QQ客服 官方微博 反馈留言

题名	信用证欺诈下开证行的法律地位; The Issuing Bank’s Legal Status in L/C Fraud
作者	王琼
答辩日期	2007 ; 2007
导师	肖伟
关键词	信用证欺诈 L/C Fraud 开证行 Issuing Bank 法律地位 Legal Status
英文摘要	开证行是信用证法律关系中重要的当事人之一，其承担的第一性付款责任决定了在欺诈问题上，开证行将不可避免地面临着相对于其他当事人更为复杂的问题。近年来随着欺诈案件数量的大幅增加，如何定位开证行在欺诈中的法律地位，保障开证行的利益，增强信用证的生命力成为一个亟待解决的课题。本文主要探讨了开证行在欺诈下的权利和义务，以及应承担的法律责任，并评述了我国2005年11月14日颁布的《最高人民法院关于审理信用证纠纷案件若干问题的规定》（以下简称《最高院规定》）中若干涉及信用证欺诈下开证行的条款，提出自己的立法建议。 文章共分四章。 第一章首先阐述了开证行的中心法律地位，并且分析了开证行在信用证欺诈发生时面临的诸如声誉损失、资产质量受损、卷入诉讼等一系列问题，最后分析了欺诈例外原则的建立对开证行的重要意义。 第二章论述了开证行在欺诈下独特的权利和义务。本文认为拒付权的确立意味着在司法救济之前铺设一道屏障，通过非司法的力量预先、暂时地遏制欺诈，是信用证体系中的自力救济。尽管在信用证的正常支付中亦要求开证行履行合理谨慎义务、独立审单义务和绝对付款义务，但在欺诈发生时合理谨慎和独立审单既是必要的义务，也是对银行自身的保护。绝对付款义务则将开证行对先前付款承诺的履行转移到对善意第三人的保护。 第三章在探讨开证行法律责任时，认为应从违约责任入手，划分为不当兑付和不当拒付两种情形，其中不当拒付的重点在于区分不同情形下的银行责任，而不当兑付的重点则是判断开证行的兑付行为是否存在恶意。 第四章结合我国信用证法律的发展历程，分析我国2005年颁布的《最高院规定》中有关开证行的若干条款，提出了完善对欺诈的认定、设立银行拒付权、扩大享有异议权的主体范围等建议。; As one of the important parties in the legal relation of the letter of credit, the issuing bank’s irrevocable payment promise decides that he will face much more complex problems than other parties in the L/C fraud. In recent years, the number of L/C fraud cases has increased greatly, therefore, how to identify the issuing bank’s legal status, to protect the issuing bank’s benefit, and to enhance L/C’s vitality has become urgent. This dissertation focuses on the issuing bank’s rights, obligations and corresponding legal responsibilities in the L/C fraud and comments on Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues in the Adjudication of Letter–of-credit-related Cases issued on Nov.14,2005 and puts forward some personal suggestions. It consists of 4 chapters. Chapter One discusses the issuing bank’s central legal position, and analyzes a series of problems that the issuing bank will face in L/C fraud, as well as the significance of the fraud exception principle to the issuing bank. Chapter Two mainly discusses the issuing bank’s special rights and obligations in the L/C fraud. The issuing bank’s right to rejection is the self-help in the L/C system, which sets up a barrier before judicial relief in order to prevent the L/C fraud. Although in common circumstances the issuing bank is required to implement duty of reasonable care, independent document examination obligation and absolute payment obligation, this paper holds the view that reasonable care and independent document examination are not only necessary obligations but also self-safeguard in L/C fraud and absolute payment obligation shifts the issuing bank’s undertaking previous payment promise to protecting the third party in good faith. Chapter Three deals with the issuing bank’s legal responsibilities which fall into two kinds, one being wrongful dishonor and the other being wrongful honor. The issuing bank’s legal responsibilities of wrongful dishonor in L/C fraud depend on different situations, while the issuing bank’s legal responsibilities of wrongful honor in L/C fraud depend on the issuing bank’s intentions. Chapter Four combines the law of L/C fraud in China with the practical experience in our country including Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues in the Adjudication of Letter–of-credit-related Cases issued on Nov.14, 2005 and proposes some personal suggestions; 学位：法律硕士; 院系专业：法学院法律系_法律硕士(JM); 学号：200408177
语种	zh_CN
出处	http://210.34.4.13:8080/lunwen/detail.asp?serial=14225
内容类型	学位论文
源URL	[http://dspace.xmu.edu.cn/handle/2288/24411]
专题	法学院－学位论文
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714	王琼. 信用证欺诈下开证行的法律地位, The Issuing Bank’s Legal Status in L/C Fraud[D]. 2007, 2007.

个性服务

查看访问统计

相关权益政策

暂无数据

收藏/分享

除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。