When One Understands That This Is A Unauthorized Alteration

[shahriar]

dear all,

its not uncommon that we find some data which are added a certificate or document after they have been issued. sometimes its also clear that they were done by the beneficiary. most common is in the case for certificate of origin. i know that these are protected by the ISBP. but when one clearly understands that this is a unauthorized alteration, is there any way out?


regd

shahriar

[iLC]

dear shahriar

first i disagree as you said

but when one clearly understands that this is a unauthorized alteration

ISBP says

The use of multiple type styles or font sizes or handwriting in the same document does not, by itself, signify a correction or alteration.

therefore these cannot be termed as alteration. back to your question -
unfortunately no, at least to the best of my knowledge, there is no way out. i though agree with you. but i believe that you will agree that such append mostly occurs when Letter of credit calls for certain data which the certificate provider are not ready to write or not in a position to write. you mentioned about the certificate of origin. you see such things frequently cause often it these are issued before the LC and to comply the credit terms, the required data are appended later. this one of the reason why UCP allows description of goods in documents other than invoice in general terms is acceptable.

iLC

[jmitra]

Greetings all!

iLC, how could you be so sure that shahriar's case includes multiple types of fonts?

Mitra

[nesarul]

Dear all,
to me this is really a tricky question. I myself examine this sort of information which is alleged as handwrinting by the beneficiary on a document produced by other based on importancy of it [the information] on this transaction. such as: if the information is relevent to shipment date, dfefinitely i will stake out it as a discrepancy because this piece of information carried weight in any credit transaction. on the other hand, if the above information is relevent to "freight prepaid" or something like that i will not detect is as a discrepancy.
Consequently, it depends on the relative importancey of particular information. and may not wise to provide general statement.
This is solely my observation as a document examiner.
regards
nesar

[iLC]

dear mitra,

i am sure because its so obvious. some data have been appended to a document. if they are in the same tune as the other parts of the doc, then there would have been no problem. but when there is a confusing, it mean some thing is wrong and the only obvious reason is the hand writing and multiple use of fonts.

iLC

[jmitra]

dear ilc

i think there are other possible options. for example if things are written suspiciously at a wrong place may raise question. even if you are right at this point, both you and shahriar are wrong. for shahriar, use of multiple font is not protected by ISBP!! to me ISBP says that use of multiple font is not correction and therefore does not require an authentication. but these does not mean you can write any way you like on the document. Thanks nesarul. i agree with you. it fully depends on the case in consideration.

good answer nesarul

mitra

[cristiand969]

Dear Shahriar,
regarding your original posting on this issue its not uncommon that we find some data which are added a certificate or document after they have been issued. Please note you have to carefully consider this meaning as on one hand the document 'issued' (understood from your words printed out or typed) cannot be 'an issued document in its entirety' needing for more data to be completed to be 'a valid and complete document issued' (i.e if doc in question indicates this document is not valid unless countersigned, unless handwritten filled in you have NO DOCUMENT.
On the other hand as per ISBP art. 15 a document is considered issued of the date of signing (if you have a document printed with a date 15.09.2008 for example and somewhere else in document signed at the date of 01.10.2008 (when other data handwritten added) you have a document issued on the date of signing.
Regarding your wording but when one clearly understands that this is a unauthorized alteration, is there any way out? we consider unauthorized adding rather than alteration as latter means to correct something already stated. I cannot imagine the way you can establish this 'unauthorized work' unless the handwritten clearly bears information regarding who had made it. Remember that in case of forgery banks are well protected by art. 34 of UCP 600. banks are not required not permitted to go beyond the documents to see how a document was in fact produced - quoting from 'Determination of originality' issued by ICC.
Hope this helps!
Regards
Cristian

[iLC]

fantastic analytical post dear cristian, especially the date issue. nevertheless, you have to agree that in real world, such is happening. i think its the job of the presenting bank to ensure such compliance. after all a presenting bank are usually in a better position to know the beneficiary and the local practice related to a local document.

iLC