International trade friction cases1. Letter of credit trade. (1) Some companies often take advantage of China's trust in letter of credit trade to take advantage of loopholes. The methods include: t

International trade friction cases1. Letter of credit trade. (1) Some companies often take advantage of China's trust in letter of credit trade to take advantage of loopholes. The methods include: threatening the issuing bank of its own country to refuse to pay. Under pressure from customers, the issuing bank often finds out the discrepancies in the documents that the Chinese side refuses to pay. In this way, the Chinese side is forced to agree to reduce the price or change payment by T/T. (2) The importer took advantage of the Chinese exporter's unfamiliarity with its legal environment, took advantage of local interpersonal relationships and local law enforcement loopholes, sued the local court of the country for fraud in the Chinese letter of credit, and applied for "property preservation" with a smaller guarantee insurance letter of guarantee as a guarantee. "("Stop Payment Order"), requiring the letter of credit issuing bank to pay the amount of the letter of credit to the Chinese party. (Stop payment order"), requiring the issuing bank to stop payment. Foreign parties: Company B in Country K, Bank C in Country K, Chinese party: Brief introduction to the case: In early December 2001, China exported 80 tons of astragalus to Company B. Company B passed the above The company's bank issued a letter of credit totaling US$80,000. After the goods arrived, although the documents were consistent, Company B refused to pay on the grounds that the Chinese company intentionally sent astragalus raw materials to cause rot, and applied to the local court on the grounds that the Chinese side was suspected of fraud. The issuing bank refused to negotiate accordingly. However, due to the pressure from the importer Company B, the issuing bank had no choice but to sue the foreign issuing bank. After the foreign party responded to the lawsuit in China's Tianjin Branch, the case has not been settled after several trials. 2. T/T category 1) The most common method is to play the long game to catch the big fish, first giving a few small orders to the Chinese company and making normal payments to defraud the Chinese party. Trust, and then suddenly place a large order and require cash on delivery on the grounds of shortage of funds and tight delivery date, but there is no news about the goods. (2) The importer claims that the imported goods have quality problems and do not meet the specifications when they arrive at the port. Refusing to pay to China and using this to lower prices, some even require selling first and paying later. (3) Taking advantage of their own customs regulations that require the consent of the importer for return or resale, they neither declare nor pay. Not agreeing to China's return or resale, causing the goods to stay in Hong Kong for a long time, using the goods as a weight to threaten China and lowering the transaction price. (4) Registering a legal person company in the name of others, and transferring the property (real estate) under the company's name and its own name. ) Transfer the ownership in advance, or mortgage it to the bank, and then use it as working capital for transactions immediately after defrauding the payment, making it impossible for the Chinese side to take property preservation measures. (5) Taking advantage of the weak management of small shipping companies or freight forwarding companies established locally or in China, Or collude with them to induce them to release goods without documents. In some countries, these small shipping companies or freight forwarding companies are "empty shells" without any assets. Foreign parties: K Country E Fiber Company, K. China F Transportation Company, the above two companies have offices in Shanghai. Chinese side: an international trading company in Henan Province and other 8 companies. Case description: In 2002, E Fiber Company signed general agreements with 8 Chinese companies through its Shanghai office. An import contract worth about US$1 million. Take one of the contracts as an example: K Country E Fiber Company opened a letter of credit to an international trading company in Henan Province and designated the freight forwarding company established in Shanghai by K Country F Transportation Company. Freight forwarding. After the Chinese party delivers the prepared goods to the above-mentioned freight forwarding company in accordance with the requirements of the letter of credit, the company will send the original bill of lading issued by the local bank in China to the issuing bank in country K, but then the issuing bank will regard it as inconsistent. The Chinese side immediately informed the freight forwarding company that it could not release the goods without the original bill of lading, and the freight forwarding company provided a guarantee to the Chinese side. However, the freight forwarding company still released the goods to the end user without the original bill of lading, causing the Chinese company to pay two bills. Subsequently, the Shanghai representative offices of the above two companies were canceled or closed one after another, and Country K E Fiber Company sued the director of its Shanghai office in Country K for embezzlement of public funds. After investigation, the above two companies did not have any valuable fixed assets. Brief introduction to the case: Jin is a person with bad credit. In 1999, he opened Company M in the name of his wife and took the initiative to contact the Chinese side for textile processing business. Starting in 2000, the company defaulted on processing fees on the grounds that it was "financially tight and needed to defer payment," with a total arrears of US$150,000 that year. The Chinese company repeatedly urged the other party to pay, but K Country M mostly used various excuses and tried to comfort the Chinese side with new orders. As a result, the debt owed grew larger and larger, reaching as high as US$300,000 by December 2001. In January 2002, Mr. Jin said that due to a large order during the Spring Festival, the processing fee was as high as 300,000 US dollars. If China does a good job, it can reduce the original debt pressure at once. The Chinese side was tempted by this and took the order to deliver the goods, but Jin still defaulted on the payment. In May of that year, China approached Jin and asked for immediate payment, but Jin asked China to reduce or reduce part of the debt. In order to urge Jin to repay as soon as possible, China agreed to reduce or reduce debts of 400,000 yuan, and Jin signed a repayment plan totaling 4.42 million yuan. However, it only fulfilled part of the repayment obligation for 3 months and then refused to repay. After that, he simply avoided seeing her. In addition, Company M in this case refused to sign the contract, and all processing trade was carried out by lowering the invoice amount. The shortfall was remitted by Jin in cash or by borrowing the ID card of an idle member of the society in K country, in order to avoid K country. of customs duties and income taxes. China commissioned a professional credit investigation company to investigate in Country K and found that the company did not have any valuable fixed assets, the civil litigation and negotiations were invalid, and property preservation could not be carried out. China chose to entrust local lawyers to conduct criminal proceedings, but after investigation, the local police believed that the case was of a civil nature and suggested that the procuratorate handle it as a civil lawsuit. The prosecutor's office agreed with the police investigation. Chinese attorneys have asked the High Procuratorate to reconsider whether the case involves criminal proceedings. Currently, the case is still in criminal proceedings. 4. Forms of setting up branches in China: Some foreign trade companies set up offices or branches in China to defraud the trust of Chinese companies, close the offices or branches after the goods arrive, and then run away. Some foreign companies import goods from their own country in the name of a branch registered in China, require the Chinese end-user or their professional agency to issue a letter of credit on their behalf, or pay part of the deposit, and then send inferior or expired goods, which disappear after negotiating the letter of credit. trace. Korean side: Chinese side: Yan and Nan from K country: Guangdong Country K imports a batch of textile raw materials from China and requires Guangdong X Grain, Oil and Food Import and Export Company to open a letter of credit worth US$500,000 on behalf of the Chinese end user or our professional import agent. The company opens a letter of credit. The company requested Guangdong X Grain, Oil and Food Import and Export Company to issue a letter of credit worth US$500,000 and promised to pay 3% of the amount of the letter of credit. Yan paid 20% of the total amount of the letter of credit as a deposit, and Guangdong X Grain, Oil and Food Import and Export Company issued the letter of credit and negotiated the payment for the goods. However, after the goods arrived, Yan closed the company in Shenzhen and returned to country K. After nearly two years of litigation, the court in Country K found Nan guilty of fraud and sentenced him to fixed-term imprisonment. Yan is on the run. The two had no enforceable property.