DCW Monthly: September 2026
This month's content returns to a question the rules answer clearly and the courts sometimes do not: who
This month's content returns to a question the rules answer clearly and the courts sometimes do not: who
Talk of a trade’s digital transformation is in the air, but ICC UAE convened a focused stakeholder forum to
With the latest annual update to formats and rules on the Swift network approaching in November, Swift agreed to a
Fraud prevention is a crucial pursuit, but is an interim/hybrid solution requiring a beneficiary’s bank to vouch for the beneficiary the answer? Or does it introduce added risks?
Fraud prevention is an ongoing goal. In the world of commercial LCs, standby LCs, and demand guarantees subject to either UCP 600, ISP98, or URDG758, banks/guarantors are not responsible for vetting or otherwise verifying any signatures on any of the drawing documents received. Additionally, the basic premise of the various rules is that banks are not responsible to vet any content or otherwise go beyond the four corners of any required document to determine whether any statement is true or false.
However, with the exception of UCP, these same rules indicate that when a non-paper or data demand is allowed, the bank receiving the data is expected to authenticate the sender of the data (data could be transmitted by a beneficiary, its forwarder, transportation carrier, chamber of commerce, etc.) in some manner, understanding that different systems/platforms employ different methods to ensure an authentication process. eUCP would be the applicable rules for data demands allowed by a commercial LC.
This month's content returns to a question the rules answer clearly and the courts sometimes do not: who
Talk of a trade’s digital transformation is in the air, but ICC UAE convened a focused stakeholder forum to
An LC's independence from the underlying transaction it supports is one of the core tenets that distinguishes this instrument type from other promises. When disputes arise, courts at times have given uneven treatment to independent undertakings with regard to the independence principle.
In the past, the answer would be no. Chang-Soon Thomas Song, Attorney at KEB Hana Bank, explains what changed and one case where a remitter was able to recover from the beneficiary’s bank.
Gain full access to analysis, cases, eBooks and more with a DCW Free Trial