Message Sub Type Is MT700, However, Field 57a Is Titled...

[consultant2b]

We have just been sent a copy of an LC Issued to us by our customer. It is a lc that is "available at any bank by negotiation". We had asked the customer to put a specific bank as the "advising bank", however, in the lc copy sent to us, the "receiver address" is the SWIFT address of a completely different bank (not the advising bank) and instead the SWIFT of advising bank has been put in field 57a. Is this correct? Field 57a is titled "account with bank". I was wondering if this is correct and if this LC has been correctly advised via our designated advising bank?

Secondly, what exactly does "account with bank" mean in this case, i.e. could this by any means, limit our ability to negotiate the LC with a bank other than the one mentioned in this field?

The message sub type is MT700, however, field 57a is titled as "Account with Bank"...Should this not be "Advising Bank" under MT700? Is this incorrect wording by the LC Issuing bank or am I not understanding it correctly?

[shahriar]

Hi,

I think you are getting it wrong here. SWIFT 57a is for advise through bank; not account with bank. It seems that the issuing bank does not have RMA with the bank you have asked for. So instead they have tried for advise through bank which is basically the 2nd advising bank. seems ok to me

[consultant2b]

Hi,

I think this is where the bank has got it wrong..in the LC, it states 57a: "account with bank" - exactly that text, instead of "advise through bank" but they have put the SWIFT code of the advising bank there.

On the top of the LC, where it says "receiving bank" it shows SWIFT code of another bank, rather than the advising bank. Is this the issuing banks fault?

[shahriar]

ummm, i would not say that directly well, some banks integrate their trade software to the SWIFT and use own Output template to generate message. so technically it is possible to change the heading. i guess this is what happen in this case. the receiver of a MT700 is always the advising bank. loosely some may call it the "receiving bank". but as i've said, you need to have a RMA with the "receiving bank" to transmit a MT700. when we dont have a RMA, we use an intermediary bank (still the receiving / advising bank) to send the MT700 to the bank of the beneficiary (That is your bank). The beneficiary's bank in that case is called advise through bank / 2nd advising bank.

so your case could be a simple problem or somebody has done something very very wrong

i always suggest not to perform under a LC unless you have an authenticated LC advised by a bank.

[Finance]

Receiving bank is the bank with whom the issuing bank has an RMA - allowing them to send an authenticated SWIFT message. If the issuing bank does not have an RMA with the advise through bank (i.e. the sellers bank) then sending the MT 700 message to a correspondant would be the normal course of action. That correspondant would normally advise the LC onwards to the advise through bank.

Field 57a is the correct place for your bank, as the LC beneficiary, to appear. This is correct, and it tells the reciever of the SWIFT where to forward the LC onto.

Field 57a in an MT 700 is defined by SWIFT. The header that is given by the SWIFT software that the bank is using is for informational purposes only, and does not change the nature of the field. 57a is always advise through bank - i.e. the last bank to which the LC needs to arrive on it's way to the beneficiary - or beneficiary bank

Available with any bank by negotiation means that you can submit documents at any bank, that bank can examine the documents, purchase the drafts drawn in a compliant presentation, and then claim reimbursement from the issuing/confirming bank.

Regards,
Finance

[Saifullah]

Dear Finance:
you wrote:
Receiving bank is the bank with whom the issuing bank has an RMA - allowing them to send an authenticated SWIFT message. If the issuing bank does not have an RMA with the advise through bank (i.e. the sellers bank) then sending the MT 700 message to a correspondant would be the normal course of action. That correspondent would normally advise the LC onwards to the advise through bank.

based on the above analysis can say that the receiver bank has RMA with the advise through bank that is the seller bank?

[Saifullah]

Dear Mr shahriar,
Can you please help me to solve some of my problem.
no1. In swift format Lc , if the receiver bank is different from advise through bank. then is it possible that advise through bank is in Australia.and the receiver bank location in London .As i have seen this type of lc.if this is the case then can I say that the receiver bank has RMA with the advise through Bank (Sellers Bank).
No 2. now as per I know advise through bank is the 2nd advising bank .so in this case if any amendment is needed then the process should be through the receiver bank in London the to the Australian bank.But the documents will be sent to the issuing bank by the sellers bank that is the Australian bank.
no 3. can the receiver bank mentioned in the swift format in the sellers country in Australia. if so then why the issuing bank consider the receiver bank in London. Yes I understand that Issuing bank has RMA with this london bank.but my question is are there no bank exist in Australia with which the issuing bank from Bangladesh has RMA .If the issuing bank has RMA with other bank in Australia rather than the advise through bank.they why it has made the receiver bank from London
Your comments is highly appriciated
Saifullah