题　名  信用证欺诈相关法律问题研究  
作　者  刘东平  
作者单位  吉林大学,法学院,长春市 130012  
专　业  经济法学  
指导教师  徐卫东  
学位级别  303  
馆藏索取号  3990374  
中文文摘  信用证结算作为国际贸易的主要结算方式,自本世纪以来,在国际经贸领域被广泛采用。信用证结算方式以银行信用弥补了商业信用的不足,使国际货物买卖更加安全、方便、快捷,对维护国际经济秩序,保护各国商人的合法权益,拓展金融机构的服务领域,降低国际贸易的风险,都发挥了积极的作用。与此同时,国际上一些犯罪集团或不法商人,利用熟知信用证规定的便利,利用信用证的某些漏洞,对我国内企业大肆进行信用证欺诈,给受骗方造成巨额财产损失,严重扰乱了正常的国际贸易秩序,有些人甚至动摇了对信用证制度的信心。因此,完善相关立法规定,加大对信用证欺诈的打击力度,已经成为各国的共识。
信用证欺诈从欺诈人主体地位这一角度去区分,有开证申请人所为的欺诈、受益人所为的欺诈、开证申请人与受益人合谋的欺诈、开证申请人与开证行合谋欺诈等几种情形。其中,又以开证申请人开立“软条款”最具欺骗性。由上述信用证欺诈的表现形式,可以概括得出信用证欺诈的构成要件,一般应从主、客观两方面着手去认定。主观上要有欺诈故意,客观上应实施欺诈行为。只有主客观同时具备,方构成欺诈。在此,应注意信用证欺诈与严重违约的区别。要结合每起案件的具体情况,综合分析,确认涉嫌方主观上是否具有欺诈之故意。
通过对信用证欺诈表现形式的透视,可以发现,信用证制度中的“独立抽象性原则”是欺诈发生的主要原因。由于信用证一经开立,即独立存在,其不受买卖合同的约束。信用证交易是单据交易,只要单证相符,开证银行即应无条件付款。正是上述原则,给欺诈者以可乘之机。为了弥补信用证制度自身的缺陷,有必要规定“欺诈例外原则”,即在欺诈存在的前提下,银行的对外付款责任可以免除。此外,信用证欺诈带有明显的国际性,欺诈一方与受骗一方往往分属不同国家,不仅致使刑事责任的追究形同虚设,民事责任的追究也十分困难；国际上尚没有统一的立法对此作出专门的规定,世界上大多数国家(除美国等个别国家外)也没有对信用证欺诈在立法上作出规定,这都削弱了对信用证欺诈的打击力度。在我国,由于社会主义市场经济体制仅是初步确立,固有企业内部经营管理、制约机制尚不完善,对信用证业务不够精通,国内部分银行疏远于防范,这些都成为信用证欺诈滋生的温床。
信用证欺诈一旦发生,选择何种途径进行救济,对于降低因欺诈带来的损失十分重要。从信用证欺诈实务来看,有关当事人可选择请求银行停止对外付款的自力救济与请求法院发布止付令的他力救济两种途径。本文在分析、评述了信用证欺诈立法的国际国内现状后,借鉴信用证制度规定较为完备的美国等国家的做法,对我国信用证欺诈的司法救济提出了笔者的观点和意见。首先,应解决信用证欺诈民事救济的法律适用问题。信用证欺诈是一种侵权行为,对信用证欺诈的法律适用应与侵权行为地法原则来确定,此时,即使在合同或提单中订有仲裁条款的情况下,受害人也有权提出侵权之诉,法院亦应受理,不应受仲裁条款之限制。在审判实践中,应将信用证欺诈作为一独立案由来对待。在下达冻结令时,应掌握严格的条件。一般应是信用证交易中确有证据证明存在欺诈,且开证行与受益人尚未进行最终结算或执票人为非正当执票人。此外,从程度上,时间上亦应对冻结令进行严格的限制。由于银行一旦开立信用证或予以承兑,在单证相符的条件下,银行即承担第一付款责任。法院无论是冻结信用证项下货款或保证金,均不影响开证行对外屡行信用证所要求的付款义务。因此,现行的司法解释中有关下达冻结令的规定是不准确的,应借鉴美国等国的做法,,以法院发布止付令(禁付令)为宜。鉴于民事诉讼法中尚无有关规定,建议在民事诉讼法中增加此类条款的规定,以使我国法律适应经济全球化的趋势,切实保护我国银行、企业的合法权益,在信用证纠纷中占据主动。
从新刑法所规定的信用证诈骗犯罪的具体内容来看,信用证诈骗罪属行为犯,即行为人一旦实施了刑法第195条规定的四项行为之一,即构成犯罪而不论危害结果是否发生。
只要信用证欺诈行为成立,则一定同时构成信用证诈骗罪。这是我国刑法将信用证诈骗罪行为行为犯加以规定的必然结果。同样,构成信用证诈骗罪则同时也就构成信用证民事欺诈。对付信用证欺诈,最主要的是应加强防范。要慎选交易伙伴,慎重订立国际货物买卖合同信用证条款,正确选择国际贸易术语,加强单据审核,最后,银行亦应加强对从业人员的素质培养,注重往来银行的资信调查,严格审单,加强防范。

英文文摘  Credit fraud can be appeared as following types from the position of principle party; that fraud by applicant, fraud by beneficiary, fraud by cahoot of applicant and beneficiary, fraud by cahoot of applicant and issuing bank, etc. among which the most fraudulent way is the "soft clause" set up by applicant. In view of the above constitutes for L/C fraud it can be briefed that fraud should be cognized both in subjective and objective that means there should be a fraud intention from the subjective and a fraud implementation from the objective. Fraud will be formed only when both subjective and objective are available. It is to be noted to distinguish the L/C fraud from severe L/C default. All fraud cases should be analyzed according to particular circumstance, to confirm whether the suspect has fraud intention in his subjective.
It can be found through perspective to the forms of fraud that "independent absolute principle" of L/C system is the main factor resulting in fraud. Because as long as L/C issued and existed it will not be bound by the agreement between seller and buyer. L/C deal is for document transaction, the issuing bank will make sight payment unconditionally subject to the documents appear on their face to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit. And this very principle provides the chance for deceiver to fraud. In order to remedy such defects in L/C system itself it is necessary to stipulate "fraud exceptional principle", that means in situation of fraud existing the liability of payment by the bank can be exempted. In addition, L/C fraud has feature of internationalization, the deceiver and the victim sometimes are not from the same country, it not only disables the accusation to the criminal but also makes difficult to look into the civil liability, there are no special regulations made through uniform legislation in the world, most of the countries (except very few countries like U.S.A. etc.) have no lawmaking regulation on credit fraud, all these factors weaken the power to strike the criminal Owing to preliminary establishment of socialist market economy system in our country the mechanism of internal operation, administration, restriction, etc. is not perfected operation with credit is not mastered, and internal guard against fraud is neglected by some domestic bank, all the above mentioned also provide a warm bed to fraud to occur.
In case credit fraud occurred it is very important to select one suitable way to rectify it to minimize the losses caused thereof In view of credit practice there two options of remedy; one is of self-remedy conducted by concerned party who apply the issuing bank for payment and another one is to apply for court to notice suspend order by other party. Upon analysis, review on the present situation of credit criminal home and abroad, and using the experiences of other countries as America who had established better legislative regulations on credit system I would like to forward some of ideas and opinions as following. At first applicable law for remedy to credit criminal with civil relief should be solved. Actually credit fraud is a criminal of infringement act. The applicable law to credit should be defined on the basis of infringement act as local law. At this time even if there are conditions of arbitration stipulated in credit or documents the victim still has the right to bring a suit against infringement, and court should accept the complain without limit. In trial practice credit fraud should be treated as an independent case. Freezing condition should be strictly governed before issuing the order. Normally there should be sound proof to credit fraud and credit should not have been settled finally between the issuing bank and beneficiary, or bearer of bill is not holder in due course. In addition freezing order should be restricted strictly both in terms of extent and time duration. Because once letter of credit was issued or negotiated under the circumstance of document which appear on their face to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of credit the hank should undertake the responsibility as the first payer, it won''t affect the liability of the bank to make payment no matter payment for goods or security was frozen by the court or not. Therefore it is not accurate in present judicial interpretation of notice of the freezing order using the practices of America and other countries for reference it is better to issue the stop order by court. Whereas there are no such stipulations in civil law it is suggested to add such items to it and to allow it fit for the uniform global economy trend, hence legal right and interest of bank and sectors of our country can be protected, and we will be in active position in credit dispute.

关键词  信用证,欺诈,法律研究,自由词  
分类标识  D996  
论文注解日期  19990415  
总页数  47P