Search results

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 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.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on managing the risk of fraud in commercial letters of credit (LC) in Bangladesh involving three parties: the seller, the buyer and the bank. It addresses the severity of LC fraud, the banks’ actions when detected and the preventive measures the relevant parties can adopt.

This research uses doctrinal and qualitative methods to propose strategic actions that benefit buyers, sellers, banks, legal professionals and judges. The study aims to explore the modus operandi used by fraudsters through thematic analysis.

The study’s findings reveal that LC fraud has escalated to a concerning level, posing a significant threat to the economic stability of Bangladesh. Measures must be taken to mitigate this risk and safeguard the country’s financial integrity. To effectively combat the risk of LC fraud, the updated version of UCP must include specific and detailed guidelines on LC fraud. This study recommends preventative measures that all parties involved must take to reduce the likelihood of fraud significantly.

Due to a lack of LC experts, the participant sample for the study in Bangladesh was limited. Nevertheless, most banking participants were highly distinguished and held the Head of Trade Finance Department position in commercial banks. A few academics and legal practitioners with LC expertise also participated in the study.

It provides cutting-edge solutions to effectively handle LC fraud risk and provides proactive measures to prevent it.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and examine, in a systematic manner, possible preventive measures that commercial parties can take in order to prevent or reduce documentary letter of credit (L/C) fraud in international transactions.

In the context of international transactions, considering documentary L/C fraud as a risk, the paper searched preventive measures that different parties involved can adopt, from both business perspective and legal perspective.

The paper provides a number of specific measures which buyers, sellers, and banks in international L/C transactions can take in business to reduce L/C fraud. The option of banks providing additional services of checking further the validity or authenticity of some documents under the L/C, by charging additional prices, has reflected the needs of some business parties. However, this is proposed to be optional rather than compulsory for banks. The lawyers can also play an important role by adopting preventive legal mentality to help and provide advice to different parties in applying the preventive and proactive approach. More importantly, the author recommends that buyers or sellers maintain close cooperation with their banks and lawyers in implementing preventive and proactive measures.

The paper can be a helpful source of advice for business enterprises likely to be involved in international documentary L/C transactions.

This paper fulfils the gap of a holistic study on how to prevent international documentary letter of credit fraud.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

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.

Using the backdrop of an (apparently) extended visit to the West Indies, analogies with key concerns of internal audit are drawn. An unusual and refreshing way of exploring the main themes ‐ a discussion between Bill and Jack on tour in the islands ‐ forms the debate. Explores the concepts of control, necessary procedures, fraud and corruption, supporting systems, creativity and chaos, and building a corporate control facility.

Using the backdrop of an (apparently) extended visit to the West Indies, analogies with key concerns of internal audit are drawn. An unusual and refreshing way of exploring the main themes ‐ a discussion between Bill and Jack on tour in the islands ‐ forms the debate. Explores the concepts of control, necessary procedures, fraud and corruption, supporting systems, creativity and chaos, and building a corporate control facility.

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.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.