Search results

This study aims to examine the application of the fraud exception to the autonomy principle that governs the work of letters of credit in both Jordanian and English law. While it has been reiterated that the application of such exception before the English courts is difficult, this study highlights and critically analyzes some of the reasons that lie behind such a difficulty. Moreover, this study compares the English approach with the Jordanian approach to this specific area of law to find out what each can benefit from the approach of the other. The extent to which both approaches have been successful in applying such an exception will be examined thoroughly in this paper.

To examine how effective is the approaches followed by the English and Jordanian Courts in applying the fraud exception in this context, this work makes use of the secondary data available in this regard as the main method to complete such an examination. By critically analyzing and comparing the various data contained in these sources, this work identifies the problems associated with such approaches.

This work suggests that while the autonomy principle in letters of credit has what shall maintain its role as an important principle, the fraud exception application shall be facilitated. It further submits that the English Courts attitude to this specific area of law is somehow ambiguous and intertwined as it does not distinguish between two different stages that are existent in this context, namely, the submission of the documents stage “the prerequisite” that in case of submitting genuine, truthful and complying documents would activate the autonomy principle and the following stage which starts after activating the autonomy principle and which to it a fraud exception can be applied.

This work proposes that a beneficiary of a letter of credit shall satisfy a prerequisite before it can be said that he is protected under the autonomy principle. Such a prerequisite dictates that he shall submit genuine, truthful and complying documents to activate the autonomy principle and once the beneficiary submits such documents it can be said that the autonomy principle, which fraud is an exception to it, has been activated. Furthermore, this work proposes that English Courts shall adopt an approach similar to the Jordanian approach in relation to the application of the fraud exception, whereas the latter requires proving neither the beneficiary’s fraudulent intent nor his knowledge of it but rather applies a more realistic test concerned merely with the goods’ quality and quantity.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the application of the fraud exception rule and try to analyze the different approaches in regard to the implication of fraud rule in letters of credit. Further, this paper tries to explore if there is an obstacle when applying such exception rule in common law and whether there is an overlap with interpreting the said rule. The same fact appears in civil law courts as well.

This paper is a comparative study which uses analytical approach and critical legal thinking.

The scope of the fraud defence, the US legal systems demonstrate that the scope of the fraud rule is extended and covers both fraud in documents and fraud in the underlying contract, while in contrast, in UK the rule’s scope is restricted to fraud in documents only. Such an approach is reasonable, as it is justified by applying the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP) rules strictly. That is to say, English courts apply the rules literally, even if it does not lead to fair judgements, while in contrast, American courts seek to enforce justice even if it goes beyond the rules. In any case, restricting the fraud exception to fraud in the documents is the proper approach. The reason for such restriction, on the one hand, is to maintain the integrity of letters of credit and, on the other hand, to affirm the autonomy principle.

Extending the scope of the fraud defence will require banks to go beyond the documents, which is not logical. Banks are neither expert in such transactions nor required to do so. Most importantly, banks are concerned with documents only; it is for the court to go beyond the documents. Although this approach could be criticized, it is important to ensure that the validity of the documentary credit instrument is not compromised. As established by academics, any argument need not engage the bank unless it is in respect of the presented documents. In short, “pay now, argue later” is paramount to distinguish parties’ litigations from banks vs parties’ litigations. In any case, it can be suggested that extending the fraud rule exception to include fraud in the underlying contract from Jordan perspective is not the proper one because it is necessary to maintain the integrity of letters of credit and to affirm the autonomy principle.

This guide is compiled in order that banks may see the extent of the overall problem of fraud and money laundering in documentary credit transactions. It also contains advice on how banks and bankers may protect themselves and their staff from the consequences of fraudulent attacks against the system.

The paper examines case law and statutory provisions related to lifting the corporate veil. The aim of the paper is to explore recent case law in order to determine whether courts have moved away from an overly restrictive approach when dealing with cases relating to the corporate personality. To offer a full account of the exceptions to the corporate personality doctrine, this paper also examines cases where the veil of incorporation is lifted due to a breach of a statutory provision.

The paper reviews recent case law and statutory provisions relating to lifting the corporate veil. The paper critically reviews the exceptions to the corporate personality doctrine which amount to lifting the corporate veil.

The paper finds that courts are more willing to lift the corporate veil compared to before. They have moved away from the restrictive approach and this is demonstrated by the tendency to find new exceptions to the corporate personality doctrine such as the interests of justice argument or lifting the veil in tort cases.

The paper offers an up-to-date assessment of the exceptions to the corporate personality doctrine and highlights the growing tendency to finding new ways of lifting the corporate veil.

The purpose of the paper is to examine the law relating to different types of guarantee schemes and the circumstances in which they are used to safeguard against default risks in international commercial practice. Different types of guarantee schemes are used in different contexts, often depending on which types and the purpose they have been sought.

The paper was undertaken by evaluating secondary data sources, empirical examples and case law to underscore the pitfalls commercial parties need to always bear in mind with regard to guarantees and factoring and their usage in international commercial practice.

The paper articulates the law relating to different types of guarantees and how they are harnessed to provide security against default risks in international commercial practice. By the very nature of guarantees, they tend to be in high demand in times of economic uncertainties when banks and other financial institutions find it less prudent to lend to borrowers without ensuring some form of security against potential defaults.

There are many different types of guarantee schemes clients can always opt for, but some of them are never written about as much. There is therefore limited data available to inform policy decisions by those who seek to use them. Lack of adequate information on any financial produces, leave alone guarantees, is not good for businesses and the public in terms of how to safeguard against risks inherent in usage and practice of guarantees. In this similar respect, there were not enough data available to evaluate the varied context in which guarantees are used.

There are limited data available on guarantees, and because they are speciality products, the way they are used in practice can never be overlooked. It was necessary to publish this paper not only to address the foregoing need but also to discuss different types of guarantees and enhance understanding on their usage and practice. The paper articulates the law relating to guarantees and what guarantors need to always bear in mind before they accept to sign contracts of guarantees.

Guarantees are important for markets to operate efficiently. Their usage and practice has wide implications for various stakeholders such as banks, businesses, economies, governments and people, especially where contracts relating to them are not constituted and executed properly. Defaults on borrowed loans can lead banks not to lend money to businesses and subsequently choke them of a source on which many depend.

This is the first paper that articulates the close relationship between guarantees, factoring and trusts. The paper has articulated the varied contexts in which each of the foregoing speciality products is harnessed in practice. Although this paper was written largely by reviewing and internalizing secondary data sources, it was done in a distinctive way to underscore the objectives it was written to achieve.

In 1996, with a proposal for a Corpus Juris to unify the criminal laws and procedures of the Member States with regards to offences affecting the EC budget, the fight against fraud and corruption affecting the EC budget took a truly ambitious turn. This proposal attempts to build upon attempts to protect EC funds by means of criminal law, through the application of assimilation, harmonisation and cooperation. The author discusses the chances of the Corpus Juris being adopted as a Community instrument in the light of the changes to the Treaty on European Union agreed at Amsterdam.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the current legal framework for payment system in international Islamic trade finance vis‐à‐vis the new regime introduced by the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP) 600 as well as the Sharī'ah Standard on Documentary Credits issued by the Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI) and Sharī'ah Resolutions of selected Sharī'ah Boards of Islamic financial institutions.

A partial comparison of both the UCP 600 and the Sharī'ah framework for documentary credit is given through the content analysis of relevant sources.

The AAOIFI Sharī'ah Standard on Documentary Credits, as well as other applicable Sharī'ah resolutions of Islamic financial institutions, does provide a good framework for a Sharī'ah‐compliant documentary credit system, which is unique to trade in Islamic finance products, but there is scope for further improvement, taking into consideration the two possibilities proposed in the available literature on the subject – harmonization or bifurcation of rules. The UCP 600 also allows for the exclusion or modification of the rules to suit the specific needs of the Islamic finance industry.

This study focuses only on UCP 600 and the Sharī'ah framework on Documentary Credits, though bearing mind that there are other frameworks for documentary credit systems such as the International Standby Practices (ISP98) and letters of credit issued under Article 5 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code.

Islamic financial institutions should implement the provisions of the AAOIFI Sharī'ah standard on documentary credits but may require a different framework for international trade financing involving both Islamic banks and conventional banks.

Though few studies have been conducted on Sharī'ah issues regarding the application of the documentary credits, this seems to be the first time where a more proactive step is taken to propose two different frameworks for transactions involving Sharī'ah compliant financing.

This paper aims to analyse the status of the bank’s knowledge and the hardship related to the clear evidence requirement with regard to establish the fraud exception rule in English courts.

Traditional analysis method and critical legal thinking.

To trigger such an exception in England, two conditions, bank’s knowledge and clear evidence, must be met to establish the fraud rule, which will be applied only if it appears in documents. The bank’s knowledge condition, the awareness of the fraud that the bank should have before the payment, is material to determine whether if the fraud rule will trigger in most of the English cases. However, if the bank is not aware of the fraud, they must honour the credit if the documents are compliant, meaning the paying bank is protected if the documents against which it made payment are tainted with fraud, even if it is not aware of the fraud. Moreover, it is not a bank’s responsibility to investigate allegations of fraud. Nonetheless, there are some reservations regarding the bank’s knowledge and clear evidence conditions, as explained above. In short, such an approach does not lead to fairness and justice for the applicant.

English courts focus more on evidence of the fraud rather than making unnecessary distinctions pertinent to the fraud exception scope. The absence of such evidence will not trigger the exception rule. Conversely, injunctions are not easily granted in England where the requirement for heavy evidence and proof of the bank’s knowledge will be obstacles. That is to say, banks are more protected in England simply because the courts want to uphold the integrity of the banking system when affirming the autonomy principle. In a case where the applicant becomes aware of the fraud, there is no other option for the applicant except to ask for an injunction from the court, which is not easy to gain under English courts. In addition, it is unclear how the court will prove that the bank is aware if there is fraud in the presented documents. In addition, the question arises as to whether the same strict standard will be required by both the applicant and the party who notified the fraud.

This paper aims to explore the feature and mechanism of a new type of documentary credit fraud that victimizes banks’ issuing letters of credit (L/C), harming neither the importer nor the exporter and seeks to suggest possible measures to tackle it.

This study analyzed 30 cases of documentary credit fraud against banks that were detected by the Korea Customs Service (KCS) and interviewed three key customs investigators to interpret the case reports more accurately and gain a deeper understanding into the mechanisms governing the fraud. This study draws on routine activity theory and crime pattern theory to analyze the opportunity structures of this fraud.

This study found that the importer that engaged in the fraud cases had established a solid business relationship with the exporter and had established trust with the victimized banks; the banks, despite the fact that they had their own risk management systems to screen out unqualified L/C applicants, were defrauded by the offending importers and exporters. Unlike ordinary documentary credit fraud, fraud against banks can be tackled by customs because the offender and the victim typically operate in the same jurisdiction, and this type of fraud often results in trade-based capital flight and money laundering, which is the target of customs enforcement.

As this paper is based on case reports of the KCS, it is inappropriate to generalize the findings or to apply the findings to other contexts. Nevertheless, the opportunity structure elaborated upon in the course of this paper may prove useful in devising measures to tackle this type of fraud elsewhere.

Documentary credit fraud against banks is relatively unexplored, in particular from criminological perspective. This study can contribute to a refinement of the application of opportunity perspective to white-collar crime.

This paper examines the role of professional associations, governmental agencies, and international accounting and auditing bodies in promulgating standards to deter and detect fraud, domestically and abroad. Specifically, it focuses on the role played by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA), the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), the US Government Accounting Office (GAO), and other national and foreign professional associations, in promulgating auditing standards and procedures to prevent fraud in financial statements and other white‐collar crimes. It also examines several fraud cases and the impact of management and employee fraud on the various business sectors such as insurance, banking, health care, and manufacturing, as well as the role of management, the boards of directors, the audit committees, auditors, and fraud examiners and their liability in the fraud prevention and investigation.