Documentary Fraud Under the UCP: Revisiting an ‘Exception from Exception’ Principle

  • Časlav Pejović
Part of the Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation book series (PLBI)


In order to remedy the risk of fraud, the fraud exception is recognized by the law of letters of credit outside the UCP. Under this rule, the bank is allowed to reject payment even if the documents on their face comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, when documents are found to be fraudulent. This paper revisits the United City Merchants case which has established an ‘exception from exception’ rule by excluding from the application of the fraud exception rule cases in which the fraud was not committed by the beneficiary. This case has provoked a live debate, a lot of controversy, and different opinions. The paper will provide a short comparative overview to illustrate different approaches taken by different jurisdictions. The primary objective of this chapter is to contribute to the ongoing debate by bringing some new arguments aimed at highlighting the potential problems regarding the ‘exception from exception’ rule.


Letters of credit Fraud Beneficiary Documents 


  1. Bridge M (ed) (2014) The sale of goods, 9th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Buckley R (1995) The 1993 revision of the uniform customs and practice for documentary credits. GW.J.Int’l L. & Econ. 28:308
  3. Buckley R, Gao X (2002) The development of the fraud rule in letter of credit law: the journey so far and the road ahead. Univ Pa J Int Econ Law 663:701Google Scholar
  4. Dolan J (2006) Tethering the fraud inquiry in letter of credit law. Bank Finance Law Rev 21:479Google Scholar
  5. Ellinger P (1983) Documentary credits and fraudulent documents. III. In: Chinkin C, Davidson P, Ricquier W (eds) Current problems of international trade financing, Singapore International Business Law Series, vol 185. Butterworths, Singapore, p 234Google Scholar
  6. Gao X (2003) The fraud rule in the law of letters of credit: a comparative study. Kluwer International, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Gavalda C, Stoufflet J (2015) Droit bancaire, 9th edn. LexisNexis, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Goode R (1980) Reflections on letters of credit – I. JBL 291:294Google Scholar
  9. Goode R (1991) Abstract payment undertakings. In: Cane P, Stapleton J (eds) Essays for Patrick Atiyah. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Goode R, Kronke H, McKendrick E (2015) Transnational commercial law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Guest AG (ed) (1997) Benjamin’s sale of goods, 5th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Guest AG (ed) (2006) Benjamin’s sale of goods, 7th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Jack R, Malek A, Quest D (2001) Documentary credits, 3rd edn. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Kozolchyk B (1992) The immunization of fraudulently procured letter of credit acceptances: all sevices exportacao, importacao comercio, S.A. v. Banco Bamerindus do Brazil and First Commercial v. Gotham Originals. Brook L Rev 58:369Google Scholar
  15. Martin C (1985) Le credit documentaire, la fraude et la revision 1983 des RUU, RDAI/IBLJ 371Google Scholar
  16. McKendrick E (2016) Goode on commercial law, 5th edn. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Murray C, et al (2012) Schmitthoff’s export trade, 12th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Pejovic C (2017) Fraudulent transport documents under the UCP: controversies and possible solutions, the 2017 Annual Review of International Banking Law & Practice 201Google Scholar
  19. Ren J (2010) The scope of the fraud exception in letter of credit law. J Contract Law 292Google Scholar
  20. Ren J (2015) A nullity exception in letter of credit. JBL 1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Časlav Pejović
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of LawKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations