英语翻译Prior to the revision to the UCC,[73] there was an ongoi

英语翻译
Prior to the revision to the UCC,[73] there was an ongoing debate as to whether the concept of fraud in the underlying transaction,a s provided in the old Article 5-114 of the UCC,referred only to the transaction between the issuer of the credit and the beneficiary,or whether it also referred to the underlying transaction between the beneficiary and the applicant of the credit.[74] The former is the narrow approach,and the latter,the broad approach.[75]
In respect of Article 5-114 of the old UCC,JF Dolan states that this latter ground for exception should be interpreted as referring to the credit transaction itself,and not to the underlying transaction between the parties.[76] This view is difficult to uphold due to the fact that if the fraud pertained to the credit transaction,this would be a matter between the bank and the beneficiary,and would have nothing to do with the underlying transaction,or with the transaction between the buyer and seller.In respect of Article 5-114 of the old UCC,JF Dolan states that this latter ground for exception should be interpreted as referring to the credit transaction itself,and not to the underlying transaction between the parties.[76] This view is difficult to uphold due to the fact that if the fraud pertained to the credit transaction,this would be a matter between the bank and the beneficiary,and would have nothing to do with the underlying transaction,or with the transaction between the buyer and seller.It could be argued that it would not fall within the ambits of the independence principle,because it is a matter that is removed from the underlying transaction.[77]
It can also not be argued that fraud pertaining to the documentary credit transaction can be equated to a fraud present in the documents that are presented to the bank.Article 5–114(2) specifically made provision for documents that are fraudulent,and it is presumed that they would not repeat this concept in different words,in the same paragraph.The UCC made a distinction between documents that are fraudulent,and fraud that is present in the transaction.
It is therefore averred that the only logical conclusion regarding the wording of Article 5-114 of the old UCC,is that fraud present in the transaction,can only refer to the underlying transaction between the parties.

Prior to the revision to the UCC,[73] there was an ongoing debate as to whether the concept of fraud in the underlying transaction,a s provided in the old Article 5-114 of the UCC,referred only to the transaction between the issuer of the credit and the beneficiary,or whether it also referred to the underlying transaction between the beneficiary and the applicant of the credit.[74] The former is the narrow approach,and the latter,the broad approach.[75]
In respect of Article 5-114 of the old UCC,JF Dolan states that this latter ground for exception should be interpreted as referring to the credit transaction itself,and not to the underlying transaction between the parties.[76] This view is difficult to uphold due to the fact that if the fraud pertained to the credit transaction,this would be a matter between the bank and the beneficiary,and would have nothing to do with the underlying transaction,or with the transaction between the buyer and seller.In respect of Article 5-114 of the old UCC,JF Dolan states that this latter ground for exception should be interpreted as referring to the credit transaction itself,and not to the underlying transaction between the parties.[76] This view is difficult to uphold due to the fact that if the fraud pertained to the credit transaction,this would be a matter between the bank and the beneficiary,and would have nothing to do with the underlying transaction,or with the transaction between the buyer and seller.It could be argued that it would not fall within the ambits of the independence principle,because it is a matter that is removed from the underlying transaction.[77]
It can also not be argued that fraud pertaining to the documentary credit transaction can be equated to a fraud present in the documents that are presented to the bank.Article 5–114(2) specifically made provision for documents that are fraudulent,and it is presumed that they would not repeat this concept in different words,in the same paragraph.The UCC made a distinction between documents that are fraudulent,and fraud that is present in the transaction.
It is therefore averred that the only logical conclusion regarding the wording of Article 5-114 of the old UCC,is that fraud present in the transaction,can only refer to the underlying transaction between the parties.
之前,修改到上岛咖啡店,[ 73 ]有是一个持续不断的辩论,以概念是否有欺诈行为背后的交易,提供了在旧的文章5-114的上岛咖啡店,只提到交易之间的发行信贷和受益人,或是否还提到了基本交易之间的受益人及申请人的信用.[ 74 ] ,前者是狭隘的做法,并就后者而言,广泛的做法.[ 75 ]
在尊重第5-114的旧上岛咖啡店,家杜兰指出,这后者的理由例外,应解释为指信用交易本身,而不是潜在的交易各方之间.[ 76 ] ,这种观点是难以坚持,由于这一事实,即如果涉及欺诈的信用交易,这将是之间的事,银行和受益人,并会没有什么事都与背后的交易,或与交易之间的买方和卖方.在尊重第5-114的旧上岛咖啡店,家杜兰指出,这后者的理由例外,应解释为指信用交易本身,而不是潜在的交易各方之间.[ 76 ] ,这种观点是难以坚持,由于这一事实,即如果涉及欺诈的信用交易,这将是之间的事,银行和受益人,并会没有什么事都与背后的交易,或与交易之间的买方和卖方.可以说,它不属于范围的独立性原则,因为这是一个问题,就是从基本交易.[ 77 ]
它也可以不认为欺诈有关的纪录片,信贷交易可以等同于一个骗局,目前在该文件提交给银行.第5-114 （ 2 ）专门作出了规定的文件是伪造的,这是假定他们不会重复这个概念,在不同的,换句话说,在同一段.该上岛咖啡店作了区分的文件是伪造的,和欺诈是目前在交易.
因此,这是认为,唯一合乎逻辑的结论就条的措辞5-114的旧上岛咖啡店,是欺诈行为,目前在交易中,只能是指潜在的交易各方之间.