which the fraud rule allow the issuer of L/C or a court to disrupt the payment to the beneficiary under the deferred payment credit when the nominated bank for deferred payment undertaking made prepayment or negotiation before the maturity date and fraud is identified to be involved. Since the function of commercial L/C is to provide absolute assurance of payment to a beneficiary, the fraud rule based on fraud exception has been known as the negative factor which lead to the disruption of "principle of independence & abstraction" under the commercial L/C transactions. As a result, the fraud rule is necessary to limit the activities of fraudsters, but its scope must be carefully circumscribed so as not to deny commercial utility to an instrument that exists to serve as an assurance of payment. But the fraud itself has not been firmly established because it is inherently pliable in its concept. There are numerous contents to describe the application of fraud to the L/C transactions as a standard such as egregious fraud, intentional fraud, L/C fraud(omitted here), flexible fraud, and constructive fraud. And so the standard applicable to the commercial transaction as the fraud rule would be high or low depending upon the various standards of fraud.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.179-198
• /
• 2009

This paper aims at assessing reasonableness for restraining the independence principle in the operation of documentary credit in case of the illegality appeared in the underlying transactions. It has been a major rule under the independence principle to keep the credit operation free from the defences made by the issuing bank and/or credit applicant with a view to prevent the payment as specified under the credit. And also, it is generally accepted in the international commercial community to examine a presentation to determine, on the basis of the document alone, whether or not the documents appear on their face to constitute a complying presentation. Even though these two essences are major rules in the credit operation, if a presentation is made with the documents forged or materially fraudulent, the issuing bank can refuse to pay the documents in respect of fraud rule based on fraud exception for which a court of appropriate jurisdiction would enjoin such honour. Now we have newly come to another situation to determine whether or not we have to apply the same as fraud rule which is applicable to the illegality in the underlying contract under the new conception of illegality principle based on illegality exception. English Commercial Court handled the illegality case under the case of Mahonia Ltd., v. JP Morgan Chase Bank in 2003 and Justice Colman decided that issuing bank can rely on illegality affecting a letter of credit as an excuse for failure to pay. This judgement brought about the acceptance of illegality principle based on illegality exception as a defence to payment under a letter of credit as far as the illegality concerned in the underlying transactions. It is noticeable that this case will affect our international commercial community more to rely on the illegality in the underlying transactions as a good issue to stop payment for the issuing bank in the L/C operation.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.323-352
• /
• 1998

Documentary letters of credit including standby letters of credit are governed by the independence or abstraction rule and the doctrine of strict compliance. Since the former rule requires the issuing bank to honor the drafts regardless of the defective performance of the underlying contract, the applicant(the customer) will be without a remedy if he is unable to make himself whole by litigation on the underlying contract. Therefore, the applicant is exposed to a risk much higher than in the commercial letters of credit. The Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credit(UCP) has no provisions allowing legal relief for the applicant on the abuse of L/C by unscrupulous beneficiary, but UCC ${\S}5-114$ has provision allowing injunctive relief for the applicant. In this paper, I attempted to clarify certain standards of injunctive relief available for the customer in the credit. When there is fraud in the L/C transaction by any of the parties concerned, we must weigh the principle of independence or abstraction and the fraud rules. According to banking practice and judicial precedence, we need not keep the principle of independence and abstaction even in fraudulent transaction and the bona fide sufferer must be protected. The purpose of this paper is to review the studies of Fraud rule and the Injunction and to suggest the applicable standards for the Injunction therory under letters of credit. Specially this paper analysed the following ; (1) the guideline for the fraud (exception) rule to the autonomy principle, (2) the appilcable standards of the Injunction, and (3) the implications on parties concerned in letters of credit transaction. Conclusively, the Injunction should be granted if (1) there is clear proof of fraud (2) the fraud constitutes fraudulent abuse if the independent purpose of L/C (3) irreparble injury might follow if injunction is not granted or the recovery of damages would be seriously endangered.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.405-427
• /
• 1999

Although Uniform Customs and practice for Documentary(UCP) is not a law, it applies to most documentary credits and is binding on all parties unless otherwise expressly stipulated. Besides, Uniform Commercial Code(UCC) Article 5 was codified by the United States and was adopted by every state. Moreover, the New York version of the UCC Article 5-102(4) specifically providing that the UCC does not apply to letters of credit where the parties agree to be governed by the UCP. Identical nonuniform Articles were latter added in Alabama, Arizona, and Missouri. The fact that courts in forty-six of the fifty states are bound by Article 5. Until now, Article 5 of the UCC has probably had an impact on the decisions in New York and the New York common law. Therefore, I examined a few issues on application between Article 5 of the UCC and the UCP. First, although the UCP attempt to introduce a new for examination of document by incorporating "standard practice of financial institutions" and "international banking practice", the standards for documentary compliance are not clear. The UCC attempt to rely on the matter of interpretation for the court, but the UCP would probably be interested in examining in about bank's internal practices as reflected in UCP Articles. Second, the rule for nondocumentary conditions is a useful for stand-by credit transactions under the UCC, but these conditions would probably put the bank in an even worse position in case of documentary credit transactions under the UCP. Third, the UCP does not contain any provision governing the fraud exception, but the UCC codified the fraud and forgery rules developed through American case law. Fourth, the UCP treats the issue of transfer in much more detail than the UCC does. In contract, the UCP's treatment of assignment of proceeds is brief. Finally, I suggest that the fraud exception rules should be prescribed in the UCP in order to protect the issuing bank and the applicant when an unscrupulous party attempts to defraud.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.133-160
• /
• 2009

In International trade the buyer and seller are normally separated from on another not only by distance but also by differences in language and culture. It is rarely possible for the performance of obligations to be simultaneous and the performance of contracts therefore calls for trust in a situation in which the parties are unlikely to feel able to trust each other unless they have a longstanding and successful relationship. Thus the seller under an international contract of sale will not wish to surrender documents of title to goods to the buyer until he has at least an assurance of payment, and no buyer will wish to pay for goods until he has received them. A gap of distrust thus exists which is often bridged by the undertaking of an intermediary known and trusted by both parties who will undertake on his own liability to pay the seller the contract price in return for the documents of title and then pass the documents to the buyer in return for the reimbursement. This is a common explanation of the theory behind the documentary letter of credit in which the undertaking of a bank of international repute serves as a "guarantee" to each party that the other will perform his obligations. The independence principle, also referred to as the "autonomy principle", is at the core of letter of credit or bank guarantee law. This principle provides that the letter of credit or bank guarantee is independent of the underlying contractual commitment - that is, the transaction that the credit is intented to secure - between the applicant and the beneficiary ; the credit is also independent of the relationship between the bank and its customer, the applicant. The most important exception to the independence principle is the doctrine of fraud in the transaction. A strict interpretation of the rule that the guarantee is independent of the underlying transaction would lead to the conclusion that neither fraud nor manifest abuse of rights by the beneficiary would constitute an objection to payment. There is one major problem related to "Independent guarantees", namely abusive or unfair callings. The beneficiary may make an unfair calling under the guarantee. The countermeasure of beneficiary's unfair calling divided three cases. First, advance countermeasure namely by contract. In other words, when the formation of the contract, the parties must insert the Force Majeure Clause, Arbitration Clause to Contract, and clear statement to the condition for demand calling. Second, post countermeasure namely by court. Many countries, including the United States, authorize the courts to grant an order enjoining the issuer from paying or enjoining the beneficiary from receiving payment under the guaranty letter. Third, Export Insurance. For example, the Export Credit Guarantees Department is prepared, subject to certain conditions, to cover the risk of unfair calling. Of course, KEIC in Korea is cover the risk of the all things for guarantees. On international projects, contractor performance is usually guaranteed by either a standby letters of credit or Independent guarantee. These instruments will be care the parties.