A critical examination of aspects of liability for fraudulent electronic finds transfer in English, US and EU law with particular reference to the UNCITRAL model law
thesisposted on 15.12.2014, 10:44 by Muna Nimer
This thesis argues that the scope of the originator and the originator's bank's rights, duties and liabilities for fraudulent international wholesale EFT under English law, is unpredictable and uncertain.;The argument relies on analysing the law applying to fraudulent international wholesale EFT in England. This includes the general principles of contract law, agency law and the rules which apply to forged cheques, and the UK Cross-Border Credit Transfer Regulations 1999 which implemented the EU Directive on Cross-Border Credit Transfers 1997. The English law is then compared with Article 4A of the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code 1989 and the UNCITRAL Model Law in International Credit Transfer 1992.;Chapter one defines EFT, and demonstrates the legal concept of fraudulent EFT in English law. This chapter focuses on the significance of authority and the problem of identity authentication under English common law. Chapter two analyses the legal nature of payment orders and the rules applying to fraudulent EFT in English and EU law. Moreover, it examines the forms and legal validity of security procedures in the context of EFT in English and EU law. Chapter three discusses the rules of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Article 4A as applied to unauthorised EFT. It focuses on the legal concept and validity of security procedures under both legal frameworks. Chapter four deals with the basis of the originator's action against the originator's bank for fraudulent EFT in English law. Chapter five considers the basis of action and freedom of contract under the UNCITRAL Model Law and Article 4A. Chapter five examines the scope of the originator's bank's liabilities for direct and consequential damages occurring as a result of fraudulent EFT under both legal frameworks.