News

News Categories
Recent News

News by Month

Spring/Summer 2020 Newsletter added to Members Trade Information section

04/06/2020 The latest newsletter has been added to the Members Trade Information page. This newsletter includes an overview of the 5 Opinions that have recently been approved by the ICC Banking Commission and released by the ICC today. It also provides an overview of the ICC Guidance paper concerning the handling of trade finance transactions subject to ICC rules during the COVID-19 pandemic.


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.