ICC announce postponement of the ICC Banking Commission Technical Meeting scheduled to be held in Limassol, Cyprus on 26-29 October 2020


The ICC released the following on 25 June 2020:

“Due to the ongoing global health crisis, the Banking Commission leadership and ICC Secretariat  in close consultation with ICC Cyprus has to inform you that the ICC Banking Commission Technical Meeting in Limassol originally scheduled on 26-20 October 2020 will be postponed.

This decision was made to:

•    Ensure the health and safety of our employees, delegates, speakers and partners, which is our number one priority. 

•    Anticipate that many of you will not be in a position to travel due to ongoing restrictive measures. The Banking Commission events have always been an inclusive gathering of the trade and trade finance network. It is through this diversity and scope that our events have become the success they are today. That is why we want to give banks and the trade finance community the necessary time they need to adjust and recover.  

We will work closely with the Chairs of the various Workgroups and Task Force to carry on with the programme of the ICC Banking Commission on a virtual basis. We will be in touch with you all once relevant information will be made available.    

We look forward to seeing you all in Dubai for our Annual Meeting in 2021.”

Back to recent news

Recent News

CDCS examination April 2021 18/01/2021

The CDCS examination will be held on 16 & 17 April 2021, depending on your location...more

Autumn and Winter 2020 newsletter now available for Members 30/11/2020

The Autumn and Winter 2020 newsletter is now available for viewing in the Newsletters / Articles / External Publications tab of the Members Information section...more

Latest Question

URDG 758 article 2 defines ‘presenter’ to include a party acting on behalf of the beneficiary. The same article defines ‘demand’ to be a document signed by the beneficiary. With this in mind, I noticed that one of the many proposed changes by SWIFT with respect to the MT 7xx message series is the introduction of the MT 765 (‘Guarantee/Standby Letter of Credit Demand’). The proposed MT 765 makes perfect sense when a bank is the beneficiary of a demand guarantee. But apparently this proposed new message may also be used by a bank/financial institution acting on behalf of the beneficiary. I can’t see how a non-bank beneficiary would no longer be required to sign a demand document, but instead could instruct a presenter (their bankers) to send a MT 765 to the guarantor. My understanding was that the only party entitled to perform/draw under a demand guarantee by making a demand, is the beneficiary. It is one thing for a bank to act as a presenter, by agreeing to remit the beneficiary’s demand to the guarantor and quite another for a bank to make a demand on behalf of the beneficiary. Furthermore, I can’t see how a demand communicated by means of a MT 765 would be deemed a complying presentation if the demand guarantee, subject to URDG 758, did not expressly provide for electronic presentations or was silent on this point (in the latter case, sub-article 14 (e) would apply). Please could you explain 1. how the proposed MT 765 will work in the case of a non-bank beneficiary, and 2. how a bank communicating a demand by means of a MT 765 on behalf of a beneficiary, is compatible with URDG 758.