Connect with us

Legal

BlackStone & Gold: Transferring marketable title under LOIs used for LC payments

Law firm focuses on a recent judgement which is significant for clarifying scope of fraud exception to payments under LCs and the construction of payment LOIs frequently used in oil trading.

Admin

Published

3 years ago

on

Blackstonegold team MT 02 1

BlackStone & Gold lawyers recently provided Singapore-based bunkering publication Manifold Times comments on the recent Crédit Agricole v PPT Trading judgment from the Singapore Court of Appeal, which clarified the scope of the fraud exception to payments under LCs and the construction of payment LOIs frequently used in oil trading:

By Baldev Bhinder, Managing Director, and Ramandeep Kaur, Associate Director of BlackStone & Gold 

Crédit Agricole v PPT Energy (Appeal)

The aftermath of trade fraud scandals has resulted in a number of significant cases concerning letter of credit (“LC”) payments being heard before the Singapore courts recently, with banks trying to avoid liability to pay for trades which did not occur. Another judgment on this theme from the Singapore Court of Appeal came out last week. In Crédit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Singapore Branch v PPT Trading Energy Co. Ltd [2023] SGCA(I) 7, the Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, and found that Crédit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Singapore Branch (“CACIB”) was entitled to recovery of losses from having paid its beneficiary, PPT Trading Energy Co. Ltd (“PPT”). PPT was found to have breached its warranty as to “marketable title” in the payment letter of indemnity (“LOI”) that it presented to receive payment under the LC. The decision is significant for clarifying the scope of the fraud exception to payments under LCs and the construction of payment LOIs frequently used in oil trading.  

Facts

The facts and the first instance decision are covered in our earlier update (here). Briefly, Zenrock had created a fictitious trade to raise financing. The trade involved a string of FOB contracts from Totsa to Socar to Zenrock and back to Totsa. Zenrock was financed by ING in this chain. Zenrock created a circular trade within this string and another (fabricated) sale contract purporting to sell the same cargo again to Totsa. The circle involved Zenrock selling the cargo it got from Socar to Shangdong, who would sell it to PPT, before the cargo came back to Zenrock. Zenrock then purported to sell this cargo to Totsa a second time over under the fabricated contract at an inflated price of Platts plus 3.60 (while the actual sale contract to Totsa priced the cargo at Platts minus 3.60). CACIB financed Zenrock’s purchase from PPT. As is common practice in oil trading, PPT presented its invoice and a payment LOI (in lieu of original bills of lading) for payment. CACIB did not reject this presentation. Before the due date for the LC payment however, CACIB suspected double financing, having received Totsa’s confirmation that Zenrock had assigned the receivables from the Zenrock-Totsa contract twice. At first instance, the SICC found CACIB liable to pay PPT, as it was not satisfied that PPT’s presentation of documents under the LC was fraudulent. The SICC also found that CACIB could not invoke a breach of warranties in PPT’s LOI, as the warranties were only triggered in consideration of payment by CACIB “at due date”, which CACIB failed to make. In any event, the court found no breach of warranties. 

Finding on appeal

The appeal raised two main issues. First, whether CACIB could rely on Zenrock’s undoubted fraud to set aside and avoid liability to pay under the LC issued in favour of PPT. The Court of Appeal found that it could not, explaining that an LC creates a contract between the bank and the beneficiary that is separate and autonomous from the underlying sale contract. The established common law exception for avoiding an LC payment requires the beneficiary to be a party to the fraud. CACIB’s arguments to the contrary were found to be unsupported by authority, and liable to undermine the “whole system of documentary credits”. Allowing a bank to decline payment on the basis of a fraud committed by an LC applicant would in the court’s view have the effect that no beneficiary could be assured of payment without investigating the integrity of the issuing bank’s customer in its relationship with the issuing bank, which is a practical impossibility. 

The second issue before the Court was whether CACIB could decline payment on the basis of PPT’s breach of warranties in its LOI. PPT’s LOI mirrored LOIs typically used in oil trade, containing reference to a shipment of the relevant cargo; the fact that PPT was unable to provide the full set of original BLs; and PPT’s warranties “in consideration of [CACIB] making payment” for the shipment “at the due date for payment [under the PPT/Zenrock sale contract]”. Among other things, by way of its LOI, PPT warranted that “at the time property passed under the contract, [PPT] had marketable title to such shipment, free and clear of any lien or encumbrance”, and it agreed to indemnify CACIB from any losses arising from a breach of its warranties. 

At first instance, the SICC was of the view that PPT’s LOI never came into effect since CACIB had not made payment “at the due date” under the PPT/Zenrock sale contract. The Court of Appeal disagreed, and found that the LOI was effective from the moment of its issue. Examining the underlying arrangements, the Court noted that in the absence of original BLs, PPT had no choice but to provide an LOI and CACIB could not decline payment if an LOI had been presented. Further, PPT could not withdraw the LOI once it had been presented or once CACIB had indicated that it was accepting it. The Court considered that CACIB making payment “at the due date” of the underlying sale contract was not a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the LOI, as the obligation of timely payment is not a condition that makes time of the essence. If CACIB’s obligation to pay by the due date was not a condition under the LC, it would be “strange”, the Court concluded, to construe the equivalent obligation under the LOI as a condition. 

Having found that the LOI was effective from the date of its issue, the Court proceeded to consider whether PPT had breached its warranty of marketable title. The Court clarified that the words “marketable title” had to be given their own effect, instead of being equated to “free and clear of any lien or encumbrance”. In this regard, the Court clarified that marketable title is a title that may at all times and under all circumstances be forced on an unwilling buyer, as opposed to a title which will expose the buyer to litigation of hazard. On the facts, PPT’s title was not found to be free from litigation or hazard. The title that Shandong obtained from Zenrock and PPT from Shandong was of uncertain value in circumstances where Zenrock had granted inconsistent floating charges to CACIB and ING over the same goods, floating charges had crystallised by reason of Zenrock’s fraud, Zenrock was not a seller acting in the ordinary course of business in its fraudulent endevaours, and PPT was not a bona fide purchaser for value. The Court of Appeal considered that “PPT was hardly a bona fide purchaser” in light of factual findings made below, in particular, the finding that PPT was aware of the round-tripping and Zenrock’s position as both seller and buyer, and of Zenrock wanting to conceal its presence at more than one place in the chain from financing banks. As such, the court found that there were well founded concerns about the marketability of the title held by PPT. 

Comment

It was somewhat of a missed opportunity as CACIB did not appeal the judge’s findings that PPT’s presentation under the LC was not fraudulent – the Court of Appeal noted this against the backdrop of the judge’s findings relating to PPT’s ignorance of even the general level of market price and its disinterest in what was going on, which the Court of Appeal found “remarkable”. 

Since this appeal was heard, the High Court in Winson Oil v OCBC (see our update here) disagreed with the test of fraud applied by the first instance decision in Credit Agricole v PPT, and instead held a reckless indifference as to the truth or falsity of representations in documents presented under an LC, to fall within the fraud exception. 

The Court of Appeal’s decision on marketable title arises from the premise that PPT’s title was indeed subject to litigation given the inconsistent charges that had crystallized as well as the findings of the first instance judge as to PPT’s conduct which led the Court of Appeal to conclude that PPT was not a bona fide purchaser. Putting the recent cases of Credit Agricole v PPT and Winson Oil v OCBC next to each, the message to traders is the same: do not insert yourself blindly into a string of trades and ignore its peculiarities seeking comfort in an LC. That may turn out be cold comfort in the circumstances.

Related: BlackStone & Gold: Does a beneficiary’s reckless presentation under LCs amount to fraud?

Photo credit: BlackStone & Gold LLC
Published: 2 November, 2023

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Vessel Arrest

Malaysia: MMEA detains two vessels over suspected illegal ship-to-ship transfer off Johor

Other than the vessels, MMEA also seized a cargo of oil, bringing the total value of the seizure to MYR 260 million (USD 61.9 million).
Admin

Published

2 days ago

on

September 3, 2026

By

Malaysia: MMEA detains two vessels over suspected illegal ship-to-ship transfer off Johor

The Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) detained tugboat and dredger suspected of conducting an unauthorised ship-to-ship (STS) transfer in Malaysian waters.

The two Malaysian-registered vessels were detained at around 3.20am on Wednesday by an MMEA patrol boat after the agency received public information about two suspicious vessels seen operating alongside each other about 1.4 nautical miles northwest of Tanjung Buai.

MMEA Tanjung Sedili Zone Acting Director Maritime Commander Mohd Najib Sam said further inspection found that the tugboat was operated by five crew members, including its skipper, comprising Malaysian and Indonesian nationals aged between 26 and 58.

The dredger was operated by 13 crew members, including its skipper, all Malaysian nationals aged between 22 and 51.

“Further inspection also found a quantity of oil cargo believed to be without any documents relating to ownership and delivery,” Najib said.

Both vessels and the oil cargo have been seized for further investigation. The total value of the seizure, including the two vessels and the oil cargo, is estimated at MYR 260 million (USD 64 million).

The case is being investigated under Section 491B(1)(K) of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (MSO) 1952 for allegedly conducting ship-to-ship activities without authorisation from the Malaysian Director of Marine.

The vessels are also being investigated under Section 491B(1)(L) of the MSO 1952 for allegedly anchoring without permission, as well as under the Customs Act 1967 in connection with the oil cargo suspected of lacking the required documentation.

 

Photo credit: Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency
Published: 3 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Claim

Rajah & Tann: Bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours

Partner V Bala says bunker disputes depend heavily on evidence gathered in the first 48 hours, making disciplined preservation, accurate reporting and early expert involvement critical to protecting a claim or defence.
Admin

Published

3 days ago

on

September 2, 2026

By

Rajah & Tann: Bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours

V Bala, a partner in Rajah & Tann Singapore’s Shipping & International Trade practice group, has highlighted the critical importance of preserving evidence in the first 48 hours of a bunker incident, outlining best practices for ship managers to protect potential claims and defences:

A vessel somewhere in the Indian Ocean reports abnormal fuel behaviour. Sludge is forming. Filters are clogging. Consumption looks wrong. Within hours, owners, charterers, managers, suppliers and insurers are exchanging messages. Everyone asks the same question: is there a claim? It is reasonable. It is also often premature. The better question is: what evidence will still exist in 48 hours to explain what happened?

For all the technical sophistication around modern bunker disputes, many are decided less by expert reports than by the first two days after trouble appears. The tribunal may sit years later. The factual foundation is usually laid before the vessel reaches its next port.

Bunker claims are commonly treated as technical contests about fuel specifications, ISO standards and competing laboratory results. They are that. But experienced litigators quickly notice a simpler pattern: the strongest cases are rarely built by the cleverest lawyers. They are built by the best recordkeepers.

The Vanishing Evidence Problem 

Unlike a collision, fire or grounding, bad bunkers leave few obvious visual traces. The evidence is scattered across tanks, samples, engine records, maintenance logs, performance data and electronic communications. Much of it can deteriorate, disappear or become contaminated with surprising speed.

A discarded sample cannot be recreated. A cleaned filter may tell a different story from one preserved immediately after failure. Electronic records overwritten in routine operations may never be recovered usefully. Crew change. Memories fade. The difficulty is that bunker incidents rarely feel like casualties when they first arise. They look like operational nuisances.

The Pressure to Move On 

A ship manager’s first duty is to keep the vessel trading. Engineers solve the immediate problem. Technical managers assess options. Owners watch delay. Charterers want assurance. The commercial pressure to restore normality is intense. It is also the moment when evidential mistakes are most easily made.

Fuel is blended before investigations are complete. Samples are mishandled. Machinery is repaired before it is properly photographed. Internal messages fill with theories. By the time experts arrive, the most useful evidence may already have changed.

The Danger of Instant Certainty 

Modern communication has made this harder. A concern raised in the engine room can reach executives across continents within minutes. The advantages are obvious. So are the risks.

The earliest explanations are often the least reliable. When machinery problems arise shortly after bunkering, the fuel is naturally blamed because it is the most visible recent change. Sometimes that is right. Sometimes it is not.

Yet once a theory enters circulation, it acquires momentum. Months later, early WhatsApp messages or emails written under pressure may be attached to witness statements, analysed by experts and scrutinised by lawyers. A passing operational remark can begin to look like a settled conclusion.

The Documentary Ship 

Shipping remains a documentary business. Despite digitalisation, disputes still turn on engine logs, maintenance reports, fuel transfer records, sounding measurements and superintendent correspondence.

What matters is not merely whether those records exist, but what story they tell together. Tribunals value contemporaneous documents because they were created before positions hardened. They are the closest thing to a real-time account.

Ship Managers at the Centre 

Ship managers sit at the centre of the network: owners, financiers, charterers, bunker suppliers, insurers and regulators. In bunker matters, their role now goes beyond technical operation. It includes preserving enough information to understand what happened if the matter becomes a claim.

What the Best Operators Do Differently 

If bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours, what do the best operators do differently? They treat fuel incidents as evidential events as well as operational ones. While engineers restore function, someone asks: if this becomes a dispute, what will we wish we had preserved today?

They resist instant certainty. Communications distinguish facts from theories. There is a difference between recording that power loss followed consumption from a particular tank and declaring that the supplier delivered bad fuel.

They know samples are useful only if identity, seals, labels and custody can be proved. They keep samples alongside the full operational record: delivery documents, tank soundings, transfer history, engine logs, alarms, purifier settings, maintenance data and ship-to-shore messages.

They preserve physical evidence before routine work alters it. Filters, residues and affected components may contain information that disappears once cleaned or discarded. Photographs should capture the condition found, not just the condition after repair.

Finally, they bring the right expertise to the problem early. They also involve the right people early: surveyors, laboratories, technical experts, insurers and lawyers. A surveyor or technical expert can help identify what should be sampled, photographed, retained and recorded before the evidence changes. Lawyers and insurers can help ensure that notifications are made, communications remain measured and contractual deadlines are not overlooked. The point is not to turn every operational problem into litigation. It is to avoid discovering, months later, that the ingredients of a sound claim or defence were lost during the first voyage after the incident.

The first 48-hour discipline 

PRESERVE Segregate the suspect fuel where practicable. Secure representative samples, seals, labels and a documented chain of custody. Retain affected filters, residues and components before cleaning or disposal.
RECORD Capture tank soundings, transfer history, consumption sequence, engine parameters, alarms, purifier settings, maintenance data and photographs. Preserve original electronic records and contemporaneous logs.
COMMUNICATE Report observed facts, not untested conclusions. Keep a disciplined chronology of what happened, when it happened, who was informed and what action was taken.
NOTIFY Check contractual notice provisions and inform the relevant owner, charterer, supplier, manager, insurer or P&I club promptly. Delay can damage both evidence and rights.
DEPLOY Involve the appropriate surveyor, laboratory, technical expert and legal team before the condition of the evidence changes, not after positions have hardened.

The lesson is simple. In bunker disputes, the law often comes late. The evidence comes early. The party that preserves it calmly, completely and without premature blame gives itself the best chance of winning the argument when the dispute finally arrives.

 

Photo credit: Rajah & Tann Singapore
Published: 2 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Winding up

Singapore: Notices of intended dividend issued for Hua An Shipping and related firms

Creditors will need to produce proofs of debt to liquidators of Hua An Shipping, Hua Guang Shipping, Nan Hai Maritime, Nan Sia Maritime and Nan Zhou Maritime by 11 September.
Admin

Published

5 days ago

on

August 31, 2026

By

RESIZED Drew Beamer

Notices of intended dividend for Hua An Shipping Pte Ltd, Hua Guang Shipping Pte Ltd, Nan Hai Maritime Pte Ltd, Nan Sia Maritime Pte Ltd and Nan Zhou Maritime Pte Ltd were published on the Government Gazette on Friday (28 August). 

The following are the details of the notice of Hua An Shipping Pte. Ltd:

Name of Company : Hua An Shipping Pte. Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / Registration No. : 200610919Z
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Hua Guang Shipping Pte. Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Hua Guang Shipping Pte. Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / : 200610922R Registration No.
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Nan Hai Maritime Pte Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Nan Hai Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. /Registration No. : 200814299M
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private, Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Nan Sia Maritime Pte Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Nan Sia Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No.  / Registration No.  : 200814320Z
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Nan Zhou Maritime Pte Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Nan Zhou Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / Registration No.: 200814295H
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960

 

Photo credit: Drew Beamer

Published: 31 August, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending