I would be grateful if someone could advise as to whether one could seek redress from the default of a Hong Kong branch of a Chinese Bank
by bringing on an action against the HO located in China.
Are branches of the bank in HK & China considered the same?
Thanks!
Hong Kong (SAR) Vs China
-
serenachang
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Hong Kong (SAR) Vs China
We are glad to offer help on forum of litigation on LC disputes.
Our email address is experts@tolee.com
[edited 6/15/01 5:35:25 PM]
Our email address is experts@tolee.com
[edited 6/15/01 5:35:25 PM]
-
serenachang
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Hong Kong (SAR) Vs China
Mr. T.O. Lee
Thank you for your kind offer, which I shall definitely keep in mind for future cases.
Presently we do not have any litigation cases in hand. The question was posed in view of the special status of Hong Kong being part of China but enjoying special autonomy status.
Under Art 2, branches of a bank in different countries are considered another bank.
As such, could one go after The Bank of China, Hong Kong Branch when another of their branches in China defaulted on their commitments.
Your comments on this would be much appreciated.
Thank you.
Thank you for your kind offer, which I shall definitely keep in mind for future cases.
Presently we do not have any litigation cases in hand. The question was posed in view of the special status of Hong Kong being part of China but enjoying special autonomy status.
Under Art 2, branches of a bank in different countries are considered another bank.
As such, could one go after The Bank of China, Hong Kong Branch when another of their branches in China defaulted on their commitments.
Your comments on this would be much appreciated.
Thank you.
Hong Kong (SAR) Vs China
Before 1 July 1997, Hong Kong and China were ruled by the British Government and the Chinese Government respectively. Therefore a branch of a Chinese Bank C in Hong Kong and the same Chinese Bank C in China, whether being a branch or the head office, were deemed to be different banks according to UCP 500 Article 2.
After 1 July 1997, the date when sovereignty of Hong Kong changed from the British Government to the Chinese Government, the same branch of Chinese Bank C in Hong Kong would be deemed to be the same bank as the Chinese Bank C in China, whether being a branch or the head office, according to the same Article 2.
Before 1 July 1997, if a DC was issued by Bank C in China and only advised through its branch in Hong Kong, then the beneficiary could not demand payment from its branch in Hong Kong because they were deemed to be different banks. That is the purpose of Article 2.
However, Article 2 has clearly defined its applicability by stating that it is "for the purpose of these Articles" only. That means a bank and its branch in a different country might be deemed to be the same bank in legal, taxation, or other perspectives. We should not rely on the UCP 500 to resolve every problem encountered in DC operations. UCP 500 is not law and does have its limits.
When one wishes to sue a branch or the head office of a bank in another country, one should not look to the UCP 500 for solution. One should ask one's legal counsel to investigate the way this branch and its overseas branch or head office are incorporated in order to find out whether or not they are the same bank under law. If they are the same bank, then one may institute legal action against the overseas branch or head office.
Certain DC experts state that a bank and its branch in another country are deemed to be different banks because they are under different jurisdictions. If that is the case, then after 1 July 1997, Hong Kong is practising "one country, two systems" whereby the law in Hong Kong is Basic Law, a Common Law, different from the law in China, which is Civl Law. Should this imply that the Hong Kong branch of the said Chinese Bank C is deemed to be a different bank after 1 July 1997?
How about in USA?, where each state has its own state law that is different from another state and the Federal Law. Should this mean that the branches in different states in USA are deemed to be different banks?
Hence, as a trainer in UCP 500, to explain Article 2 by the "different jurisdictions" approach may bring such challenges. To respect the participants in our workshops, we try to present different views and let the participants decide for themselves.
We are from www.tolee.com
[edited 4/2/02 9:31:40 PM]
After 1 July 1997, the date when sovereignty of Hong Kong changed from the British Government to the Chinese Government, the same branch of Chinese Bank C in Hong Kong would be deemed to be the same bank as the Chinese Bank C in China, whether being a branch or the head office, according to the same Article 2.
Before 1 July 1997, if a DC was issued by Bank C in China and only advised through its branch in Hong Kong, then the beneficiary could not demand payment from its branch in Hong Kong because they were deemed to be different banks. That is the purpose of Article 2.
However, Article 2 has clearly defined its applicability by stating that it is "for the purpose of these Articles" only. That means a bank and its branch in a different country might be deemed to be the same bank in legal, taxation, or other perspectives. We should not rely on the UCP 500 to resolve every problem encountered in DC operations. UCP 500 is not law and does have its limits.
When one wishes to sue a branch or the head office of a bank in another country, one should not look to the UCP 500 for solution. One should ask one's legal counsel to investigate the way this branch and its overseas branch or head office are incorporated in order to find out whether or not they are the same bank under law. If they are the same bank, then one may institute legal action against the overseas branch or head office.
Certain DC experts state that a bank and its branch in another country are deemed to be different banks because they are under different jurisdictions. If that is the case, then after 1 July 1997, Hong Kong is practising "one country, two systems" whereby the law in Hong Kong is Basic Law, a Common Law, different from the law in China, which is Civl Law. Should this imply that the Hong Kong branch of the said Chinese Bank C is deemed to be a different bank after 1 July 1997?
How about in USA?, where each state has its own state law that is different from another state and the Federal Law. Should this mean that the branches in different states in USA are deemed to be different banks?
Hence, as a trainer in UCP 500, to explain Article 2 by the "different jurisdictions" approach may bring such challenges. To respect the participants in our workshops, we try to present different views and let the participants decide for themselves.
We are from www.tolee.com
[edited 4/2/02 9:31:40 PM]