外文文獻(xiàn)及譯文--交易中的信用證欺詐及其可能的仲裁

1、<p><b>　　中文4010字</b></p><p>　　出處：Fohler G. Fraud in the Letter of Credit Transaction and Its Possible Arbitration[M]. 1999.</p><p><b>　　本科畢業(yè)論文</b></p><p&g

2、t;<b>　　（外文翻譯）</b></p><p>　　題 目 </p><p>　　學(xué)生姓名 </p><p>　　專業(yè)班級 國際經(jīng)濟與貿(mào)易 </p&

3、gt;<p>　　學(xué) 號 </p><p>　　院 （系） 經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易系 </p><p>　　指導(dǎo)教師(職稱) </p><p>　　完成時間

4、 </p><p>　　Fraud in the Letter of Credit Transaction and its Possible Arbitration</p><p>　　Institute of Comparative Law McGill University Gernot Fohler</p><p><

5、;b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　The letter of credit continues to play an indispensable role in the financing and securing of international commercial transactions. Its usefulness and efficacy derives pr

6、imarily from the fact that it is independent from the underlying relationship between buyer and seller. In a considerable number of cases, however, the independence of the letter of credit has been challenged as a result

7、 of fraud in the underlying transaction. After analyzing recent reforms of the regulatory framework governing</p><p>　　1 About L/C fraud </p><p>　　The L/C cycle operates in the following way: a

8、fter a buyer and a seller have entered into a sales contract, the buyer applies for a L/C from an issuing bank. Upon receiving the L/C, the seller would check its authenticity with an advising bank. Having confirmed the

9、L/C is correct, the seller exports the goods and prepares a series of documents such as Inspection Certificate, Bill of Lading etc., proving to its negotiating bank that the goods shipped are in accordance with the buyer

10、’s standard. B</p><p>　　In order to obtain these documents from the issuing bank, the buyer will have to either complete its payment or enter into mutual agreement with the issuing bank on a payment date. Wi

11、th the documents at hand, the buyer could get the goods at the port and thus the L/C cycle completes. The entire L/C cycle is governed by the internationally recognized regulation —UCP 600, which is issued by the Interna

12、tional Chamber of Commerce.</p><p>　　The L/C cycle is comparable to credit card transactions, in which a bank promises to pay on behalf of the buyer (.Independence Principle).This payment method is independe

13、nt from the underlying business transaction. The bank is complied to honor the L/C as long as the submitted documents, on its face, is correct. (Compliance Principle)</p><p>　　Despite the availability of reg

14、ulations and scrutiny of the banks, there is inevitably weakness in the L/C system. It is not uncommon for the fraudsters to exploit the Independence Principle and the Compliance Principle. After all, the bank only exami

15、nes the document, but not physically examines the goods at the port.</p><p>　　It is common for sellers to cheat the L/C cycle. As in a typical L/C fraud scenario, a seller ships out substandard goods ( short

16、 shipment). In other cases, the shipment in fact may not exist ( false shipment) where the seller defrauds the bank by presenting false Bill of Lading to support the existence of the shipment. If the bank fails to timely

17、 discover the scam, it will release money to the seller and then, the case will not surface until the buyer physically receives the goods at a later st</p><p>　　Although it is not prevalent, a buyer sometime

18、s cheats the L/C cycle. The typical trick is that a buyer places an order to a seller and requests the payment be settled by L/C. The buyer also requests to arrange transportation for the goods. Then, the buyer appoints

19、a third party for the application of L/C. A legitimate L/C will be sent to the seller. After the seller checks correct the L/C, the goods will be handed over to the transportation company as denoted by the buyer. However

20、, the transpor</p><p>　　Another common type of L/C fraud is known as ‘L/C Kiting’. Some merchants may think of obtaining cash flow by using their existing credit facility at their bank, such as L/C, without

21、there being a genuine underlying transaction. By honoring an L/C, the fraudster could improve cash flow of the company at a comparatively low interest rate. Because the underlying transaction is false, both the seller an

22、d the buyer will commit in offence, even though the loan is fully settled in the future.</p><p>　　To prevent falling into the L/C fraud trap, it is always a good policy to be better acquainted with clients (

23、‘Know Your Client Policy’).</p><p>　　2 Fraud in the Letter of Credit transaction</p><p>　　It has been commonly stated that the only recognized exception to the independence principle is in the

24、case of fraud in the transaction. Though such a view fails to recognize that the fraud in the transaction scenario also constitutes an exception to the rule of strict compliance, it is true that, in the past, courts in C

25、anada and the United States have been willing to disregard the independence principle in order to prevent honor under the credit because of abusive or fraudulent demands. It is </p><p>　　In order to depict a

26、 fraud in the transaction situation, as well as to provide a brief historical review of the origin of the fraud exception, the landmark decision of Sztejn v. Henry Schroeder Banking Corp will be discussed. Next the statu

27、tory approach to the fraud exception will be outlined before the scope of the fraud exception and its locus will be described. Afterwards the legal remedies available to the parties in a fraud scenario will be examined.

28、This section closes with an analysis of </p><p>　　2.1 Sztejn v. Henry Schroeder Banking Corp.</p><p>　　The exception concerning fraud in the transaction can be traced back to the American decis

29、ion of Sztejn v. Henry Schroeder Banking Corp. In Sztejn, the plaintiff, an American buyer, contracted to purchase a number of bristles from Transea Traders, an Indian-based corporation. In order to pay for the bristles,

30、 Sztejn agreed with Henry Schroeder Banking Corp., the .American issuer, to open an irrevocable letter of credit, in which it was stipulated that payment will be made by shipment of the good</p><p>　　Instead

31、 of delivering bristles, Transea Traders shipped a number of crates filled with “cowhair, other worthless material and rubbish," in order "to simulate genuine merchandise and to defraud the buyer." Nonethe

32、less, Transea Trader managed to acquire documents that were consistent with the terms and conditions of the credit. Before the bank paid the draft, the plaintiff discovered the fraud and sought injunctive relief in order

33、 to declare the letter of credit to avoid it from being honored.</p><p>　　In its analysis the court first revisited the "well established" independence principle. It stated that the application of

34、the independence rule is limited to situations in which the accompanying documents are "genuine and conform with the requirements of the letter of credit.” In so doing, the court was actually making two points. Firs

35、t it assumed that adherence to the rule of strict compliance is a prerequisite to upholding the independence principle. Second, it held that the independence prin</p><p>　　The court then went on to say that&

36、quot; where the seller's fraud has been called to the bank's attention before the drafts and documents have been presented for payment. The principle of the independence of the bank's obligation under the let

37、ter of credit should not be extended to protect the unscrupulous seller.”</p><p>　　In so ruling, the court laid the foundations for what is today classified as the fraud exception in letter of credit transac

38、tions.</p><p>　　The court remarked that the case before it was not a "breach of warranty" but rather one of "active fraud." Therefore, no "hardship is caused...where fraud is claimed

39、, where the merchandise is not merely inferior in quality but consists of worthless rubbish, where the draft and the accompanying documents are in the hands of one who stands in the same position as the fraudulent seller

40、, where the bank has been given notice of the fraud before being presented with the drafts and documents for payme</p><p>　　Enjoining payment of the draft in such situations protects not only the interests o

41、f the applicant, but also those of the issuing bank, since a bank is "vitally interested in assuring itself that there are some goods represented by the documents.”</p><p>　　Since Sztejn courts around t

42、he world, including Canadian and American courts, have recognized and established the fraud exception in both documentary and standby credit transactions. In the United States, the Sztejn decision and others following it

43、 inspired the drafters of art. 5 U.C.C. to include a provision bringing fraudulent transactions within the scope of the U.C.C. which in amended form, was re-established in the revised 1995 version.</p><p>　　

44、3 Legal remedies available to the parties in a fraud scenario</p><p>　　In order to assess the prospects of arbitration succeeding as an alternative to litigation in a fraudulent letter of credit dispute, it

45、 is first necessary to understand the legal remedies available to the parties in such a context.</p><p>　　Misconduct by the beneficiary in a letter of credit transaction can give rise to many kinds of judici

46、al proceedings. It follows from this that the range of possible legal action available to the parties in a fraudulent letter of credit transaction, as well as the procedural and tactical measures to be undertaken, will u

47、ltimately depend on the facts of each particular case and, therefore, cannot be covered comprehensively. There are, however, three typical judicial recourses to which the parties </p><p>　　3.1 Interlocutory

48、injunction by the applicant</p><p>　　3.1.1 General</p><p>　　The first and most important proceeding available to the applicant is a motion for an interlocutory injunction seeking to prevent the

49、issuer from honoring the beneficiary's demand for payment. This is what occurred in Sztejn, in which the applicant learnt prior to honor that the beneficiary had attempted to wrongfully draw under the credit. The cou

50、rt will only order an interlocutory or provisional injunction preventing the issuer from paying the beneficiary upon proof being made by the applicant</p><p>　　In general, however, courts are reluctant to gr

51、ant such injunctive relief and in only few cases will the injunction be maintained in subsequent judicial proceedings.</p><p>　　3.1.2 Canada</p><p>　　In Canada, there is no specific federal law

52、governing the issuing of interlocutory injunctions in a fraud in the transaction scenario. Thus, in such cases provincial law applies.</p><p>　　A distinction, however, must be made between the fraud test in

53、an application for an interlocutory injunction and that in a non-provisional judicial proceeding. In contrast to a court action, in which fraud must be dearly and obviously established, a strong prima facie case of fraud

54、 suffices on a motion for an interlocutory injunction. It is acknowledged, however, that while the conclusions drawn in earlier cases offer valuable guidance, "the circumstances of each case must be considered in th

55、ei</p><p>　　3.2 Action by the beneficiary against the issuer</p><p>　　The second type of legal proceeding that commonly arises in a fraud context is an action taken by the beneficiary against t

56、he issuer when the latter has wrongfully dishonored the letter of credit. Here, the issuer has decided to refuse payment to the beneficiary, since it received notice by the applicant of an alleged fraud committed by the

57、beneficiary. Consequently, the beneficiary seeks to prove that it committed no fraud, and that the issuer, therefore, breached its obligation under the credi</p><p>　　3.3 Action by the Issuer against the ap

58、plicant</p><p>　　In the third fraud scenario, the issuer institutes an action against the applicant in which it seeks reimbursement. Although the issuer has honored the letter of credit the applicant refuses

59、 to indemnify the issuer, since the latter paid the beneficiary notwithstanding the fact that it received prior notice by the applicant that the beneficiary was not entitled to payment because of an alleged fraud. In thi

60、s action, the issuer seeks to establish that there was a sufficient and justified reason t</p><p>　　4 Summary</p><p>　　It is an interesting fact that each of these typical judicial proceedings

61、arising from allegations of fraud involves the issuer. This is surprising because the fraud originates in the underlying relationship to which the issuer is not privy. It is arguable, therefore, that the fraud question s

62、hould be litigated between the parties to the underlying transaction rather than between the issuer and the applicant or between the issuer and the beneficiary. One must bear in mind that ultimately, the is</p>&l

63、t;p>　　交易中的信用證欺詐及其可能的仲裁</p><p>　　比較法研究院 麥吉爾大學(xué) Gernot Fohler</p><p><b>　　摘 要</b></p><p>　　信用證在金融和國際商業(yè)交易的安全上繼續(xù)發(fā)揮著不可或缺的作用。它的實用性和有效性主要源于它是獨立于買方與賣方。但是，在國際貿(mào)易相當(dāng)數(shù)量的案例中，

64、信用證的獨立性受到了挑戰(zhàn)，主要因為在基礎(chǔ)交易中的欺詐行為。通過分析監(jiān)管治理框架中對于最近信用證的改革，說明信用證欺詐例外對于其獨立性原則，就加拿大和美國得當(dāng)期發(fā)展做出重新評估。最后，筆者認(rèn)為，仲裁可以而且確實應(yīng)該在國際貿(mào)易中信用證欺</p><p>　　詐的解決爭端里發(fā)揮越來越重要的作用。</p><p><b>　　1 關(guān)于信用證欺詐</b></p>

65、<p>　　信用證按照以下操作方式進(jìn)行：在買方和賣方達(dá)成一個銷售合同時，由買方向開證行申請開立信用證。在收到信用證時，賣方將與通知行核對其真實性。經(jīng)確認(rèn)信用證正確無誤后，賣方發(fā)運貨物，準(zhǔn)備檢驗證書、提單等一系列單據(jù)文件并提交給議付行以證明其發(fā)運的貨物買方的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)一致。議付行向賣方議付貨款前，將按照買方的指示檢查賣方所提交的文件表面上是否與信用證規(guī)定一致。此后，議付行將上述文件交給開證行并索償。</p><p&

66、gt;　　買方為了從開證行那獲得這些文件，就須完成其付款或按照與開證行的共同商定在到期日付款。憑借這些代表物權(quán)憑證的文件，買方可以在卸貨港的提取貨物，至此，信用證的整個環(huán)節(jié)到此結(jié)束。整個信用證的環(huán)節(jié)按照由國際商會發(fā)行的，國際公認(rèn)的監(jiān)管規(guī)則《信用證統(tǒng)一慣例》（UCP600）進(jìn)行的。</p><p>　　信用證環(huán)節(jié)與信用卡交易相似，即銀行以買方的名義承諾支付貨款（即獨立原則）。這種付款方式是獨立于基本的業(yè)務(wù)交易。銀行

67、是履行遵守其信用證下的責(zé)任付款，只要所提交的文件在表面上看來是與信用證相符的（即符合原則）。 盡管有銀行條例和審議的雙重可用性，在信用證支付環(huán)節(jié)中也不可避免的存在漏洞。國際上欺詐者就利用信用證的獨立原則和相符原則。畢竟，銀行只檢查相關(guān)的文件，而不是檢查在港口的貨物。</p><p>　　賣方在信用證支付環(huán)節(jié)中進(jìn)行欺詐是較普遍的。正如在一個典型的信用證欺詐情況里，賣方發(fā)運不合格的商品（如短裝）。在其他情況下

68、，其實裝運可能都不存在（即假裝運），即賣方將虛假的海運提單提交給銀行，以證明其貨物的裝運。如果銀行未能及時發(fā)現(xiàn)該騙局，它就會釋放資金給賣方，然而，案件直到買方實際收到貨物后后才會被發(fā)現(xiàn)。</p><p>　　買家有時也會進(jìn)行信用證欺詐，雖然這種情況并不普遍。這種情況典型的方式是，買方和賣主達(dá)成一筆交易，并且要求以信用證支付為結(jié)算方式。同時，買方還要求自行安排貨物的運輸。然后，買方指定第三方申請開立信用證，這樣一個

69、合法的信用證將被發(fā)送給賣方。賣方檢查完信用證后，將貨物交給由買方指派的運輸公司。然而，運輸公司與買方串通，在提單上提供不正確的信息。雖然貨物最終運送到目的國，賣方由于提單的不正確而無法獲得貨款。</p><p>　　另一種信用證欺詐的形式是空頭信用證。有些商人可能想通過他們的銀行在其現(xiàn)有的信貸里獲得現(xiàn)金流，例如利用不真實交易開立信用證騙取銀行資金。通過信用證的議付，欺詐者可以以一個相對較低的利率來改善公司的現(xiàn)金流

70、。由于這個基礎(chǔ)交易是虛假的，無論是賣方和買方都會構(gòu)成犯罪，即使此項貸款在將來可以還上。</p><p>　　為了防止掉進(jìn)信用證欺詐的陷阱，一個好的建議就是與熟悉的客戶交易。（即“了解你的客戶的原則” ）。 </p><p>　　2 信用證欺詐交易</p><p>　　當(dāng)今國際上普遍表示，只在交易的欺詐情況中承認(rèn)對于獨立性原則的信用證欺詐例外原則。而然這種觀點沒有認(rèn)

71、識到，交易情況中欺詐對于嚴(yán)格相符規(guī)則也構(gòu)成了例外。過去，加拿大和美國的法院都愿意為了阻止信用證因偽造或欺詐的行為而獲得支付，而不顧信用證的獨立原則。本節(jié)的目的就是在重新評估在加拿大和美國的法院對于欺詐都愿意給予信用證欺詐例外的情況。</p><p>　　首先，為了描繪交易中的欺情況，以及提供一個明確的信用證欺詐例外的歷史起源，將討論Sztejn起訴亨利施羅德銀行這個具有里程碑意義的案例。其次，在信用證欺詐例外的范

72、圍以及其軌跡加以說明前，將概述法定信用證欺詐例外。再次，在符合法律規(guī)定的情況下，審查欺詐的當(dāng)事雙方的法律補救措施。最后，將分析構(gòu)成信用證欺詐的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和信用證申請人和受益人防止欺詐應(yīng)有的義務(wù)和責(zé)任。 2.1 Sztejn起訴亨利施羅德銀行</p><p>　　關(guān)于信用證欺詐例外，可以追溯至美國的Sztejn決定訴亨利施羅德銀行開始。</p><p>　　作為原告的Sztejn是一個美

73、國的進(jìn)口商，同印度出口商Transea商貿(mào)公司簽約合同，購買一定數(shù)量的刷毛。為了支付刷毛的貨款，Sztejn向開證行，即意亨利施羅德銀行申請開立不可撤消信用證。其中規(guī)定在貨物裝運后憑出具的海運提單和商業(yè)發(fā)票付款。 </p><p>　　然而，Transea商貿(mào)公司并沒有發(fā)運合同規(guī)定的刷毛，而是發(fā)運了相應(yīng)數(shù)量裝滿“牛毛和其他不值錢的東西”的箱子，以“充當(dāng)真正的商品來欺詐買方?！北M管如此，Transea商貿(mào)公司成功獲

74、得了與信用證條款相一致的單據(jù)文件。就在銀行支付貨款之前，該案原告發(fā)現(xiàn)了欺詐行為，并尋求法院的禁令救濟，以宣布信用信無效來阻止銀行的付款。</p><p>　　在該案的分析中，法院第一次重新確立尚已成熟的信用證獨立性原則。它申明信用證獨立性原則的運用僅適用有限的情況，即交易中所附的文件是“真正的并且符合信用證的要求”。 法院這樣做，實際上提出了兩點。第一，它認(rèn)定堅持獨立自主原則的前提是堅持嚴(yán)格相符的原則。第二，它認(rèn)

75、為獨立自主原則的目的并不是使偽造或欺詐性文件變得合法化。</p><p>　　法院接著判定，如果在單據(jù)和文件已提交銀行并要求付款前，銀行就注意到賣方的欺詐行為。那么，對于信用證項下的獨立自主原則，銀行將不予遵守，具有欺詐行為的賣家利益將不予保護(hù)。</p><p>　　這樣的裁決，使法院奠定了今天在信用證交易中信用證欺詐例外原則的基礎(chǔ)。</p><p>　　法院表示，

76、在此之前的案件與其說是“違反保證”，還不如說是“有效詐騙”的一種。因此，對于那些造成欺詐的交易，那些交易中的商品不僅質(zhì)量低劣，而且是一些不值錢的貨物，那些像欺詐的賣方一樣擁有單據(jù)以及所附相應(yīng)文件的交易商，那些在提交單據(jù)及文件前就被銀行發(fā)現(xiàn)了欺詐行為的案件處理來說，就不困難了。</p><p>　　阻止在信用證欺詐情況下的付款行為，不僅保護(hù)了開征申請人的利益，而且也保護(hù)了開證行的利益。因為銀行對于代表貨物的單據(jù)付款

77、時是極其確保自身的利益的。</p><p>　　自從經(jīng)過了Sztejn的案件后，世界各地的法院，包括加拿大和美國的法院，都已經(jīng)承認(rèn)并建立了在跟單信用證和備用信用證交易中信用證欺詐例外原則。在美國，Sztejn的案例以及其后的案例使美國《統(tǒng)一商法典》的起草者在其1995年的修訂版中將信用證欺詐例外原則加入了新版的《統(tǒng)一商法典》中。 </p><p>　　3 信用證欺詐情況下當(dāng)事方的法律救濟

78、</p><p>　　為了評估在信用證欺詐情況下，成功替代法律訴訟而采用仲裁來解決爭論的前景，首先要了解當(dāng)事人在這種情況下可以采取的法律補救辦法。 在信用證交易中，受益人的不當(dāng)行為可能會引起多種的司法程序。因此，信用證欺詐交易中交易各方可以采取的法律行為的范圍以采取的措施及的程序和策略，將最終取決于每一個具體案件，因此這并不能涵蓋全面的情況。但是，為了保護(hù)在信用證欺詐交易中各方的權(quán)利，有三個典型的司法措

79、施可供交易各方采用。 </p><p>　　3.1 申請人申請法院止付令</p><p><b>　　3.1.1 一般</b></p><p>　　對于申請人來說，第一個也是最重要的程序就是向法院提議申請止付令，來阻止履行受益人的付款要求。這種情況就是發(fā)生在Sztejn的案例中，申請人需要在受益人企圖用虛假的信用證議付前向法院申請。法院只有在申

80、請人出具證據(jù)以證明這種欺詐將會使其遭受哦不可彌補的損害后，才會下達(dá)正審或臨時的強制止付令，來阻止開證行的付款行為。</p><p>　　然而，一般來說，法院不愿給予止付令等救濟措施，并只在少數(shù)情況下強制止付令才會在隨后的司法程序中予以保留。 3.1.2 加拿大 在加拿大，對于信用證欺詐的情況，聯(lián)邦法律中沒有具體的條文來管轄法院簽發(fā)止付令。因此，在這種情況下，各州級的法律就適用了。</p&g

81、t;<p>　　但是，明確在法律正審中申請強制止付令與在非臨時司法程序中申請止付令的區(qū)別。相對于法院訴訟中欺詐需明顯成立來說，在非正審止付令中需要有足夠的證據(jù)以證明欺詐的存在。但是，當(dāng)以前的案件提供給我們寶貴的指導(dǎo)意見時，法院普遍認(rèn)為應(yīng)“根據(jù)每個案件的具體情況給予各自相應(yīng)的考慮”來評估是否應(yīng)給予法律救濟的止付令。 </p><p>　　3.2 受益人針對開證行的行為 </p><

82、p>　　在發(fā)生欺詐行為的情況下，通常所采取的第二類法律程序是受益人針對開證行錯誤地拒絕止付信用證時的行為。在這種情況下，因為開證行收到了開征申請人對于受益人欺詐行為的通知而拒絕向受益人付款。因此，受益人需要證明自己沒有任何欺詐行為并且開證行違背了信用證項下當(dāng)“單證一致、單單一致”時付款的責(zé)任。因此，法院必須首先確定哪些條件構(gòu)成欺詐以及這個案件中受益人的行為是否符合之前對信用證欺詐的定義。其次，與這相關(guān)聯(lián)的問題是，對于欺詐的證據(jù)和說

83、明文件是否足以證明開證行是為了減輕其支付的義務(wù)。換言之，法院必須確定當(dāng)開證行面對欺詐時應(yīng)盡的義務(wù)。 3.3 開證行針對申請人的行為 第三類針對欺詐行為的措施就是開證行要求申請人償付的行為。當(dāng)開證行已履行了對該信用證項下的付款，而開征申請人卻拒絕向開證行償付。盡管開證行事先收到了開證申請人對于受益人因欺詐行為而無權(quán)要求付款的通知，但是開證行仍對受益人進(jìn)行了付款。在這種情況下，開證行需要有足夠和合理的理由來證明其須支付信用證項下

84、的款項，因此，它有權(quán)獲得償付。同樣，這個問題在于由開證申請人作出的指明受益人欺詐的斷言是否有欺詐存在以及開證行在開證申請人提出證據(jù)證明</p><p><b>　　4 小結(jié) </b></p><p>　　有趣的是在這些典型的欺詐司法程序中，均涉及到開證行。令人驚訝的是欺詐源于開證行不熟悉的業(yè)務(wù)關(guān)系。因此，欺詐問題應(yīng)由貿(mào)易當(dāng)事方之間的提起訴訟，而不是開證行與開證申請人或

85、開證行與受益人之間，這是值得商榷的。我們必須牢記的是開證行最終只是作為有償付能力的中間方處理文件和付款。因此，從開證行的角度來看，信用證欺詐例外原則對于信用證的獨立自主原則來說是不利的，因為這往往超出了它的控制能力而進(jìn)入司法程序，這對于其在交易中的中介作用毫無關(guān)系。當(dāng)考慮到開證行可能因為訴訟得結(jié)果而終止付款所造成損失時，這種司法程序的后果是惡劣的，即貿(mào)易雙方已成功地將他們的問題轉(zhuǎn)嫁給了開證行。正如所指出的，在殘酷的商業(yè)運作中，對開證行沒