UCP 600 Article 35: Data Integrity Responsibility

Introduction

UCP 600 Article 35 addresses the bank's responsibility for the integrity of transmitted data. When documents are transmitted via courier, fax, SWIFT, or electronic systems, the data may be lost, delayed, altered, or corrupted during transmission. Article 35 shields banks from liability for these risks. The bank examines documents as received; it does not verify that the data was not altered during transmission. This guide addresses the bank's data integrity responsibility under Article 35.

Failure Mode Analysis

F1: Presenter argues the bank should have detected that a document was altered during courier transit. Article 35(a) shields the bank from liability for alterations during transmission. The bank examines the document as received; it has no obligation to verify that the document was not altered in transit.

F2: Presenter argues the bank should have detected that a fax transmission was corrupted. Article 35(a) shields the bank from liability for transmission errors. The bank examines the faxed document as received; it has no obligation to verify that the fax was not corrupted.

F3: Presenter argues the bank should have detected that a SWIFT message was truncated. Article 35(a) shields the bank from liability for SWIFT transmission errors. The bank examines the message as received; it has no obligation to verify that the message was not truncated.

F4: Presenter argues the bank should have verified the document hash against the original. Article 35(a) shields the bank from liability for data integrity. The bank has no obligation to verify document hashes or checksums.

F5: Presenter argues the bank should have confirmed the electronic record was not modified during transmission. Article 35(a) shields the bank from liability for electronic transmission errors. The bank examines the electronic record as received; it has no obligation to verify that the record was not modified.

F6: The transmitted document is illegible due to fax quality. The bank examines the document as received. If the document is illegible, it may not appear to constitute a complying presentation under Article 14(a). The bank may refuse the presentation under Article 16.

Deterministic Resolution Architecture

1. Identify the transmission method. Determine how the documents were transmitted (courier, fax, SWIFT, electronic). Each method has different data integrity risks.

2. Assess data integrity risks. Identify the risk of loss, delay, alteration, or corruption during transmission. Article 35(a) shields the bank from these risks.

3. Examine documents as received. Under Article 14(a), the bank examines each document on its face as received. The bank does not verify that the document was not altered during transmission.

4. Apply the disclaimer. Confirm the bank is not responsible for: transmission delays or losses (Article 35(a)); data alteration during transmission (Article 35(a)); or corruption of electronic records (Article 35(a)).

5. Assess legibility. If the transmitted document is illegible, the bank may refuse the presentation under Article 14(a) and Article 16. The illegibility is a discrepancy, not a transmission error.

6. Record the decision. Document the transmission method, the data integrity risks, the disclaimer provisions invoked, and the outcome.

7. Escalate discrepancies. If a discrepancy is found, follow Article 16 procedures.

Conclusion

Article 35 defines the bank's data integrity responsibility: the bank is not responsible for the integrity of data during transmission. The bank examines documents as received under Article 14(a), and the disclaimer under Article 35 protects the bank from risks outside its control. Prescenters bear the risk of transmission errors and should use secure, trackable transmission methods to minimize data integrity risks.

FAQ

Does Article 35 apply to electronic records? Yes. Under eUCP Version 2.1, Article e6, Article 35's disclaimer applies to electronic transmissions. The bank is not responsible for electronic data integrity.

Can a credit require the bank to verify data integrity? No. Article 35 is a fundamental rule of UCP 600. The credit cannot contractually override the disclaimer provisions.

Does Article 35 apply to courier losses? Yes. Article 35(a) shields the bank from liability for the loss of documents in transit, regardless of the transmission method.

Can a bank voluntarily verify data integrity? Yes. A bank may choose to verify data integrity, but it is not required to do so. If it chooses to verify, it assumes the risk of that verification.

Does Article 35 apply to SWIFT messages? Yes. Article 35(a) shields the bank from liability for SWIFT transmission errors, message corruption, or routing errors.

Source Notes

All sources referenced in this article are context only — the regulatory content derives from the UCP 600 text, ISBP 745, and eUCP Version 2.1.

• UCP 600 — Uniform Rules and Practice for Documentary Credits, ICC Publication no. 600, Article 35. Context only.
• UCP 600, Articles 14(a), 16(d). Context only.
• ISBP 745, paragraph A16. Context only.
• eUCP Version 2.1, Articles e3, e6. Context only.
• ICC Academy, "Certified UCP 600 Specialist (CUCP)." Context only.
• ICC Academy, "Uniform Rules for Documentary Credits (UCP 600) — eBook." Context only.
• ICC, "Commentary on UCP 600." Context only.