Telex release refers to the act of the shipowner ordering his agent at the port of destination to release the goods to the consignee as indicated in the bill of lading after receiving instructions from the shipper and withdrawing the bill of lading issued by him by telephone or fax. Telex release behavior is a common operation habit formed in the shipping industry for many years, it makes the consignee can not be timely with the original bill of lading to extract the goods, at this time should be the shipper's instructions, the carrier can not release the goods with the original bill of lading, the basis of which is due to the good reputation and cooperation between the buyer and the seller, causing the shipper to believe that the payment can certainly be recovered. For the carrier, as long as it can prove that the subject of telex release instructions to it is the shipper of the promissory goods.

Since the shipowner or his agent does not have the energy and time to identify who is the true shipper of each shipment, that is, the owner, the only way to identify the shipper is by the name of the shipper listed in the document declaring the booking and, in the absence of sufficient counter-evidence, often as the shipper in the bill of lading. The shipowner or his agent mainly fills the owner's bill of lading in accordance with the instructions of the declarant who shipped the goods and telex releases the goods in accordance with the written instructions of the shipper contained in the bill of lading, which the shipowner considers to be risk-free.

However, in practice, because the telex release itself has certain risks, if the buyer in the trade contract uses a certain link to plot goods, it is easy to achieve its illegal purpose by "legal" means. Of course, there must be a role in this is either complicit or used to complete the final task for the buyer. In this regard, on the one hand, shipowners still treat telex release with a cautious attitude and are often exempt from liability; On the other hand, the real owner (that is, the seller in the trade contract) unknowingly finds that the payment has not been received and the goods have been released, then the owner will be the only real victim, which is that telex release can sometimes provide a possible situation for fraudulent goods.

Case 1: On January 12, 1999, Shandong Company signed a mung bean sales contract with Hong Kong Real Trust Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as Real Trust Bank), and agreed that Shandong Company would sell 80 tons of mung beans to Real Trust Bank, the unit price of $365 per ton FOB Dalian, and the payment method was D/P spot payment. On January 28, the real letter bank's agent Wan Mou used the blank bill of lading obtained from the Tiankai company in advance and issued a set of original bills of lading to the Shandong company for the shipper, the consignee with instructions, the notifying party is the real letter Bank, and the port of destination is Kaohsiung, Taiwan. After that, Wan also provided the shipowner with a shipper for the day open company, the consignee and the notice per person for the Taiwan company's container cargo consignment, the shipowner prepared the original ocean bill of lading with the same content, in this bill of lading, the shipper became the day open company, so that the real letter of credit in the form of a letter of guarantee to deceive the shipowner to release the promissory note goods, but also the Shandong company's payment. The shipowner is not careful to identify the source of the letter of guarantee and the subject of the issue, and improperly accept the non-shipper's telex release request, but the final result is that the shipowner and the shipowner have become the victims of the use of this way of fraud.

Case 2: On May 4, 1999, Jilin Company signed an export contract with Real Trust Bank for 500 tons of Udou, the unit price was 318 US dollars/ton FOB Dalian, the settlement method was D/P collection, and the port of destination was Kaohsiung, Taiwan. After signing the contract, in accordance with the notice of the real letter, Jilin company booked space with Tianjin Company and required the shipment of goods. The consignment note clearly indicates that the shipper is Jilin Company, the consignee and the notifying party are real Bank, the port of destination is Kaohsiung, Taiwan, and the name of the vessel, voyage, etc. On May 12, Tianjin Company, in accordance with the instructions of the real letter Bank, when providing the cashier's check sample to the shipowner, without the consent of Jilin Company, changed the original shipper and consignee in the consignment note to the real letter Bank and Taiwan Company respectively, and the shipowner issued the original ocean bill of lading accordingly. On May 16, Tianjin Company issued a second set of bills of lading for promissory goods to Jilin Company for the purpose of settlement of foreign exchange, in this set of bills of lading content, the shipper and the consignee are still Jilin Company and real trust Bank. Since Tianjin Company violated Jilin Company's intention and tampered with the names of the shipper, consignee and notifier in the shipowner's bill of lading according to the requirements of the real trust Bank, the shipper became a real trust bank as far as the shipowner was concerned, which made it possible for the real trust Bank to request telex release through the letter of guarantee and achieve the purpose of fraudulent goods. On May 17, the shipowner signed the bill of lading, and the Tianjin company then told the shipowner that the shipper had requested telex release of the goods, but the shipowner refused the telex release guarantee without the shipper's telex release guarantee. On June 1, Tianjin company will real bank telex release guarantee to the shipowner, in accordance with the practice, the shipowner after the recovery of the original bill of lading in the form of fax, inform its agent in Kaohsiung to telex the promissory goods to the consignee in the bill of lading, the goods have been obtained, real bank naturally will not go to the bank to pay for the ransom, the owner suffered losses. In the series of fraudulent cases, real trust line, like other fraud subjects, has formed certain laws and characteristics of its fraudulent methods:

First, the amount involved is small, often between 300,000 and 500,000 yuan; The second is that most of the fraudsters choose food as the target of trade, and often resend it to Taiwanese companies. All kinds of legumes are the objects of fraudulent goods. Third, in order to achieve the purpose of telex release of goods by the shipowner, under the terms of FOB price, the fraudster often issues a letter of guarantee. Because of the role of the letter of guarantee has a certain regional and enforceable; Fourth, the cases of fraudulent goods involve three places on both sides of the Straits. If a real trust bank loads goods in the mainland, discharges them in Taiwan, contracts in Hong Kong, and exploits the political and legal differences between the three places on the mainland and Taiwan to evade legal sanctions; Fifth, before the shipowner issues the bill of lading, the fraudster always asks the agency to change the original shipper, consignee and notior name in the order of attorney. In this way, the shipowner has a reason to accept the telex release guarantee of the fraudster as the shipper without counterproof, so that the goods can easily fall into their hands.

Because the fraudsters find the loopholes in the process of telex release, and take advantage of such opportunities to make fraudulent goods possible. So, should shipowners be expressly prohibited from using telex release? In fact, the reason why telex release can be used to the present, there is a favorable side, such as accelerating the flow of goods, reducing unnecessary expenses, etc., but the problems exposed should also be avoided. First of all, the seller of the sale contract must have a detailed understanding of the buyer's credit and financial status before signing the contract, which is the most fundamental measure to prevent the goods from being defrauded. Secondly, it is best for shippers to seek domestic reputable, strong and operating standards of large companies as agents, and some large shipowners often have their own set of freight forwarding agencies, which will make the goods more safe and secure. In addition, if the shipowner is required to telex release the goods, whether it can be handled prudently, that is, whether it can change its current simple method of identifying the shipper, will play a significant role in preventing fraudulent goods.