请问开具非金融机构信用证的原因及风险点。需要大量的参考文献。_百度知道
请问开具非金融机构信用证的原因及风险点。需要大量的参考文献。
请发送至我的邮箱wang_.cn
提问者采纳
文献　　1:第二通知行规定的探讨　　作 者　　一。出口商凭借信用证。　　如果信用证的开立者为公司而非银行，银行信用证的独立性是付款保证的关键：
屈建龙 Qu Jianlong　　作者单位、原因　　我国已成为世界贸易大国，开证人作为独立于进出口商之外的第三方。　　二:中国商务出版社　　年卷期、UCP600，就要考虑公司风险而非银行风险：李道金　　来源,这无疑给国际上不怀好意的人提供欺骗我国中小企业的有利的机会。因此。　　三： 国际商报　　年卷期：对外经贸实务
PKU　　英文刊名：江苏电大常熟学院　　刊 名，而且信用风险是由开立信用证的公司（非银行）承担，议付行在议付信用证项下单据时，承担着对出口商付款的保证责任，这可能导致议付行拒绝议付：
2003(1)　　2、非银行开立的信用证问题　　作 者，卷(期)，卷(期)：2008　　4：江苏电大常熟学院，一方面可以取得付款保证，则上述付款保证可能不是由独立第三方作出,215500　　刊 名： PRACTICE IN FOREIGN ECONOMIC RELATIONS AND TRADE　　年：
对外经贸实务
PKU　　英文刊名,江苏：
PRACTICE IN FOREIGN ECONOMIC RELATIONS AND TRADE　　年：屈建龙　　作者单位,因为世界上大多数的银行还是正派的：2008 (10)　　3：阎之大　　来源、非银行信用证的风险及防范　　作 者。相应地。用正常的信用证对他们没有什么保障,但是这些开证行就必须支付： 北京,非银行信用证就应是他们创新的成果，卷(期)、风险　　传统理论认为：江西财经大学国际经贸学院　　刊 名：
HEILONGJIANG FOREIGN ECONOMIC RELATIONS & TRADE　　年,即使他们不想付款、UCP600解读与例证　　作 者,进行“金融创新”,常熟：
黑龙江对外经贸　　英文刊名，另一方面可以用于融资（如信用证打包放款和押汇）、我国银行和企业应将非银行信用证拒于国门之外　　作 者,一旦单据相符,他们就挖空心思：2007　　5： 王善论　　作者单位
提问者评价
等你的相关文献了
其他类似问题
为您推荐：
非金融机构的相关知识
等待您来回答
下载知道APP
随时随地咨询
出门在外也不愁国际贸易中信用证支付的主要风险_百度文库
两大类热门资源免费畅读
续费一年阅读会员，立省24元！
国际贸易中信用证支付的主要风险
上传于||暂无简介
阅读已结束，如果下载本文需要使用
想免费下载本文？
你可能喜欢信用证电文不常见的项目： 50B： NON-BANK ISSUER！！ - 外贸单证 -
福步外贸论坛(FOB Business Forum) |中国第一外贸论坛
& 信用证电文不常见的项目： 50B： NON-BANK ISSUER！！
UID 345609
阅读权限 40
信用证电文不常见的项目： 50B： NON-BANK ISSUER！！
我收到一份带 50B: NON-BANK ISSURER 这一项的信用证，有人知道这项是什么意思吗？跟我们做单据和收汇有没有关系，或者说有没有什么影响？！
UID 349545
积分 61105
帖子 13124
福步币 1207 块
阅读权限 120
50B: NON-BANK ISSURER
涉及到“转开信用证”。
楼主可以把这项贴全下。
UID 345609
阅读权限 40
原帖由 trandy_liu 于
09:57 发表
50B: NON-BANK ISSURER
涉及到“转开信用证”。
楼主可以把这项贴全下。 啥叫全下？
我查了一下，这是非银行的信用证。
UID 345609
阅读权限 40
NON-BANK ISSUER:
SABADELL ASIA TRADE SERVICES LTD.
L/C PROCESSING CENTRE
7TH FLR STANDARD CHARTERED TOWER
388 KWUN TONG RD KWUN TONG HK
UID 345609
阅读权限 40
非银行的金融机构开证。哪位有经验？请来介绍一下，多谢了！第一次做。
UID 102994
积分 65877
帖子 18096
福步币 805 块
阅读权限 150
是一样的，只是说通常觉得银行的信用比非银行的更好而已
(阿文单证店)
UID 238551
积分 214085
帖子 11289
阅读权限 120
这种 NON-BANK ISSURER 的现象是越来越多了，确实使人平添了不少疑惑。究竟应该如何看待，请看最权威机构 the ICC Banking Commission 的意见：
Department of Policy and Business Practices
When a non-bank issues a letter of credit
Commission on Banking Technique and Practice, 30 October 2002
Because of widespread interest in this subject, the ICC Banking Commission has decided to post its official Opinion on non-banks and letters of credit on the ICC web site. The Opinion follows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles 1 and 2 of UCP 500
When a non-bank issues a letter of credit
We have been receiving a significant number of enquiries about letters of credit which are advised by some banks in the usual way, but are actually issued by a corporate, or the finance arm of the corporate and not a Bank.
These predominantly corporate L/Cs from Country U are &advised& by banks on their letterhead in a SWIFT MT 700 format, and to all intents and purposes appear to be bank issued L/Cs, with the requirement to present documents to the advising or transferring bank, where documents will be processed and payment made after receipt of funds from the &issuer&.
Invariably they incorporate clauses to the effect that the L/C is subject to the UCP, and that where the UCP refers to &issuing bank& then the issuer is to be construed as acting in all respects as the &issuing bank&.
Notwithstanding the fact that legally any entity can issue a letter of credit, our understanding is that the UCP only contemplates as issuers banks, on the basis that the issuing bank is undertaking a third party, independent guarantee of payment to the seller (beneficiary). It is this independence of a banker's letter of credit that is key to the payment undertaking.
The requirement by the seller for a letter of credit is two-fold: first that he has a guarantee of payment, and second that he can use the credit to raise pre-shipment finance from his banker.
In the case of the corporate L/C as we understand it, the guarantee of payment is not normally by an independent third party, and, as such, the credit risk is that of the corporate entity issuing the credit. Similarly when documents are presented under the L/C for negotiation, that negotiation if any, is based on the risk of the issuing entity, i.e. is corporate, not bank risk.
We would be grateful if the ICC Commission on Banking Technique and Practice would advise on the following:
Is it acceptable practice for a bank to advise a corporate letter of credit in the same way as a bank-issued letter of credit without drawing attention to the &non-bank& nature of the issuing entity? Does the Commission consider appropriate guidelines should be published? If so what will these say?
What is the position if the corporate issuer were to apply for liquidation, bankruptcy, or protection from creditors (e.g. file for Chapter 11), and how different is the position to that of when a bank is unable to meet its obligations.
The UCP reflects that state of practice, namely a situation where the issuer or other actor on a letter of credit is a bank. As a result, although there is no affirmative rule in the UCP prohibiting entities that are not banks from issuing, confirming, paying, negotiating, or advising letters of credit, its vocabulary (&issuing bank&, &confirming bank&, etc.) assumes that these entities are banks.
This assumption is based on the recognition that there are three principal advantages to bank issuance and handling of letters: namely that banks have the operational expertise to handle issuance and presentation under letters of credit in a professional manner, that they have the tradition of independence from the underlying transaction which is the basis of the commercial reputation of the letter of credit, and that in virtually all countries banks are specially regulated with a view toward protecting those who rely on their undertakings.
to be continued to the next page ***
[ 本帖最后由 awen2188 于
13:45 编辑 ]
(阿文单证店)
UID 238551
积分 214085
帖子 11289
阅读权限 120
***continued from the previous page
These matters are of considerable importance to the integrity of the letter of credit as an instrument of commerce and to its dependability as an instrument of payment.
However, neither the Commission on Banking Technique and Practice nor the UCP can determine who is empowered to issue letters of credit under local law nor who may issue its undertakings subject to the UCP. That restriction on the issuance of letters of credit is a regulatory matter under local law should be obvious. In some countries, non-banks can issue letters of credit, although there may be limitations where they are used in consumer situations. In other countries, issuance is limited to financial institutions, but it is less clear that only banks constitute financial institutions. As a result, non-banks that are financial institutions, such as insurance companies, can issue letters of credit in some countries.
It may be less apparent that the UCP cannot itself limit the scope of its application. The UCP is a set of voluntary rules of practice. The rules c an be modified or excluded by the undertaking that is issued subject to them as is recognized in UCP 500 Article 1 (Application of UCP) (The provisions &are binding on all parties thereto, unless otherwise expressly stipulated in the Credit.&). Issuance by a non-bank constitutes such a modification. Even if the UCP expressly prohibited issuance by a non-bank, this prohibition could be modified because the UCP is not a legislative act that can restrict the manner in which it can be applied.
Where a letter of credit is issued by a non-bank, the non-bank issuer should be held to the same obligation and standard of care as would a bank. In either case, the obligation is to pay against the presentation of documents that comply with the terms and conditions of the credit and that determination is to be made based solely on the documentary presentation and not on the status of reimbursement obligations or the underlying transaction, and local law should apply the same principles to an independent undertaking regardless of who makes it.
Having concluded that a credit can be issued subject to the UCP by a non-bank, however, does not mean that it is prudent for a beneficiary to accept such a credit. Issuance through an advising bank does mitigate the issue of whether the credit is authentic and presentation of documents to a bank does reduce some operational risks. There is, nonetheless, the risk of the creditworthiness of the issuer and country risk. These risks apply equally whether the issuer is or is not a bank and a beneficiary should always assess whether it is prepared to accept the credit and country risk associated with the issuer. If not, it should require confirmation by an entity with which it is comfortable.
There remains, however, an additional risk that may not be apparent to beneficiaries, namely the risk of neutrality of the issuer. This risk is somewhat more intangible but is very important. It is the risk that, when presented with documents, the issuer may be influenced by factors other than whether they comply on their face with the terms and conditions of the credit and may exercise certain discretionary judgments in examining documents against the beneficiary where it would not otherwise do so if external factors were different. While this risk is not confined to non-banks, the reputation of individual banks for integrity is well known in the letter of credit community and one which most banks that regularly engage in letter of credit practice work hard to maintain. It is less apparent that when faced with a poor credit decision, an insurance company will approach the problem in the same way as would a letter of credit banker rather than as an insurer, which may be inclined to reject all arguable claims and engage in litigation to settle any colourable dispute.
Similar concerns would apply to corporate issuers on behalf of themselves or affiliated companies, even though two-party letters of credit are recognized by UCP 500 Article 2 (Meaning of Credit) (&and on the instructions of a customer (the 'Applicant') or on its own behalf&).
For these reasons, it is in the interest of banks generally to inform corporate letter of credit users of the advantages of having a bank's obligation, either as the issuer of a credit or as the confirmer of a credit issued by a non-bank. There would be no objection under standard international letter of credit practice to informing specifically the beneficiary of such a credit as to the nature of the issuer in addition to emphasizing that the advising bank assumes no liability, although in the absence of agreed standards such a decision should rest with the individual bank involved.
Of course, where the manner of issuance misleads the beneficiary into believing that the issuer is a bank, the advising bank may expose itself to liability. Ultimately, however, the decision as to whether or not to accept the risks associated with a non-bank issuance rests with the beneficiary.
Conclusion
It does not &violate& the UCP for a non-bank to issue a credit subject to the UCP even though such issuance is not contemplated in the rules. The UCP does not specifically provide for bank advice of non-bank issued letters of credit. Such an advice should accurately identify the issuer and indicate the advising bank's limited role. If the form of advice refers to the &issuer& as &issuing bank& or otherwise gives the impression that it is a bank, it is recommended that the advice affirmatively disclose the non-bank status of the issuer in order to correct any mistaken impression caused by such reference.
The consequences of insolvency are a matter for local law, whether the insolvency is that of a bank or non-bank issuer. In either case, however, the beneficiary assumes the risk of the creditworthiness of the issuer unless it is offset by obtaining confirmation or credit insurance.
Rome, 30 0ctober 2002
[ 本帖最后由 awen2188 于
13:39 编辑 ]
UID 345609
阅读权限 40
没看懂！能大致给讲下嘛？
UID 1009326
阅读权限 25
伙计，和你遇到同样的问题了，而且连这个非证机构，都是同一个。我百度了一篇文章，感觉挺有启示性的，贴给大家看看，一定要注意防范NON-BANK ISSUER的这种L/C。
10:51&&资料&&个人空间&&短消息&&加为好友&&只看该作者&&
NON-BANK ISSUER:
SABADELL ASIA TRADE SERVICES LTD.
L/C PROCESSING CENTRE
7TH FLR STANDARD CHARTERED TOWER
388 KWUN TONG RD KWUN TONG HK
我国银行和企业应将非银行信用证拒于国门之外
自本世纪初以来，境外非银行机构通过境外银行转递来的信用证在我国经常发生。所谓非银行信用证就是指不是由经许可的经营货币业务的银行开出的,而是由公司或非银行金融机构开出的。因其没有资格加入到SWIFT系统,所以这类机构开出的信用证只能通过银行转递给受益人。近期,有几家出口额大的惊人的企业几乎同时就其因使用了事前不知悉是非银行信用证而遭受钱货两空的严重威胁向本站求助。事发后，他们不但品尝到了非银行来证的无比苦涩，也为我国商业银行给他们带来的严重的误导而叫苦不迭。
我国已成为世界贸易大国,这无疑给国际上不怀好意的人(不乏有部分华人)提供欺骗我国中小企业的有利的机会。用正常的信用证对他们没有什么保障，因为世界上大多数的银行还是正派的，一旦单据相符，即使他们不想付款,但是这些开证行必须支付，因此，也就挖空心思，进行“金融创新”，非银行信用证就是他们创新的成果。
实践证明，即使是境外银行开来的信用证,对我方的出口也未必就有很大的保障，开证行故意臆造不符点的现象司空见惯,更何况没有任何付款保障的非银行开来的信用证呢！通常情况下，对于银行信用证，如开证行无理拒付，那么通过DOCDEX裁定一般来说是对我们最终能收回货款是有保障的，而对于非银行的开证公司，即使有了DOCDEX裁定的保障，要想执行还是有一定难度的，特别是当他们是皮包公司时，就只能望洋兴叹了。
那么读者可能会问，既然按UCP600的规定，信用证是银行开立的,那些非银行机构或公司怎么能开出信用证呢？这个问题也一直困扰着笔者多年。直到2002年的10月，巴黎国际商会出台了对非银行信用证的解释，笔者才领悟出其中的道理。在其对非银行信用证的分析中，国际商会认为UCP所反映的是由银行作为信用证开立人的实践。尽管UCP没有明确禁止银行以外的当事人开立、保兑、偿付、议付或通知信用证，但其诸如“开证行”、“保兑行”的措辞就已经表明了这些当事人应是银行。但是无论是UCP还是国际商会都无法决定谁有权根据其当地法律开立信用证，以及谁能开立受UCP约束的信用证。很明显对开立信用证的限制是一个地方法律的问题。在某些国家，银行以外的当事人可以开立信用证，尽管使用起来可能会有不同程度的局限性；在另一些国家仅限于金融机构才能开立信用证，但是否只有银行才构成金融机构的问题却并不明确。因此，在某些地方银行以外的金融机构，比如保险公司，也可以开立信用证。这就对非银行信用证为何能被开立作出了权威的解释，同时也使笔者领悟到虽然国际商会不提倡但也并不反对由银行以外的人开立信用证。既然如此,那么我国各商业银行和有关进出口企业就应对非银行来证的巨大风险隐患要有非常清醒的认识，同时采取积极的预防措施。笔者认为最好的办法就是银行坚决拒绝通知，即使要通知也应非常醒目地在通知书中提醒受益人所通知的信用证是非银行来证，以免给受益人造成误导，也就是说使受益人误以为是银行来证；而对企业来说，不但应当拒收这样的信用证，更为重要的是须在签订合同时就明确规定不接受非银行来证。为更好地方便读者了解银行是如何误导受益人的，同时也为我国各商业银行引以为戒和为企业提高识别和防范非银行信用证的意识，笔者下面对曾处理过的此类案件进行整理分析。
一、非银行信用证的显著特点
笔者总结出非银行信用证有以下二个显著特点
1.转递行的免责性。凡是在已转递的非银行信用证中，转递银行都加上这样的类似条款：我行仅仅对电文的真实性负责，不承担其它任何责任和义务，你行（指通知行）也不因此通知而承担任何责任和义务。笔者认为转递行加上这样的免责条款，表面看是合乎情理和惯例的，为使在以后的任何有关纠纷中摆脱得干净利落做好了铺垫，即便其与开证人勾结起来，作为受益人也是毫无根据去揭穿的。
2.跨多国性，即这种信用证不同于银行信用证那样通常开证申请人和开证行都在同一国家或地区，而大都是申请人在A国或地区、开证公司在B国或地区、由开证公司选择在B或C国或地区的银行通过SWIFT系统将信用证通知给受益人所在国或地区的银行。现举例说明，在笔者处理的非信用证纠纷案中，有关这种特点，要数加拿大CamnexMarketingInc（以下简称Camnex）所开出的信用证最具有代表性。Camnex作为与深圳彩万公司所签订的合同中的买方，虽然其所在地为加拿大，但却通过在美国的InternationalTradeFinance(以下简称ITF)这家非银行机构开出了信用证，并要求美国西部银行通过SWIFT将该证转递给深圳的招商银行再通知受益人。对于这样跨越多国来完成信用证的开出和通知，笔者认为其目的无非就是拟对受益人实施威胁甚至欺诈所作出的事先安排。由于非银行信用证不含有银行的信用在里面，即使单据满足了信用证条款，开证人就是不履行付款义务，受益人通常对此也是束手无策的，唯一的解决问题的办法就是只能诉诸于法律。然而如若该类开证人是皮包公司或规模很小，那么即便胜诉了，要想得到最后的执行那也是比登天还难的，更何况开证人也是很容易挑剔出不符点的。这样一来，就为开证申请人要挟、威胁受益人提供了极大的便利。在这里所举的例子中，Camnex就通过ITF经美国西部银行发来电文要挟受益人：如不同意接受7万美元的货款（实际货款是23万多美元）就要退运货物。这种近乎强盗的行径，国人不得不防啊！
二、银行在通知和转让非银行信用证时，容易产生对受益人误导的情形
情形一：往往忽视了把原证中转递行上述的免责条款转通知给受益人。这就无形中剥夺了受益人对转递行的免责条款的知情权利，就极易使受益人误以为只要单据相符转递行就要承担相应的责任的。
情形二：在转让信用证时，没有完全按照第一受益人的转让委托书办理转让，而是随意变更或加上某些条款，这将使第二受益人误以为就是原证的条款，如某国有D银行在办理几笔非银行信用证转让时，把原证中的41D项中的CreditisavailablewithanybankinChinaby60daysdeferredpayment擅自改成了CreditisavailablewithDbankbynegotiation.这显然对第二受益人造成这样的误导，即只要单据相符，便可以到D银行办理议付了。而事实上，后来D银行审核单据后没有发现不符点，根本就没有同意办理议付，原因是可想而知的。
情形三：最为严重的误导是银行无论是在通知或转让时，没有在通知书中向受益人或第二受益人明确指出该信用证是非银行信用证；还有令人费解的是这些所谓的专业银行常常在其通知面函已印定的“开证行”栏中把转递行作为开证行了，给受益人的感觉是开证行就是银行，而不是非银行；更让人不可思议的是在52D项中也把转递行当成开证银行了，这无疑给第二受益人造成了严重的误导，使他们认为信用证完全是银行开出的。为更清楚地帮助读者理解这一问题，现以前述D银行这个案子为例，在其已办理的转让信用证中（由乌克兰银行转递过来），D银行不但在信用证通知面函上标明开证行是乌克兰银行，而且在52D项中也标明开证行是乌克兰银行，居然只字未提及非银行开证人LLOYDS。这种严重的误导导致第二受益人至今还有巨额货款没有收回。按国际商会的意见，对受益人造成了误导，有关银行应承担相应的责任。因此，本案中的第二受益人有权利向D银行主张自己的权利。
根据以上分析，相信读者也已完全知道了非银行信用证的危害性了，愿借此机会给我国银行及受益人建议如下：
1.在通知这样的信用证时,最好以手型章在NON-BANK处醒目作记（如果原证在52D项中已说明开证人是NON-BANK）以提请受益人注意，或在通知面函上清楚地表明这是NON-BANK信用证，并表明该项通知不构成通知行的任何责任，或当受SWIFT系统格式的限制而只能在52D项中把开证人显示为开证银行时，就应在79项的NARRATIVE中作出类似这样的说明：NOTWITHSTANDING THE HEADER ON FIELD 52D，THE ISSUER OF THIS LETTER OF CREDIT IS A NON-BANK. WHEREVER THE WORD “ISSUING BANK”MAY APPEAR IN THIS LETTER OF CREDIT，SHALL ALWAYS BE READ AS A“NON-BANK ISSUER”；同时,应善意地提醒受益人不要轻易接受这种非银行信用证，特别是在办理转让信用证时，务必要把原证的所有条款(除第一受益人提出变更的以外)都要转出去。
2.受益人不要盲目地认为只要是信用证就对安全收汇有保障。在合同商谈时,如对方提出将由非银行开出信用证一定要提出由第三家银行保兑，最好在合同中约定卖方不接受任何形式的非银行信用证。要特别注意的是，如我们的企业规模较大，由于在合同中没有明确约定是否接受非银行的信用证，一旦对方开出这样的信用证，我们宣称不接受，那么我们就面临着违约的风险，进而遭到对方索赔或仲裁或起诉的可能性就很大，我们不得不防啊！
3.但是归根结底，笔者还是希望我国各商业银行和相关进出口企业要坚决地将非银行信用证拒绝于国门之外，这是防范这类信用证风险的最好办法。　
全球信用证纠纷处理网& &&&李道金
(Thomas Warren)
UID 538746
阅读权限 25
来自 河北安平
请问楼主，接到这样的信用证，你们接受了吗，结果怎么样，我们也受到一个这样的
UID 843682
阅读权限 40
回复 #10 shirainy 的帖子
原来还有这种形式的信用证，今天见识了，受益匪浅，谢谢！
UID 1421340
阅读权限 40
UID 1568549
福步币 4 块
阅读权限 25
实务中看到不少外贸公司还是接受这些NON-BANK ISSUER的信用证的，因为通常这些NON-BANK ISSUER是一些发达国家的实力强大的公司，或者是银行等金融机构的附属机构，不知道这家SABADELL ASIA TRADE SERVICES LTD.和BANCO DE SABADELL是不是有控股关系？你可以去查一下
UID 408908
阅读权限 40
一般别接受这个信用证，风险比较大哦！
当前时区 GMT+8, 现在时间是
Powered by D1scuz! && 2001-