Much has changed in the four decades since United City Merchants v Royal Bank of Canada, in which Lord Diplock established the fraud exception in transactions financed by documentary credit. In particular, the introduction of the UCP 600, case law on nullity documents and amendment to the American fraud exception justify a reconsideration of both the policy arguments underpinning Lord Diplock's rule and the fate of documents known to be forged or null at the time of presentation. Accordingly, two arguments are made in this paper. First, a consideration of the broader exception in the US should prompt a modern Supreme Court to re-examine his Lordship's insistence that a narrow exception was required to preserve the efficiency of the credit mechanism. In addition, it further argues that banks should be entitled to reject known nullities and forgeries as non-complying. This argument would reinstate the doctrine of strict compliance, which was overlooked in United City Merchants, and is based on the clarified definitions in the UCP 600, more recent judicial consideration of nullities and the existence of the ICC's International Maritime Bureau.

中文翻译：

---

重新审视欺诈例外：40 年后对 United City Merchants v Royal Bank of Canada 的批评

自那以后的四个十年里发生了很大变化United City Merchants v 加拿大皇家银行，其中 Diplock 勋爵在跟单信用证融资的交易中确立了欺诈例外。特别是，UCP 600 的引入、无效文件判例法和对美国欺诈例外的修订证明有理由重新考虑支持迪普洛克勋爵规则的政策论据以及在提交时已知为伪造或无效的文件的命运. 因此，本文提出了两个论点。首先，在美国考虑更广泛的例外情况应该促使现代最高法院重新审查他的大法官关于需要狭义例外以保持信用机制的效率的坚持。此外，它进一步辩称，银行应有权拒绝将已知的无效和伪造行为视为不合规。联合城招商，并且基于 UCP 600 中的明确定义、最近对无效性的司法考虑以及 ICC 国际海事局的存在。