Blog

Documentary credits, also known as letters of credit, have long been considered the lifeblood of international trade. These financial instruments provide a vital layer of security and trust between buyers and sellers engaged in cross-border transactions. 

However, the very features that make documentary credits so useful - their autonomy from underlying contracts and their reliance on documents rather than goods - can, on occasion, also make them vulnerable to fraudulent exploitation. 

This blog provides a summary of many court cases that have addressed this problem.

RD Harbottle (Mercantile) Limited v. National Westminster Bank Limited (1978) - United Kingdom

Reference is often made to this landmark court case. It is worth highlighting the key points that were made in the summary by the court:

• It is only in exceptional cases that the Court will interfere with the machinery of irrevocable obligations assumed by banks. They are the life-blood of international commerce.
• Such obligations are regarded as collateral to the underlying rights and obligations between the merchants at either end of the banking chain. Except possibly in clear cases offraud of which the banks have notice,the courts will leave the merchants to settle their disputes under the contract by litigation or arbitration.
• The courts are not concerned with their difficulties to enforce such claims:these are risks which the merchants take.
• In this case, the Plaintiffs took the risk of the unconditional wording of the guarantees. The machinery and commitment of banks are on a different level.They must be allowed to be honoured, free from interference by the Court. Otherwise, trust and international commerce would be irreparably damaged."

Sztejn v. J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation (1941) - United States
This landmark case established the fraud exception to the autonomy principle in documentary credits. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that banks may refuse payment under a letter of credit in cases of fraud.

United City Merchants (Investments) Ltd v Royal Bank of Canada (1983) - United Kingdom
The House of Lords clarified that the fraud exception applies only when the beneficiary is aware of the fraud, not when there is fraud by a third party.

Discount Records Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd (1975) - United Kingdom
The English court set a high standard for proving fraud, requiring "clear or obvious fraud" to enjoin payment under a letter of credit.

Edward Owen Engineering Ltd v Barclays Bank International Ltd (1978) - United Kingdom
The Court of Appeal emphasised the autonomy principle and the narrow scope of the fraud exception.

Banco Santander SA v Bayfern Ltd (2000) - United Kingdom
The Court of Appeal held that the fraud exception could apply to fraudulent demands under standby letters of credit.

Alternative Power Solution Ltd v Central Electricity Board and another (2014) - Mauritius
The Privy Council reaffirmed the autonomy principle and the limited scope of the fraud exception in documentary credits.

United City Merchants (Investments) Ltd v Royal Bank of Canada (The American Accord) (1982) - United Kingdom
This case further clarified the fraud exception, stating that it only applies when the seller/beneficiary is fraudulent, not when there is fraud in the underlying transaction by a third party.

Bolivinter Oil SA v Chase Manhattan Bank (1984) - United Kingdom
The Court of Appeal emphasised the high standard of proof required for the fraud exception.

Winson Oil Trading Pte Ltd v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation and Standard Chartered Bank (Singapore) Limited (2023) - Singapore

The Court clarified that the fraud exception can apply not only when the beneficiary knowingly makes false statements, but also when the beneficiary acts with "reckless indifference" to the truth of the statements in the documents presented.

Crédit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (CACIB) v PPT Energy Trading Co. Ltd (2023) - Singapore

The court upheld the autonomy principle of documentary credits.

These court cases collectively demonstrate several key points regarding fraud and documentary credits:

1. The fraud exception to the autonomy principle: While documentary credits are generally independent from the underlying transaction, courts have established a fraud exception that allows banks to refuse payment in cases of clear fraud.
2. High standard of proof: Courts generally require a high standard of proof to establish fraud and invoke the exception. Mere allegations or suspicions of fraud are usually not sufficient.
3. Scope of fraud: There has been debate and evolution in different jurisdictions regarding whether the fraud exception applies only to fraud in the documents presented or can extend to fraud in the underlying transaction.
4. Beneficiary's knowledge: Many courts have held that the fraud exception applies when the beneficiary (seller) has knowledge of the fraud, not when there is fraud by a third-party unknown to the beneficiary.
5. Recklessness: Some courts have expanded the definition of fraud to include not just knowingly false statements, but also statements made with reckless indifference to their truth.
6. Balance with autonomy principle: Courts have generally tried to balance the need to prevent fraud with maintaining the integrity and reliability of the documentary credit system.
7. Injunctions: Courts have set guidelines for when they will grant injunctions to stop payment under documentary credits based on allegations of fraud.
8. Differing approaches: While there is general agreement on the existence of a fraud exception, different jurisdictions have taken somewhat different approaches to its scope and application.
9. Challenges in application: The cases highlight the difficulties in proving fraud and applying the exception, especially given the "pay first, argue later" nature of documentary credits.
10. Importance of clear evidence: For the fraud exception to apply, courts generally require clear evidence of fraud, not just disputed facts or contractual disagreements.

In summary, these cases establish the existence of a fraud exception to the autonomy principle of documentary credits, but also demonstrate the courts' caution in applying this exception to maintain the reliability of the documentary credit system in international trade. The exact scope and application of the fraud exception can vary somewhat between jurisdictions.

www.tradefinance.training