Home About us Pay subscription Contact

Register

Contact

Gary Collyer
Email gary@collyerconsulting.com or gcollyer@virginmedia.com
Telephone +44 (0)1268 680210
Mobile +44 (0)7960 236893

Mailing address:
65A Mayland Avenue
Canvey Island, Essex SS8 0BU United Kingdom

Recent News

New platform for conducting Bank Payment Obligation (BPO) transactions 09/12/2019

Further to our news item of 19 November, there has recently been a further update on the Cmatch platform that is being made available by essDOCS...more

New platform for conducting Bank Payment Obligation (BPO) transactions 19/11/2019

In our news item of 7 May 2019, we reported that SWIFT had decided to decommission their Trade Service Utility (TSU) platform and transaction matching application with effect from December 2020...more

Latest Question

UCP 600 sub-article 9 (b) states that: “By advising the credit or amendment, the advising bank signifies that it has satisfied itself as to the apparent authenticity of the credit or amendment and that the advice accurately reflects the terms and conditions of the credit or amendment received.” What do we mean by “satisfied itself as to the apparent authenticity? “By “authenticity”, besides the usual signature verification or establishing that the SWIFT authentication is correct, would this include red flags analysis to be performed on a SBLC? Granted, most banks do perform such analysis these days, but this is more driven from an AML /Fraud perspective. Is this the expectation of UCP for an advising bank’s role? What if the LC is later confirmed to be fraudulent even though it passed the SWIFT verification check, does the advising bank have any liability in having advised it to the beneficiary? Should the advising bank take necessary steps to inform the beneficiary of its discovery without delay? Are there any other actions that the advising bank should take? What is the minimum authentication standard that an advising should have followed?