Best Trade Solution

Hi,

I came across a communication that SWIFT has changed field specifications w.e.f from November 2018. For e.g. Field 57A of MT 700 will now be “Second Advising Bank” instead of “Advise Through Bank” . Is this confirmed?

TIA
SGN

Hi,

Please take a look at https://www2.swift.com/uhbonline/books/ ... rds_mt.htm

Hi Pal,

I think that the field will remain 57A advise through bank, as per UCP 600 second advising bank is choosen by the advising bank and not by the issuing bank.
Please verify the date of Swift information sheet!
Ciao

Hi,

What I read was in a paper dated 23rd February 2016 from SWIFT for a release to be effective from Nov 2018. Anyway that is for later.

I find your observation regarding differentiation between Second Advising Bank ( SAB) and Advise through (AT) Bank interesting .

Aren't in most cases SAB and AT banks the same since the need for a bank ( other than Issuing Bank (IB) and Advising Bank(AB) ) arises only in either of the following 2 cases?

i) due to lack of RMA between the IB and the Beneficiary's bank which is then incorporated in 57A as the AT bank
or
ii) RMA is there but there is no correspondent banking relationship between IB and Beneficiary's bank but the Benf wants a Confirmed Credit. So then the IB sends the credit to its correspondent ( AB) , allowing them to confirm and mentions beneficiary's bank in 57A as the AT bank
Isn't in both the above scenarios, terms "SAB" and "AT" used interchangeably?

Would be grateful if you could give an example where we can have an Issuing Bank, an Advising bank, a Second Advising bank, an "Advise through" bank. Maybe a scenario where the AB does not have RMA with the AT bank and uses a SAB? Any other scenario?

TIA
SGN