Best Trade Solution

Is it ok to advice discrpancy notice under un-authenticated swift MT999, in case of no swift authentication/BKE arrangement between LC issuing and documents presenting banks.
Is issuing bank still liable or answerable if discrepancy not advised by authenticated swift and within stipulated time in lieu of no BKE arrangement.
Appreciate your valuable comments....Thanks

Hi Pal,

MT999 is ok, many comments from expert state that UCP 600 does not speak of an authenticated message but by any means of telecommunications. IMHO MT 999 is an authentic message, not authenticated, this means that the message is originated by the bank indicated in the swift code, is this bank that must in its internal policy contrasts any misuse.
It is very difficult to have new Swift RMA due to KYC, AML, CT and economic agreements between banks:" I will advise this credit through a friend bank, that will reciprocate such transaction, instead of send directly the message to the beneficiary's bank, ignoring loss of precious time and money".
Other comments appreciated
Ciao

Hi,
UCP 600, 16d states "... by telecemmunication or, if that is not possible, by other expeditious means...". The purpose is to "inform" not "confirm", i.e. to inform presenter of the refusal. Authenticated swift not a must for this purpose.
To ask another bank to relay message on behalf of refusing bank means, for me, a risk. Fail or delay of that bank may result in big loses for your bank.