الغش والتزام البنك المستقل في عقد الاعتماد المستندي
Date
2023-01-08
Authors
احمد يوسف ابراهيم زبيدات
Ahmed Youssef Ibrahim Zubidat
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Al-Quds University
Abstract
لما كان الاعتماد المستندي من العمليات المصرفية الائتمانية قصيرة الاجل وذات أهمية اقتصادية كبيرة في نطاق عقود التجارة الدولية بوصفه وسيلة دفع مضمونه، حيث يتعهد المصرف في هذه العملية بدفع مبلغ معين بناء على طلب عميله (المشتري) وذلك لمصلحة طرف ثالث (المستفيد) مقابل تقديم المستندات التي تبين التوافق مع شروط وأحكام عقد الاعتماد ومن ثم فأن مراكز الاطراف في الاعتماد المستندي تتحدد بالنظر الى المستندات وحدها وليس بالنظر الى البضاعة التي تمثلها هذه المستندات.
فالاعتماد المستندي يقوم على ثلاث عقود تستقل عن بعضها كامل الاستقلال وان التزام البنك قبل المستفيد في خطاب الاعتماد ينشأ عند تقديم هذا الاخير مستندات تبدوا في ظاهرها مطابقة لتعليمات العميل الآمر في حين يمتنع البنك عن الوفاء للمستفيد بقيمة الاعتماد اذا تقدم هذا الاخير بمستندات غير مطابقة او مستندات معيبة او مستندات مصطنعة او مزورة اومستندات يشوبها الغش. ولكن لما كان العقد تصرف قانوني قوامه الارادة والاصل في الالتزامات العقدية ان الانسان لا يلزم إلا بما ارتضاه وما إنصرفت إليه ارادته ولأجل ان تنشأ الارادة هذه الالتزامات يجب ان تكون حره مبصرة سليمة من اي عيب يشوبها وحسن النية من المبادئ التي تبنى عليها العقود فإن كان هنالك غش من قبل أحد الاطراف فأن أهم مبدأ من المبادئ التي تقوم عليها العقود قد أنهدم. ذلك ان القاعدة العامة في التشريعات المدنية ان (( الغش يفسد كل شيء )). لذلك هدفت الدراسة الى بيان مدى خرق هذه القاعدة لمبدأ الاستقلال في عقد الاعتماد المستندي لا سيما وان هذا المبدأ هو الذي يبث ثقة المتعاملين في الاعتماد المستندي كوسيلة وفاء مضمونة. مما دفع بعض الفقه والقضاء الى التأكيد على البقاء على مبدأ الاستقلالية رغم توافر الغش في عقد الاساس بحيث لا يؤثر وجوده على بقاء التزام البنك بالوفاء بقيمة الاعماد للمستفيد قائما ، في حين هنالك جانب اخر من الفقه والقضاء اكدوا على خرق الغش لمبدأ الاستقلال ولقد فرقوا بين الغش في عقد الاساس والغش في المستندات. وكان هنالك جدل فقهي وقضائي في مدى جواز استصدار المشتري(العميل) قرار من القضاء المستعجل للبنك بالحجز على مبلغ الاعتماد لعدم صرف قيمته للمستفيد ( البائع) في حالة الغش في عقد الاساس او المستندات.
ولذا هدفت الدراسة الى بيان موقف القواعد والاعراف الدولية الموحدة الصادرة عن غرفة التجارة الدولية بالاضافة الى موقف التشريعات محل المقارنه " الاردني و المصري، الفرنسي و الامريكي " وموقف كل من الفقه والقضاء من مفهوم الغش وهل تم الاخذ بالمفهوم الواسع لمعنى الغش والذي يعني انه إذا كان هنالك غش من قبل أحد الاطراف فإن أهم مبدأ من المبادى التي تقوم عليها العقود قد أنهدم ويستتبع إنهدام الاساس انهدام البناء بحيث ان الغش في عقد الاساس يؤدي الى جعل العقد معيبا بالغش ويستتبع هذا الامر ان يصاب عقد الاعتماد بالداء نفسه اذا كان المستند يبدوا صحيحا ظاهريا ولكنه يتضمن تغييرا للحقيقة ؟ ام تم الاخذ بالمعنى الضيق لمفهوم الغش في الاعتماد المستندي بحيث يقتصر نطاقه على المستندات فقط فهي محل التزوير او تغيير الحقيقة وان البنك لا شأن له بالبضاعة وعليه ان يدفع ما دامت المستندات المقدمة من المستفيد سليمة من حيث الظاهر ويمتنع عن الدفع اذا ثبت له قبل الدفع للمستفيد بأن المستندات مزورة أو مصطنعة اذ تفقد قيمتها القانونية.
ولتوضيح ذلك يقال هل يتعلق الغش بعقد الاساس بين العميل والمستفيد ويعد غشا وبالتالي هل يعتبر استثناءا على مبدأ الاستقلال ؟ ام يقتصر هذا المفهوم (مفهوم الغش ) على علاقة البنك بالمستفيد.
سلكت الدراسة للأجابة على السؤال ، المنهج التحليلي والمقارن، ومن خلال تقسيم الدراسة الى فصلين تناول الفصل الاول ماهية ومباديء عقد الاعتماد المستندي في حين تناول الفصل الثاني صور واثار الغش على التزام البنك المستقل في الاعتماد المستندي ولقد توصلت الدراسة الى مجموعة من النتائج والتوصيات كان ابرزها ترك القواعد والاعراف الدولية الناظمة للاعتماد المستندي للتشريعات المحلية بيان اثر الغش في عقد الاساس والمستندات على عقد الاعتماد المستندي. وبالرجوع الى هذه التشريعات نجد منها من اخذ بالمفهوم الواسع لمعنى الغش ومنها من اخذ بالمفهوم الضيق ومنها لم يعالج المسألة بل تركها للفقه والقضاء والذي اختلف في بيان اثر الغش.
The documentary credit is a short-term credit banking operation of great economic importance within the scope of international trade contracts as a means of guaranteed payment. In this process, the bank undertakes to pay a certain amount at the request of its client (the buyer) for the benefit of a third party (the beneficiary) in return for submitting documents that show compliance with the terms and conditions of the credit contract. Therefore, the positions of the parties in the documentary credit are determined by looking only at the documents, not at the goods represented by these documents. The documentary credit is based on three contracts that are completely independent from each other. The bank's obligation towards the beneficiary in the letter of credit arises when the latter presents documents that appear to conform to the instructions of the ordering customer. Whereas, the bank will refuse to pay the beneficiary the value of the credit if the latter submits non-conforming documents, defective documents, fabricated or forged documents, or fraudulent documents. Since the contract is a legal act based on will, and the principle in contractual obligations is that a person is only bound by what he has accepted and what his will has turned to. Therefore, if there was fraud by one of the parties, then the most important principle of the principles on which the contracts are based has been destroyed. The general rule in civil legislation is that “cheating spoils everything.” Therefore, this study aimed to show the extent to which this rule violates the principle of independence in the documentary credit contract, especially since this principle is what spreads the confidence of dealers in the documentary credit as a guaranteed means of fulfillment. Distinguish between fraud in the basic contract and fraud in the documents. There was a jurisprudential and judicial controversy over the extent of the permissibility of the buyer (the customer) issuing a decision from the bank’s urgent court to seize the amount of credit for not disbursing its value to the beneficiary (the seller) in the event of fraud in the basis contract or documents. In front of this, this study aimed to clarify the position of the unified international rules and norms issued by the International Chamber of Commerce, in addition to the position of the legislation under comparison, "Jordanian, Egyptian, French and American." The position of each of jurisprudence and the judiciary on the concept of cheating and whether the broad concept of the meaning of fraud has been taken. Since fraud in the base contract leads to making the contract defective by fraud, and this entails that the credit contract suffers the same disease if the document appears to be correct on the surface, but it includes a change in the truth? Or was the narrow sense of the concept of fraud in the documentary credit taken? To clarify, is fraud related to the basic contract between the customer and the beneficiary? Is it considered fraud? Therefore, is it considered an exception to the principle of independence? Or is this concept (the concept of fraud) limited to the bank's relationship with the beneficiary? This study aimed to answer these questions, by following the analytical and comparative approach, and by dividing this study into two chapters. The study reached a set of results and recommendations, the most prominent of which was leaving the international rules and norms governing documentary credit to local legislation, showing the effect of fraud in the basis contract and documents on the documentary credit contract. Referring to these legislations, we find some of them took the broad concept of the meaning of cheating, and some of them took the narrow concept, and some of them did not deal with this issue, but left it to jurisprudence and the judiciary, and who differed in explaining the effect of cheating.
The documentary credit is a short-term credit banking operation of great economic importance within the scope of international trade contracts as a means of guaranteed payment. In this process, the bank undertakes to pay a certain amount at the request of its client (the buyer) for the benefit of a third party (the beneficiary) in return for submitting documents that show compliance with the terms and conditions of the credit contract. Therefore, the positions of the parties in the documentary credit are determined by looking only at the documents, not at the goods represented by these documents. The documentary credit is based on three contracts that are completely independent from each other. The bank's obligation towards the beneficiary in the letter of credit arises when the latter presents documents that appear to conform to the instructions of the ordering customer. Whereas, the bank will refuse to pay the beneficiary the value of the credit if the latter submits non-conforming documents, defective documents, fabricated or forged documents, or fraudulent documents. Since the contract is a legal act based on will, and the principle in contractual obligations is that a person is only bound by what he has accepted and what his will has turned to. Therefore, if there was fraud by one of the parties, then the most important principle of the principles on which the contracts are based has been destroyed. The general rule in civil legislation is that “cheating spoils everything.” Therefore, this study aimed to show the extent to which this rule violates the principle of independence in the documentary credit contract, especially since this principle is what spreads the confidence of dealers in the documentary credit as a guaranteed means of fulfillment. Distinguish between fraud in the basic contract and fraud in the documents. There was a jurisprudential and judicial controversy over the extent of the permissibility of the buyer (the customer) issuing a decision from the bank’s urgent court to seize the amount of credit for not disbursing its value to the beneficiary (the seller) in the event of fraud in the basis contract or documents. In front of this, this study aimed to clarify the position of the unified international rules and norms issued by the International Chamber of Commerce, in addition to the position of the legislation under comparison, "Jordanian, Egyptian, French and American." The position of each of jurisprudence and the judiciary on the concept of cheating and whether the broad concept of the meaning of fraud has been taken. Since fraud in the base contract leads to making the contract defective by fraud, and this entails that the credit contract suffers the same disease if the document appears to be correct on the surface, but it includes a change in the truth? Or was the narrow sense of the concept of fraud in the documentary credit taken? To clarify, is fraud related to the basic contract between the customer and the beneficiary? Is it considered fraud? Therefore, is it considered an exception to the principle of independence? Or is this concept (the concept of fraud) limited to the bank's relationship with the beneficiary? This study aimed to answer these questions, by following the analytical and comparative approach, and by dividing this study into two chapters. The study reached a set of results and recommendations, the most prominent of which was leaving the international rules and norms governing documentary credit to local legislation, showing the effect of fraud in the basis contract and documents on the documentary credit contract. Referring to these legislations, we find some of them took the broad concept of the meaning of cheating, and some of them took the narrow concept, and some of them did not deal with this issue, but left it to jurisprudence and the judiciary, and who differed in explaining the effect of cheating.