Intro Every now and then, a case comes along that reminds us how easily three separate worlds—documents, goods, and fraud—can become entangled in letter of credit practice. At first glance, this looks like a fraud case. In truth, the confirming bank’s difficulty began much earlier, with something far more basic: a non-complying presentation. Let’s walk through it carefully. Question Dear …

Questions on confirmed usance LCs are often less about whether they can be issued, and more about how they operate in practice. In particular, the roles of the nominated bank and the confirming bank—and their respective obligations—can give rise to uncertainty. The following Q&A looks at two practical points: the possibility of issuing a confirmed usance LC, and, more importantly, …

In today’s case, we look at a question about standby letters of credit (SBLCs)—a legitimate instrument in trade finance, but one that is often misused in questionable transactions, especially in commodity deals involving intermediaries. When an SBLC appears early in a deal, supported by “professional-looking” templates, it sometimes deserves a second, more careful look. QUESTION Dear Mr. Old Man, Sincere …

In documentary credit practice, banks sometimes raise discrepancies based on expectations that are not expressly required under UCP 600 or ISBP 821. Two common issues are the numbering of original bills of lading and the indication of total weight. A reader recently asked: ✅ Question Dear Mr. Old Man, A credit requires presentation of 3/3 original bills of lading plus …

In day-to-day LC work, not every presentation arrives with confidence and clean lines. Sometimes, the nominated bank steps back a little and sends the documents forward “on approval basis”—a small phrase, but one that shifts the practical dynamics quite a bit. What exactly does it mean, and how should the issuing bank respond? Question Dear Mr. Old Man, Hope you …

Intro Questions around “notify party” often look harmless at first glance—until a small detail turns into a discrepancy. This case is a good reminder that while practice allows some flexibility, the credit’s requirements still draw the line. Question Dear Mr. Old Man, Hope you are doing well. Sorry for troubling you with my queries. This one is with reference to …

Introduction In documentary collections under URC 522, things often run on familiar rails—documents sent, acceptance obtained, maturity awaited. Most of the time, the collecting bank’s role remains strictly mechanical. Then, occasionally, a small question appears: “With or without avalization?” It sounds like a minor procedural choice. In reality, it quietly shifts the nature of the transaction—from relying solely on the …

Discussions around the possible revision of UCP 600 often bring out interesting practical concerns. One of them, raised recently by a colleague, goes straight to the heart of risk allocation in documentary credits: If a nominated bank prepays or discounts under a credit, and fraud is discovered later, who ultimately bears the risk? A fair question — and not an …

There is a particular kind of misunderstanding in documentary credit practice that looks harmless at first glance—almost logical, even—but can quietly lead both bankers and beneficiaries into trouble. One of those is the idea of partial acceptance of an amendment. At first, it sounds reasonable: if an amendment contains several changes, why can’t a beneficiary accept some and ignore the …

As discussions continue around whether UCP 600 should be revised, some suggestions focus not on rewriting the rules entirely, but on simplifying specific provisions. One such suggestion is to remove availability by acceptance under Article 6(b), on the basis that drafts are no longer necessary in modern practice. At first glance, this seems reasonable. But as often in trade finance, …