O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-5-109 (2019)

Fraud and forgery

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) If a presentation is made that appears on its face strictly to comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit, but a required document is forged or materially fraudulent, or honor of the presentation would facilitate a material fraud by the beneficiary on the issuer or applicant: (1) The issuer shall honor the presentation, if honor is demanded by: (A) A nominated person who has given value in good faith and without notice of forgery or material fraud; (B) A confirmer who has honored its confirmation in good faith; (C) A holder in due course of a draft drawn under the letter of credit which was taken after acceptance by the issuer or nominated person; or (D) An assignee of the issuer’s or nominated person’s deferred obligation that was taken for value and without notice of forgery or

material fraud after the obligation was incurred by the issuer or nominated persons; and (2) The issuer, acting in good faith, may honor or dishonor the presentation in any other case. (b) If an applicant claims that a required document is forged or materially fraudulent or that honor of the presentation would facilitate a material fraud by the beneficiary on the issuer or applicant, a court of competent jurisdiction may temporarily or permanently enjoin the issuer from honoring a presentation or grant similar relief against the issuer or other persons only if the court finds that: (1) The relief is not prohibited under the law applicable to an accepted draft or deferred obligation incurred by the issuer; (2) A beneficiary, issuer, or nominated person who may be adversely affected is adequately protected against loss that it may suffer because the relief is granted; (3) All of the conditions to entitle a person to the relief under the law of this state have been met; and (4) On the basis of the information submitted to the court, the applicant is more likely than not to succeed under its claim of forgery or material fraud and the person demanding honor does not qualify for protection under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Code section.

History

Code 1981, § 11-5-109, enacted by Ga. L. 2002, p. 995, § 1.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 5109.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1997–2018 · leading case: Vass v. Gainesville Bank & Trust, 480 S.E.2d 294 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Vass v. Gainesville Bank & Trust, 480 S.E.2d 294 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 11-5-109 (2). Because the documents submitted to GBT failed to strictly comply with the terms of the letter of credit, GBT had no obligation to honor Vass’s demand.”

Jfs Props., Inc. v. Env't Prot. Div. (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “It follows that JFS Properties has no standing to intervene in the relationship that the letter of credit created between the EPD and SouthCrest Bank, except as provided by OCGA § 11-5-109 (b). That Code section authorizes an applicant on a letter of credit to seek temporary or…”

— 11-5-109(2) — 1 case

Vass v. Gainesville Bank & Trust, 480 S.E.2d 294 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). “OCGA § 11-5-109 (2). Because the documents submitted to GBT failed to strictly comply with the terms of the letter of credit, GBT had no obligation to honor Vass’s demand.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.