MT700 Field 72 — Contradictions with Other Fields

Introduction

SWIFT MT700 Field 72 contains sender-to-receiver information — free-format text that transmits additional instructions or information between banks. When Field 72 contains information that contradicts other fields in the MT700 message, the resulting ambiguity can obstruct document examination, delay payment, and create legal exposure. This guide examines how Field 72 contradictions arise and how to resolve them.

Failure Modes

1. Field 72 Contains Instructions Contradicting Field 78
Both fields carry instructions from the issuing bank to the receiving bank. If Field 72 directs one course of action while Field 78 directs another, the receiving bank faces an impossible choice.

2. Field 72 References a Dispute Resolution Mechanism Inconsistent with the Credit
If Field 72 specifies arbitration under one set of rules but the credit text references a different mechanism, the dispute resolution pathway is unclear.

3. Field 72 Contains Confidential Instructions Not Intended for All Parties
Sometimes Field 72 carries instructions meant for a specific bank (e.g., the reimbursing bank) but the message is received by multiple parties, creating information asymmetry and confusion.

4. Field 72 Contradicts Field 49 (Instructions to Paying Bank)
When Field 72 contains payment instructions that differ from Field 49, the nominated bank cannot determine which set of instructions to follow.

Resolution Steps

1. Establish a Field 72 review protocol that checks the field's content against Fields 47A, 49, and 78 before transmission.

2. Reserve Field 72 for genuinely additional information that cannot be captured in other structured fields. Avoid using it as a catch-all for instructional content.

3. When a Field 72/Field 78 contradiction is detected by the receiving bank, issue an MT799 clarification request to the issuing bank before acting on either set of instructions.

4. Label Field 72 content clearly to indicate its intended recipient and purpose (e.g., "TO REIMBURSING BANK:" or "INFORMATION ONLY:").

5. Maintain a Field 72 template library that standardizes the format and content of common Field 72 entries to reduce ad hoc drafting errors.

6. Include Field 72 in your MT700 quality assurance checklist, verifying that its content does not contradict any other field.

7. Train operators on the proper use of Field 72 versus Field 78, emphasizing that Field 72 is for supplementary information while Field 78 carries primary instructions.

Conclusion

Field 72 contradictions are a frequent source of documentary credit processing errors. They stem from the field's free-format nature, which invites inconsistent content. Banks that implement standardized Field 72 templates, cross-field validation, and clear interbank communication protocols can minimize these contradictions and their downstream effects.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Is Field 72 mandatory?
No. Field 72 is optional. When included, its content should be supplementary and should not contradict other fields.

Q2: What is the difference between Field 72 and Field 78?
Field 72 is free-format sender-to-receiver information. Field 78 carries structured instructions to the paying/accepting/negotiating bank. Field 78 has higher instructional authority.

Q3: Can Field 72 contain payment instructions?
It can, but this practice is discouraged. Payment instructions belong in Field 49 or Field 78. Using Field 72 for payment instructions increases contradiction risk.

Q4: How does Field 72 interact with sanctions screening?
Field 72 content may trigger additional sanctions screening. Banks should ensure that Field 72 does not contain references to sanctioned entities or jurisdictions.

Q5: Can Field 72 be amended after issuance?
Yes, via MT707. The amendment process for Field 72 follows the same UCP Article 10 consent requirements as other fields.

Source Notes

The following sources were consulted as context only:

• Trade Finance Global, "UCP 600 – ultimate 2026 guide" (Jun 2020)
• Trade Finance Global, "ICC briefing addresses the topic of reducing discrepancy rates" (Aug 2022)
• The Daily Star, "The cost of a comma: Documentation errors are the 'hidden tax'" (Mar 2026)
• Trade Finance Global, "SWIFT Messaging Types | TFG 2026 Guide" (Apr 2020)
• Trade Finance Global, "Modifications and exclusions in commercial Letters of Credit Issued under UCP 600" (Oct 2021)