According to the relevant regulations, it is not only the acceptor and the drawer who bear the bill obligation, but also the endorser of the bill cannot be exempted from the bill obligation. However, it is extremely rare that bank acceptance bills cannot be paid in full, and who will bear the 20% loss is also controversial in the industry.
According to the reporter of China Business News, at the beginning of June last year, the original undertaking bank announced the guarantee arrangement of the bank's acceptance bill. If the total amount of legal acceptance bills held by the same holder is more than 50 million yuan, the deposit insurance company will provide 80% guarantee for the acceptance amount. For the loss of 20%, many banks and financial institutions can only seek recourse from the endorser or drawer through the bill trading chain, which has also triggered a series of lawsuits.
It is worth noting that among the ticket holders, the drawer and the endorser, there is no clear conclusion on the 20% loss-bearing party in the market. Since the claims of financial institutions have been brought to court, the industry is very concerned about such judgments, which also means who will "pay the bill" for the losses.
Sue for compensation
On September 27, 2020, the Nan 'an District People's Court of Chongqing issued a civil ruling, involving the bill dispute between Chongqing Rural Commercial Bank and Pentium Technology Industrial Group Co., Ltd. and the original undertaking bank.
On August 7th, 20 18, Pentium Science and Technology Industrial Group Co., Ltd., as the drawer and the original undertaking bank as the acceptor, issued an electronic bank acceptance bill with an amount of 5 million yuan, and the maturity date was August 4th, 20 19. After transfer endorsement, Chongqing Rural Commercial Bank handled the bill discount business on August 20, 20 18. However, after the voting expired, the original undertaking bank only paid 80% of the face value, that is, 4 million yuan, and the remaining 6,543,800 yuan was unpaid. In this regard, Chongqing Rural Commercial Bank filed a lawsuit in court on April 2, 2020, demanding that the drawer Pentium Technology Industrial Group Co., Ltd. and the acceptor Baoshang Bank bear the corresponding losses.
The court held that according to the relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law, if a bill is refused to be accepted at maturity, the holder can exercise the right of recourse against the endorser, drawer and other debtors of the bill. However, because the bill dispute was under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the bill was paid or where the defendant was located, the court transferred the case to the people's court of Hongshan District, Chifeng City, Inner Mongolia for trial.
1June 19, the people's court of Lucheng district of Wenzhou also issued a ruling, which also involved the payment and claim of such bills.
According to the ruling, on October 7th, 2065438+2008/kloc-0, a bank bought five electronic bank acceptance bills held by Wenzhou Civil and Commercial Bank as the original undertaking bank, and the amount of each bill was100000 yuan. The issue date is 2018101October 17, and the expiration date is 201910/October 17. The bank paid bills at a discount of 47.845 million yuan.
After the bill expires, the original undertaking bank paid a total of 40 million yuan in accordance with the relevant regulations, with 6,543,800,000 yuan outstanding. The holder bank then sued the court for recourse from Wenzhou Civil and Commercial Bank, the endorser of the bill, and the risk status of five electronic bank acceptance bills was displayed as "pending debt confirmation".
The court held that according to the relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law, the rights of negotiable instruments can be divided into the right to request payment and the right to recourse. It is appropriate to exercise the right of claim for payment and recourse. The holder must first exercise the right of claim for payment, and only when the right of claim for payment cannot be realized can he exercise the right of recourse.
The court made it clear that the acceptors of the five electronic bank acceptance bills involved were Baotou Branch, the original undertaking bank. After the acceptance of the draft expired, Baotou Branch of the original undertaking bank paid 40 million yuan to the plaintiff according to 80% of the amount of each draft according to the regulatory provisions of the central bank and China Banking Regulatory Commission, which fully proved that it exercised its right to claim payment. The acceptance of part of a bill by a bank does not constitute a refusal to pay as stipulated in the Negotiable Instruments Law, so the holder cannot exercise the right of recourse against the acceptor who has not fully accepted it.
Controversy?
2065438+On June 2, 2009, the former contractor's bank custody working group issued the Announcement on the Guarantee Arrangements for Contractor's Bank Acceptance Bills. The announcement pointed out that if the total amount of legal acceptance bills held by the same holder is less than 50 million yuan, they will be normally transferred and paid at maturity in accordance with the original contract and trading rules, and the depository and insurance company will fully guarantee the acceptance amount. However, if the total amount of legal acceptance bills held by the same holder is more than 50 million yuan, the deposit insurance company will provide 80% guarantee for the acceptance amount; For the remaining 20% unsecured bill rights, the original undertaking bank will assist the holder to pursue them according to law.
Because in the announcement, the original undertaking bank said that it would assist the holder to pursue the bill according to law, so many holder banks expect to make up for the loss of bill payment through the first-hand recourse of the bill chain.
"This situation rarely happens, so it is very complicated to identify." A person from a stock bank said that this kind of bank bill is regarded as a "non-full guarantee ticket". After the bill is paid 80%, whether the holder has the right of recourse and whether the act of paying 80% is a refusal to pay has not reached a consensus, and there are many disputes.
According to bankers, the Negotiable Instruments Law clearly stipulates that "if the holder presents payment in accordance with the provisions of the preceding article, the payer must pay in full on the same day", and also stipulates that "when the holder exercises the right of recourse, he may request payment from the person who has been refused payment".
"Many people in the market feel that they can pursue the bill endorser until they get the first-hand bill." The above-mentioned shareholders believe that "if the holder has no recourse to the bill after accepting 80% payment of the bill, should the holder bank choose to refuse 80% payment from the deposit insurance company and directly ask the endorser for full recourse?" These are all problems. "
However, people in stock banks also mentioned that once this bill chain can be investigated, it may lead to a large number of lawsuits and bring great pressure to the court.
In fact, because there is no precedent for this kind of bill incident, many banks are also holding a wait-and-see attitude. "It may be that some banks sued first, but more banks are also looking at the situation, which way is better." The above-mentioned shareholders believe that the final determination of such bill litigation may still need a process, even if the court decides in the first instance, it does not rule out that the bank will appeal.
(Article Source: China Business Network)
(Editor: DF398)
Solemnly declare: the purpose of publishing this information by Oriental Fortune Network is to spread more information, which has nothing to do with the position of this website.