|
十、结语
综上所述，欺诈例外的理论从Sztejn案的确立开始，已经经历了60多年，仍然面临着许多悬而未决的难题。尤其是在信用证欺诈多发的时代，传统理论面临危机，适用欺诈例外过高的门槛间接地起到鼓励欺诈的作用。为摆脱欺诈例外理论面临的种种困境，默示条款说脱颖而出。这一理论认为，受益人选择在信用证项下交单，就必须遵守信用证交易中的默示义务，即所交单据必须是真实、有效的，违反了这一义务，则银行有权拒收单据。这一理论在比传统的欺诈例外理论能更有效地遏制欺诈的同时，不会损害信用证交易机制的安全和高效，其内在条理和逻辑也更加清晰。这一理论要求避免将欺诈例外扩大到基础交易中的欺诈而可能带来的不确定性，维护了信用证交易的单据性特点。事实上，如果放弃某些学者对于信用证独立原则的表述中的“表面相符”一说，而按照UCP500采用的“符合信用证规定”的表述，默示条款理论可以很好地与信用证独立原则和严格相符原则相协调，银行拒绝事实上不符信用证规定的单据的权利与拒绝表面不符单据的权利是一脉相承的，完全可以不看作信用证独立原则的例外。
《最高法院关于审理信用证纠纷案件的司法解释（征求意见稿）》对于欺诈例外的适用规则的规定在做出一定努力的同时，没有摆脱传统欺诈例外理论面临的种种矛盾，因而没有形成条理分明、逻辑清晰的规则体系，有必要进行比较大的修订。
【注释】 1 如R. Jack, A. Malek & D. Quest称信用证欺诈是“发展中的法律领域”( a developing area of law)，见Documentary Credits, 3rd ed., (Butterworth, London, 2001), p. 257.
2 Ibid, p. 15.
3 The ICC Commission on Banking Technique and Practice Collected Opinions of the ICC Banking Commission , ICC Publication No 632, Ref 305.
4 这方面请参阅R. Jack, A. Malek & D. Quest Documentary Credits, 3rd ed., (Butterworth, London, 2001), Para. 13.1-13.40; R. King Gutteridge & Megrah’s Law of Banker’s Commercial Credits (Europa, London, 2001), Chapter 10; G. Graham, “International Commercial Letters of Credit and Choice of Law: so Whose Law should Apply Anyway?”, (2001) 47 Wayne L. Rev. 201.
5 Lord Diplock in United City Merchant (Investment) Ltd v Royal Bank of Canada (The American Accord) 1 AC 168.
6 Bank of Nova Scotia v Angelica-Whitewear Ltd SCR 59 at 81.
7 Commercial Crime Services Course Aims to Reduce Fraud Risk in International Commerce (online) http://www.iccwbo.org/ccs/news_archives/2000/course_aims_to_reduce_fraud_risk_in_international_commerce.asp
8 S. Kuo, ‘Shiao-Lin Kuo on the scope of letter of credit fraud’, Documentary Credits Insight, (1995) Autumn, Vol. 1, No. 4.
9 L. Leigh, The Control of Commercial Fraud (Heinemann, London, 1982), p. 3.
10 J. Dolan, The law of letters of Credit: Commercial and Standby Credits, rev ed. (Warren, Gorham & Lamont, Boston, 1996), para. 7-6, note 22.
11 97 Eng Rep 1035 at 1038.
12 31 NYS 2d 631.
13 1 Lloyd''s L.R. 166 (C.A.).
14 Ibid, at 170-171.
15 Discount Ltd v Barclay''s Bank Ltd 1 W.L.R. 315; R D Harbottle (Mercantile) Ltd v National Westminister Bank Ltd Q.B. 146; Edward Owen Engineering Ltd v Barclays Bank Int. Ltd Q.B. 159; Bolivinter Oil SA v Chase Manhattan Bank 1 Lloyd''s Rep. 251; United Trading Corpn SA v Allied Arab Bank 2 Lloyd''s Rep 554; Tukan Timber Ltd v Barclays Bank plc 1 Lloyd''s Rep. 171.
16 Edward Owen Limited v Barclays Bank 1 Q.B. 159 at 175.
17 2 Lloyd''s Rep. 554.
18 R.M. Goode, ‘Reflections of Letters of Credit -- I’, (1980) J.B.L. 291, at p. 293.
19 1 WLR 315.
20 1 Lloyd''s Rep 267, Q.B. 208 and 1 AC 168.
21 All E.R. 697.
22 Ibid, at 712.
23 2 Lloyd''s Rep. 187.
24 Harbottle (R.D.) Mercantile (Ltd) v National Westminster Bank 1 Q.B. 146, at p. 155.
25 2 Lloyd''s Rep. 187 at 190.
26 E. Ellinger, ‘Fraud in Documentary Credit Transactions’, (1981) J.B.L., p. 258 at p. 266.
27 1 Q.B. 146.
28 Y. Demir-Araz, ‘International Trade, Maritime Fraud and Documentary Credits’, International Trade Law & Regulation, (2002), vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 128-135, at p. 131.
29 R. Jack, A. Malek & D. Quest, Documentary Credits, 3rd ed., (Butterworth, London, 2001), p. 290.
30 E.P. Ellinger, ‘Documentary Credits and Fraudulent Documents’ in Current Problems of International Trade Financing, 2nd ed., eds. H.P. Kee & H.M. Chan (Butterworth, Singapore, 1990), p. 163.
31 P. Mukundan, ‘Trade finance fraud: when buyers and sellers collude’, Documentary Credits Insight, (2003) Jan-Mar, Vol. 9, No.1.
32 E.P. Ellinger, ‘Fraud in Documentary Credit Transactions’, (1981), J.B.L., p. 258 at p. 266.
33 P. Todd, Cases and Materials on International Trade Law, (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2003), p. 770.
|
