国际结算作业

案例一1993年底，华北某城市的一家公司（AB Co.）向中国银行申请人民币贷款，使用加利福尼亚东海银行发行的期票作为承诺。

P / N由美国公司（XY Trading Company）向AB公司借出，作为AB公司的承诺，向银行申请1000万元人民币贷款。

条件是，如果贷款被授予AB公司，400万将借给XY公司。

AB公司还向银行提供了两家公司之间协议的复印件。

由于本票金额巨大，银行职员对该协议感到怀疑，所以银行向加拿大东海岸银行发送了一条电缆查询。

不久之后，加州东海银行的答复说，银行从未发行本票，并建议打电话给警察局。

Make your analysis of the following cases.Case 1At the end of 1993, a company (AB Co.) of a certain city in north China applied for RMB loans to a Chinese bank, using a promissory note issued by the California East Sea Bank as the pledge. The P/N was lent to AB Co. by a US company (XY Trading Company), acting as pledge for AB Co. to apply for 10 million RMB loan from the bank. With the condition that if the loan was granted to AB Co., 4 million would be lent to XY Co.. And AB Co. also provided to the bank the photocopies of the agreement between the two companies. For the promissory note amount was huge, and the bank staff felt doubt to the agreement, so the bank sent a cable to the drawer California East Sea bank for inquiry. And soon, the reply from California East Sea Bank told that the bank never issued the promissory note, and suggested to call the police.分析：诈骗分子美国的××贸易公司冒充美国加利福尼亚州东海银行出具银行本票，并将其借给我国某企业，企业以此为质押办理人民币贷款业务，美国的××贸易公司从中渔利。

这类诈骗活动具有一定的普遍性，通常作案人员都有较高的文化素质，熟悉银行业务和国际贸易流程，了解不同银行的银行本票样式。

本案中，为了增强可信度，诈骗分子还专门出示了律师事务所见证协议书影印件，但这份经见证的协议书很可能也是假的。

因此，对银行的工作人员来说，凡是涉及金额较大的票据，必须严格把关，向海外出票行进行查证，不能因提供律师事务所见证协议书影印件而放松警惕，通融接受，一时的疏忽大意可能遭致惨重的损失。

本案中银行业务人员凭借自己的工作经验，发现了较多的疑点，之后严格按照操作规程进行电查，避免了虚假的银行外汇本票可能给银行造成的损失。

In this case, the company (AB Co.) pretended a promissory note issued by the California East Sea Bank, and then lent it to a Chinese enterprise as the pledge for the RMB loans business from which the United States trading companies sought. Obviously, the perpetrators are familiar with the banking business and international trade processes .Thus, it is necessary for the staff of the bank to check up the bills involving the larger amount strictly and meanwhile Bank staff ought to Cautiously verify the authenticity of the bill though the photocopy of theagreement has been provided. We are pleased to see that the bank staff can be vigilant enough to discover the doubtful problems on it and carefully reviewed. The case above tells us that as a bank staff, they are supposed to regulate the review of foreign exchange receipts so as to reduce the massive loss that may be caused to banks.案例二原告：AB银行被告：圣山公司介绍情况：二零零零年四月二十八日，圣山公司向罗彩公司发行承兑票据及抵押契据，本票已写明如下：这张本票有抵押契据作为赌注。

该契据和承兑票据是在同一天发行的。

承兑票据由发行人提取，支付给受益人，并正在对佛罗里达州法律进行解释和使用。

本文构成了契约的期票附件。

罗白公司将本票转让给AB银行，作为本行的余额。

当这张承兑票据由抽屉圣山田公司拒绝支付时，AB银行诉诸诉讼，以索赔付款，要求取消被告的抵押契据。

被告提出抗辩，涉及“公积金”和契据的交易是以罗白公司的欺骗结束的。

原告认为，这是P / N的真正持有人，所以其先前持有人的欺骗与此无关。

法院立即判定原告取胜。

然后被告提出上诉。

第二审判决被告获胜。

Case 2Plaintiff: AB BankDefendant: Holy Hill Field CompanyIntroduction of the case:On April 28, 2000, the Holy Hill Field Company issued a promissory note and a mortgage deed to Luo Bai Company, the promissory note has written the stipulation as following:This promissory note has a mortgage deed as a bet. The deed is issued on the same day with the P/N. The promissory note is drawn by the issuer, payable to the beneficiary, and is under interpretation and use of Florida law. This article constitutes the promissory note component of a deed.Luo Bai Company transferred the promissory notes to AB Bank, as a balance of payment for this bank. When this promissory note was refused to pay by the drawer Holy Hill Field Company, AB bank resorted to lawsuit, in order to claim payment of the P/N, and asked to cancel the defendant’s right of redemption for mortgage deed. The defendant put forward a defense, the deal involved in the P/N and the deed was concluded under deception of Luo Bai Company. The plaintiffs argued that it was a bona - fide holder of the P/N, so the deception of its prior holder had nothing to do with it. The court immediately judged the plaintiff to win. Then the defendant made appeal. The second trial judged the defendant to win.As we know, it is not allowed to transfer the promissory note containing the terms of the mortgage deed, so the plaintiff is not a valid holder. In this case, it is legal for defendant to take advantages of any defense between the defendant and the plaintiff. The promissory note containing a contractual term for a real estate mortgage does not include an unconditional commitment to payment. However, the commitment to pay for a promissory note must be unconditional. Mentioned property mortgage deed in the promissory note is a common practice that does not prevent the promissory note from being purchased. Mortgage deed by real estate is largely different from the deed clause forming part of the promissory note. Moreover, in accordance with general practice, the transferee of a mortgaged property deed as a non-negotiable promissory note, is also affected by the defenses against the detainee even to the right holder. To sum up, it is reasonable to judge the defendant to win in the second trial.案例三原告：迪士尼世界视觉记录公司被告：Irv Schwartz介绍案件美国音乐实业公司（以下简称音乐公司）和华特迪士尼世界视野记录公司（以下简称“唱片公司”）于二零零一年及二零零二年处于业务关系。