Fraud in Letters of Credit under English Law: Issues and Cases (the Three Dimensions)

According to many cases, it has been demonstrated that sellers with bad intentions have manipulated letters of credit system in many ways, including fraud. Thus, many legal jurisdictions have recognized the fraud exception rule. In order to apply such exception, some conditions must be met. Among these conditions, the bank’s knowledge and a requirement of a clear evidence. Notably, the bank’s knowledge is crucial, meaning that the establishment of the sole exception will depend upon the status of the bank’s knowledge. Meaning that if the bank is aware of existing fraud, it is under a duty to refuse presentation. Otherwise, it should not. In turn, the establishment of clear evidence by the English courts is somewhat hard to achieve, consequently, such condition criticized often. Further, if the beneficiary himself commits the fraud, or has knowledge of the fraud, then the fraud exception rule will apply.1 This raises the question of whether the fraud exception should also bite where the fraud is committed by a third party but without the beneficiary’s knowledge. From these facts, this chapter will try to analysis the status of the bank’s knowledge and the hardship related to the clear evidence requirement in conjunction with the third-party fraud.

Part I Legal and Practical Challenges to Traditional Trade Finance, 8 Injunctions to Restrain Payment on Independent Guarantees: ‘Unconscionability’ to Bolster the Fraud Exception

This chapter explores the grant of injunctions to restrain calls on independent guarantees based on the unconscionability exception to the autonomy principle. Using Singapore law as the primary basis for discussion, it explains the rationale and operation of the unconscionability exception and its relationship with the traditional fraud exception. This approach is compared with the UK approach, and brief reference is also made to the position in Australia and the USA. The chapter argues that the unconscionability exception is a justifiable policy response to address the potentially oppressive nature of performance bonds. If used sparingly and confined within narrow limits, this approach will promote integrity in the call on performance bonds without affecting the commercial usefulness of these instruments. The chapter also examines the situation where the underlying contract is affected by frustration or force majeure—a question which has become of greater prominence after the COVID-19 pandemic—and discusses whether the grant of an injunction to restrain payment on a performance bond in these circumstances can be supported based on the fraud or unconscionability exception or some other principle.

Fraud in the documents and the underlying contract in letters of credit under Jordanian and English law: a new prerequisite?

Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach 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. Findings 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. Originality/value 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.

Fraud exception to privilege: Addlesee & Ors v Dentons Europe LLP [2020] EWHC 238 (Ch)

Some months after Addlesee & Ors v Dentons Europe LLP produced an important judgment of the Court of Appeal in relation to the statue of legal professional privilege following the dissolution of a corporate client,1 the same litigation has given rise to a judgment addressing another area of the law of privilege.

The implementation of the fraud exception rule: a comparative study

Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach This paper is a comparative study which uses analytical approach and critical legal thinking. Findings 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. Originality/value 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.

Legal basis for the fraud exception in letters of credit under English Law

Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach Traditional analysis method and critical legal thinking. Findings 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. Originality/value 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.

Revisiting the fraud exception: a critique of United City Merchants v Royal Bank of Canada 40 years on

Much has changed in the four decades since United City Merchants v Royal Bank of Canada, in which Lord Diplock established the fraud exception in transactions financed by documentary credit. In particular, the introduction of the UCP 600, case law on nullity documents and amendment to the American fraud exception justify a reconsideration of both the policy arguments underpinning Lord Diplock's rule and the fate of documents known to be forged or null at the time of presentation. Accordingly, two arguments are made in this paper. First, a consideration of the broader exception in the US should prompt a modern Supreme Court to re-examine his Lordship's insistence that a narrow exception was required to preserve the efficiency of the credit mechanism. In addition, it further argues that banks should be entitled to reject known nullities and forgeries as non-complying. This argument would reinstate the doctrine of strict compliance, which was overlooked in United City Merchants, and is based on the clarified definitions in the UCP 600, more recent judicial consideration of nullities and the existence of the ICC's International Maritime Bureau.