《信用证案例分析》PPT课件.ppt

信用证案例分析 程 军 中国银行总行国际结算部总监 ICC CHINA 信用证专家组成员 2006年2月25日 上海 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun KEY ISSUE ONE LC FRAUD (信用证欺诈问题) Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n 1、UCP中没有信用证欺诈的规定。 n 2、UCP中也没有规定信用证欺诈的救济 。 n 3、寻求司法救济信用证欺诈例外原则 。 n1）什么是信用证欺诈信用证欺诈的 认定标准问题。 n2）信用证欺诈例外的例外问题。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n信用证欺诈例外原则 n是指在肯定信用证独立性原则的前提下，允许银 行在存在信用证欺诈的情况下，不予兑付，法院 亦可以颁发止付令对银行的兑付行为予以禁止。 n三个理论基础 n欺诈使一切变得无效（fraus omnia corrumpit) n诚实信用原则 n公共秩序保留原则 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n信用证欺诈认定的标准 n1、美国的标准 nA) Pre-UCC Position nB) Prior UCC Article 5 Position nC) Revised UCC Article 5 Position Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD nA) Pre-UCC Position nThe Sztejn Case n(1941年里程碑式的判例：Sztejn v. J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp(31 N.Y.S.2d 631) ) nIntentional fraud/egregious fraud/a more flexible equitable standard of fraud Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD nB) Prior UCC Article 5 Position n4-114（2）条 : “除非另有协议，当各项单据表面符合信用证条款， 但其中某项必要单据事实上不符合所有权凭证之流通或转让中的担保 （warranty made on negotiation or transfer of a document of title）（第7-507条）或保付证券之流通或转让中的担保（第8- 306条）时，或某项必要单据属于伪造、带有欺诈或在交易中存在欺 诈时， n a.开证人必须兑付汇票或支付命令，如果提出兑付要求的是议付银 行；或是取得信用证项下之汇票或支付命令的其他执票人，只要该执 票人取得汇票或支付命令的方式使其可以成为正当执票人（第3-302 条），或在适当情况下，使其可以成为所有权凭证正常流通后的受让 人（第7-502条）或保付证券的善意购买人（第8-302条）；以及 n b.在所有其他情况下，相对于客户来说，开证人只要善意作为， 就可以兑付汇票或支付命令，即使客户已经发出通知，说明单据上存 在欺诈、伪造或其他表面上不能显见的缺陷；但具有适当管辖权的法 院可以禁止此种兑付。”) Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD 判例中出现了大量不同的认定信用证欺诈的标准 1)Intentional Fraud NMC Enterprises Inc v. Columbia Broadcasting System Inc.(1974)14 UCC Rep Serv 1427) 2) Letter of credit fraud Emery-Waterhouse Co v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank(1985)757 F 2d 399) 3) Flexible Standard United Bank Ltd v. Cambridge Sporting Goods Corp(1976)392 NYS 2d 265) Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD 4) Constructive fraud Dynamics Corp of America v. Citizens nIntent to defraud; nReasonable reliance on the representation; nCausing damages to the plaintiff. Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD nThe beneficiary admitted that it had known that the fibre content of the goods shipped did not match the description of the goods stated in the presented documents. The beneficiary also knew that the issuing bank would be liable to pay under the L/C if documents that appear on their face to comply with L/C terms were presented. Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD nThe court therefore concluded that the beneficiary had intended to defraud the issuer and that a 5% discrepancy in fabric content was material to the underlying sales transaction. n“ misrepresentation was material because the issuer would not have honored the credit had the misrepresentation not been made. “ Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD nWestern Surety Co. v. Bank of Southern Oregon nBank of Southern Oregon 开立了两份以 Western Surety Co.为受益人的备用信用证， 用来反担保Western Surety Co.开出的两份履 约保函，该保函一份对应于Washington的工程 ，一份对应于Oregon的工程。但备用证中并未 明确是对应于具体的工程。 n受益人在对应于Washington的工程的保函项下 遭到索赔，却分别在两份备用证下提交汇票索款 ，开证人对对应于Oregon工程的备用证以受益 人的实质性欺诈为由拒绝付款。 Q: 开证人的以实质性欺诈为由的抗辩能成立吗？ Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD COURT：“First, there is no evidence of a representation by the beneficiary. Indeed, the only evidence of record is that the beneficiary merely presented the Bank with the drafts required by the letters. Further, assuming that Westerns drafts acted as some sort of representation, there is no evidence that it was false. The letters of credit are identical on their face, except for the number, date, expiration date and aggregate amount, and there is no indication anywhere on them that they were for specific construction projects.“ Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD COURT：“to establish a claim for fraud, the Bank had to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the following elements: (1) a representation; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the speakers knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) his intent that it should be acted on by the person and in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the hearers ignorance of its falsity; (7) his reliance on its truth; (8) his right to rely thereon; and (9) his consequent and proximate injury.“ Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n结论 n虽然UCC5（1995）确立了“material fraud”的认定标准，但如何在具体案件中 去把握则是取决于法官的自由裁量权。对 什么是“实质性欺诈”的判决仍有不同的判 例产生。 （Mid-America Tire, Inc. v. PTZ Trading Ltd. Import and Export Agents ） Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n 2、英国的标准 英国因信用证欺诈而给予禁令救济的第一 宗判例出现在1977年（Edward Owen v. Barclays Bank)。 英国一直对欺诈例外原则的适用有相当严 格的限制。 “Material misrepresentation” Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD nCASE STUDY nUNITED CITY MERCHANTS (INVESTMENTS) LTD. v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA n涉及倒签提单。货物实际于1976年12月16 日装船，但提单显示的装运日期为12月15 日(L/C要求的最迟装船日）。而该倒签行为 是航运代理人瞒着受益人作出的，受益人并 不知晓。 nQ:是否可以以欺诈为由拒绝付款? Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n一审法院:如果是卖方个人的欺诈行为 或不道德行为去提交这样的倒签单据 ，银行应当根据“违反道德之对价不生 诉权”的原则有权拒绝付款，但该案中 的欺诈行为不在卖方，其在提交单据 时也不知悉，因而卖方有权得到信用 证下的偿付。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n上诉法院推翻了一审判决 : n申请人给予银行的是对真实单据付款的授 权，因而银行对伪造单据拒绝付款是再正 当不过的了，第三方欺诈并不能成为受益 人对欺诈例外原则适用的抗辩。 n风险分摊的角度 n银行担保权益角度 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n贵族院又推翻了上诉法院的判决，维 持一审法院的判决 : n仍然强调由于是第三方欺诈，受益人并未 参与，也不知悉该欺诈，不应对受益人适 用欺诈例外原则。另外还认为，该带有虚 假装船日期的提单并未完全失去法律效力 ，毕竟货物已经装运，提单持有人仍可以 用以提货。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n学术界对该案的评论更多的是批评： nExport Tradeby C.M. Schmitthoff:“The decision of the Court of Appeal represented sound commercial sense.” nBenjamins Sale of Goods： “It is disturbing that whilst a document stating the true loading date could have been rejected by the bank in the light of the doctrine of strict compliance, a document in which the loading date was fraudulently misrepresented by its maker constituted a valid tender in the beneficiarys hands.” nBank Credits And Acceptancesby H. Harfield: Although it is not explicitly stated in every letter of credit that the documents should be genuine, it is logically and generally recognized that there is an implied warranty by the beneficiary that documents tendered are genuine. Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD nMontrod Ltd. V. Grundkotter Fleischvertrieds -Gmbh(2001) n该案中卖方为信用证的受益人，而买方委托另一家公司作 为申请人开立了信用证。为了能将信用证下的付款权控制 在自己手中，以便在收到买方的货款后再在信用证下付款 ，开证申请人在信用证中要求受益人提交由其出具并签署 的检验证。买方让卖方信以为真地认为买方完全能够代表 信用证申请人，包括申请人的签字，并特此给卖方寄去了 申请人的公司章以示证明，并授权卖方的一名员工为申请 人的有权签字人。于是受益人就让该员工签发检验证，并 妥当地提交了与信用证表面相符的单据。当申请人发现检 验证不是其出具并签署时，马上要求开证行拒绝付款。而 此时买方已提了货，逃之夭夭。 nQ:开证行是否应该在知悉该检验证无效时而拒绝付 款？ Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD nTrial Court: nit was satisfied that the beneficiary did not know that the buyer had no authority from the applicant to authorize the signature of the inspection certificates on the applicants behalf at the time of presentation of the documents. Therefore, the court concluded that the beneficiary had “not acted dishonestly“ and that no fraud had been committed. nit found no support for the submission that “there exists in parallel with the fraud exception a second exception covering documents which are nullities to the knowledge of the bank at the time of payment through the beneficiary is innocent of any deception” Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD nCourt of Appeal: nBeneficiarys presentation of documents that its employees signed for the Applicant in the honest belief that the buyer rightfully authorized them to do so did not fall within the “fraud“ exception, and English law did not recognize a separate “nullity“ exception for documents honestly created and presented. Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n3、联合国独立担保和备用信用证公约 （UNCITRAL CONVENTION）的标 准 nArticle 19. Exception to payment obligation 1) If it is manifest and clear that: (a) Any document is not genuine or has been falsified; (b) No payment is due on the basis asserted in the demand and the supporting documents; or (c) Judging by the type and purpose of the undertaking, the demand has no conceivable basis, the guarantor/issuer, acting in good faith, has a right, as against the beneficiary, to withhold payment. Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (c) of paragraph (1) of this article, the following are types of situations in which a demand has no conceivable basis: (a) The contingency or risk against which the undertaking was designed to secure the beneficiary has undoubtedly not materialized; (b) The underlying obligation of the principal/applicant has been declared invalid by a court or arbitral tribunal, unless the undertaking indicates that such contingency falls within the risk to be covered by the undertaking; (c) The underlying obligation has undoubtedly been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the beneficiary; (d) Fulfilment of the underlying obligation has clearly been prevented by wilful misconduct of the beneficiary; (e) In the case of a demand under a counter-guarantee, the beneficiary of the counter-guarantee has made payment in bad faith as guarantor/issuer of the undertaking to which the counter- guarantee relates. Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n我国的最高人民法院关于审理信用 证纠纷案件若干问题的规定 n第八条 凡有下列情形之一的，应当认定存 在信用证欺诈： （一）受益人伪造单据或者提交记载内 容虚假的单据； （二）受益人恶意不交付货物或者交付 的货物无价值； （三）受益人和开证申请人或者其他第 三方串通提交假单据，而没有真实的基础交 易； （四）其他进行信用证欺诈的情形。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n几点值得注意： n未强调欺诈的“实质性” n但从（二）中也能够体现出“实质性欺诈” 的标准 n明确了信用证欺诈的形式 n“提交记载内容虚假的单据” 标准太低？ Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n信用证欺诈例外豁免原则（信用证 欺诈例外的例外原则） n信用证欺诈例外的豁免的理论基础 n保护善意第三方 n风险分摊的角度 n在什么情况下，将适用信用证欺诈例 外的豁免原则呢？ Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n必须符合四个条件： n该第三方必须支付了对价 n该第三方必须要有开证行的授权去兑付或 议付，或以自己的名义提交单据索款。 n该第三方必须在上述开证行的授权范围内 行事。 n该第三方的行为必须是善意的。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n受欺诈例外的豁免原则保护的第三方 n1）保兑行 n保兑行如果仅仅作为保兑行，那么在 其履行完独立于开证行的保兑责任， 即兑付后将享有豁免权。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n2）被指定付款/议付/延期付款/承兑 行 n被指定行必须在开证行的授权范围内 行事，同时必须善意地支付对价，这 样才能受到豁免权的保护。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n开证行的授权 n对于被指定议付行而言，开证行的授权为：议付 根据UCP修订稿中的“HONOR”定义： n对于被指定即期付款行而言，开证行的授权为： 即期付款。 n对于被指定延期付款行而言，开证行的授权为： 作出延期付款允诺并在到期日付款 。 n对于被指定承兑行而言，开证行的授权为：承兑 并在到期日付款 。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD Banco Santander v. Banque Paribas n案情： n在提单日后180天的延期付款信用证下保 兑行凭一份款项让渡书贴现了远期付款款 项。贴现后一周， 开证行通知受益人提 交了伪造的单据并存在确凿的欺诈。在到 期日，开证行以欺诈为由拒绝付款。 nQ：保兑行能否享有欺诈例外豁免权？ Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n一审法院、上诉法院： n在延期付款信用证下，开证行对被指定行的指定 是被指定银行作出延期付款的允诺并在到期日付 款，被指定银行仅仅作出延期付款的允诺只是执 行了开证行指令的一半，此时不能得到开证行的 偿付。开证行并未要求保兑行在到期日前贴现或 支付任何对价，这只是保兑行自己的决定，尽管 这样做也没有与指令相违背。如果保兑行没有在 到期日前贴现，当得知存在确凿欺诈时，完全可 以在到期日以欺诈例外的抗辩来拒绝付款。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n该判决遭到众多信用证权威学者及评论家的 质疑 nJAMES E. BYRNE 和 JAMES G. BARNES n 美国法上判决结果会相反 nFirst Union National Bank v Arab African International Bank and Others 2002(USA)中，FUNB（伦敦）与Banco Santander 处于几乎完全相同的状态，因 害怕受上述判例的影响，FUNB曾寻求美国 法院的管辖，但未果。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD 可参看下列判例： nBanque Nationale de Paris v. Credit Agricole IndosuezBanque 2000- 4 SLR 254 (27 June 2000) Singapore；Credit Agricole Indosuez v. Banque Nationale de Paris Court of Appeal, 2001-2 SLR 1 Singapore nBank of Joliet v. Firstar Bank Milwaukee, N.A.A. No. 96 C 1145, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15384 (N.D. Ill. 26 September 1997)； nIndustrial Bank of Korea v. BNP Paribas 2001 DA 68266 (Supreme Court, 2nd Div. 2003) Korea nFederal Bank Ltd. v. VM Jog Engineering Ltd. 2002 4 LRI 204 (Sup. Ct. of India) India nUnited City v. Punjab Bank（1982）V2 LloydS Rep.4 法院一致观点：被指定议付行在不参与信用证欺诈或 不 知晓信用证欺诈的情况下，其对开证行的索偿权不受 信 用证欺诈例外抗辩的影响。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n3） 正当持票人（Holders in Due Course） n只有在信用证要求提交远期汇票，且 在开证行作为该汇票的承兑人作出承 兑时，该汇票的正当持票人才能享受 开证行欺诈例外的豁免权。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n注意两点： n1）该汇票必须是在票据法上合格的流通票 据。 n美国判例Regent Corp USA v Azmat Bangladesh, Ltd. n2）汇票的受款人不能成为正当持票人。 n可参看Credit Agricole Indosuez v. Banque Nationale de Paris Court of Appeal, 2001- 2 SLR 1 Singapore RE Jones Ltd. V. Waring and Gillow Ltd. (1926) AC 670. Copyright2005 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD n4）转让证下的第二受益人 n在转让证下，如果由于第一受益人实 施了欺诈，第二受益人的索款权应得 到欺诈例外抗辩的豁免。 nCromwell v. Commerce 2002 SLR LEXIS 80 Singapore Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 MALPRACTICE n拒付通知中仅列明不符点并说明单据 已代为保管听候处理，没有用明确的 文字（比如“REFUSE THE DOCUMENTS”或“DOCUMENTS NOT ACCEPTABLE”等）来表明单据 被拒付 。（X） Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 UCP修订稿中已明确规定： n“The notice must state that the bank is refusing to honour or negotiate” nICC意见R427 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 2、一次全部列出不符点， 不符点必须明确 n一次性提出。 n不符点要明确具体，能够辨认。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 相关判例： Toyota Tsusho Corp. v. Comerica Bank（929 F. Supp. 1065 (E.D. Mich. 1996)） Hamilton Bank, N.A. v. Kookmin Bank（98 Civ. 2162 (LAK), 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6073 (S.D.N.Y. 28 April 1999) U.S.A.） DOCDEX 案例 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 要求不符点明确也不能走极端 nW.L. Hamilton Engg, P.C. v. Bank Umum Servitia (PT) nCreaciones Con Idea v. MashreqBank PSC 拒付通知中的不符点只要在标准国 际信用证实务中能被辨认即可。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 一个问题： n信用证过效期需不需要作为不符点被 列明？ nUCC SECTION 5-108（D） nISP98 SUBRULE 5.03 nTodi Exports v. Amrav Sportswear Inc. No. 95 Civ. 6701 (BSJ), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1425 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ） nICC意见R331 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 3、表明单据已代为保管听候 处理，或已退给交单人 n不是仅仅出现了“表明单据已代为保管 听候处理”这样的类似文字就符合了 UCP500第十四条（D）（II）款的要 求，而是还要能从整个拒付通知中表 达出这样的意思，否则，仍不能构成 有效拒付。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 MALPRACTICE n拒付通知中明确拒付，列明不符点并 说明单据已代为保管听候处理， 同时 声称： “Should the disc being accepted by the Applicant, we shall release the docs to them without further notice to you unless yr instructions to the contrary received prior to our payment. ” (X) Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 相关判例: Credit Industriel et Commercial v. China Merchants Bank2002 EWHC 973 (Q.B. Comm. 2002) England Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 实务中的权宜之计： n在信用证中加列上述类似条款。 nUCP修订稿对此问题作出了新规定 。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 值得注意： ISP98中却有着截然不同的规定 。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 合理的拒付时间 nUCP290、UCP400 nUCP500 nREVISION DRAFT 1 nREVISION DRAFT 2 nSUGGESTION Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 一个拒绝问题的办法 n将“REASONABLE TIME”这一要求删除， 取而代之以一个具体的天数，比如“五个银 行工作日”。 n该建议在今年六月的ICC大会上有一定呼声 。形成绝大多数意见。被最新修订稿采纳. n可彻底摆脱“REASONABLE TIME”带来的 不确定性。 Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 一个疑问“？” n即使UCP没有明确规定合理时间 的要求，但在实际诉讼中，能摆脱 地方法律对银行在合理时间内行事 的要求吗？ Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 “WITHOUT DELAY”的要求 nUCP500第十四条（D）（I）款还单 独规定了开证行有在作出拒付决定之 后必须不得延误地发出通知这一责任 。 nSeaconsar Far East Limited v. Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran nN.V. Koninklijke Sphinx Gustavsberg v. Cooperatieve Centrale, Raiffeisen- Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank) Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 有效拒付问题 以何种方式发出拒付通知 n口头通知，如电话通知可以吗？ nN.V. Koninklijke Sphinx Gustavsberg v. Rabobank（2004 ） Hong Kong nSeaconsar Far East Limited v. Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran Copyright2005 Cheng Jun 信用证法律疑难问题 END 谢谢！ Copyright2005 Cheng Jun RiUlXp#s%v)y0B3F6IaLdOgSjVmYq!t*w-z1D4G7JbMeQhTkWoZr$u(x+B2E5H9KcNfRiUmXp#s&v)y0C3F7IaLdPgSjVnYq$t*w-A1D4G8JbMeQhTlWoZr%u(x+B2E6H9KcOfRiUmXp!s&v)z0C3F7IaMdPgSkVnYq$t*x-A1D5G8JbNeQiTlWo#r%u(y+B3E6H9LcOfRjUmXp!s&w)z0C4F7IaMdPhSkVnZq$t*x-A2D5G8KbNeQiTlXo#r%v(y+B3E6I9LcOgRjUmYp!t&w)z1C4F7JaMePhSkWnZq$u*x+A2D5H8KbNfQiTlXo#s%v(y0B3E6I9LdOgRjVmYp!t&w-z1C4G7JaMePhTkWnZr$u*x+A2E5H8KcNfQiUlXp#s%v)y0B3F6IaLdOgSjVmYq!t&w- z1D4G7JbMePhTkWoZr$u(x+A2E5H9KcNfRiUlXp#s&v)y0C3F6IaLdPgSjVnYq!t*w-A1D4G8JbMeQhTlWoZr%u(x+B2E6H9KcOfRiUmXp#s&v)z0C3F7IaLdPgSkVnYq$t*w-A1D5G8JbNeQhTlWo#r%u(y+B2E6H9LcOfRjUmXp!s&w)z0C4F7IaMdPhSkVnZq$t*x-A1D5G8KbNeQiTlWo#r%v(y+B3E6H9LcOgRjUmYp!s&w)z1C4F7JaMdPhSkWnZq$u*x-A2D5H8KbNfQiTlXo#s%v(y0B3E6I9LcOgRjVmYp!t&w)z1C4G7JaMePhSkWnZr$u*x+A2D5H8KcNfQiUlXo#s%v)y0B3F6I9LdOgSjVmYq!t&w- z1D4G7JbMePhTkWoZr$u(x+A2E5H8KcNfRiUlXp#s%v)y0C3F6IaLdOgSjVnYq!t*w-z1D4G8JbMeQhTkWoZr%u(x+B2E5H9KcOfRiUmXp#s&v)z0C3F7IaLdPgSjVnYq$t*w-A1D4G8JbNeQhTlWoZr%u(y+B2E6H9KcOfRjUmXp!s&v)z0C4F7IaMdPgSkVnZq$t*x-A1D5G8KbNeQiTlWo#r%v(y+B3E6H9LcOfRjUmYp!s&w)z0C4F7JaMdPhSkVnZq$u*x-A2D5G8KbNfQiTlXo#r%v(y0B3E6I9LcOgRjVmYp!t&w)z1C4G7JaMePhSkWnZq$u*x+A2D5H8KbNfQiUlXo#s%v(y0B3F6I9LdOgRjVmYq!t&w- z1C4G7JbMePhTkWnZr$u(x+A2E5H8KcNfRiUlXp#s%v)y0B3F6IaLdOgSjVmYq!t*2D5H8KbNfQiUlXo#s%v(y0B3F6I9LdOgRjVmYq!t&w-z1C4G7JbMePhTkWnZr$u(x+A2E5H8KcNfQiUlXp#s%v)y0B3F6IaLdOgSjVmYq!t*w-z1D4G7JbMeQhTkWoZr$u(x+B2E5H9KcNfRiUmXp#s&v)y0C3F7IaLdPgSjVnYq!t*w-A1D4G8JbMeQhTlWoZr%u(x+B2E6H9KcOfRiUmXp!s&v)z0C3F7IaMdPgSkVnYq$t*x-A1D5G8JbNeQiTlWo#r%u(y+B3E6H9LcOfRjUmXp!s&w)z0C4F7IaMdPhSkVnZq$t*x- A2D5G8KbNeQiTlXo#r%v(y+B3E6I9LcOgRjUmYp!t&w)z1C4F7JaMePhSkWnZq$u*x-A2D5H8KbNfQiTlXo#s%v(y0B3E6I9LdOgRjVmYp!t&w-z1C4G7JaMePhTkWnZr$u*x+A2E5H8KcNfQiUlXp#s%v)y0B3F6I9LdOgSjVmYq!t&w-z1D4G7JbMePhTkWoZr$u(x+A2E5H9KcNfRiUlXp#s&v)y0C3F6IaLdPgSjVnYq!t*w-A1D4G8JbMeQhTlWoZr%u(x+B2E5H9KcOfRiUmXp#s&v)z0C7JbMePhTkWoZr$u(x+A2E5H9KcNfRiUlXp#s&v)y0C3F6IaLdPgSjVnYq!t*w-z1D4G8JbMeQhTkWoZr%u(x+B2E5H9KcOfRiUmXp#s&v)z0C3F7IaLdPgSkVnYq$t*w- A1D5G8JbNeQhTlWo#r%u(y+B2E6H9LcOfRjUmXp!s&v)z0C4F7IaMdPgSkVnZq$t*x-A1D5G8KbNeQiTlWo#r%v(y+B3E6H9LcOgRjUmYp!s&w)z1C4F7JaMdPhSkWnZq$u*x-A2D5G8KbNfQiTlXo#r%v(y0B3E6I9LcOgRjVmYp!t&w)z1C4G7JaMePhSkWnZr$u*x+A2D5H8KcNfQiUlXo#s%v)y0B3F6I9LdOgRjVmYq!t&w-z1C4G7JbMePhTkWnZr$u(x+A2E5H8KcNfRiUlXp#s%v)y0C3F6IaLdOgSjVnYq!t*w-z1D4G8JbMeQhTkWoZr%u(x+B2E5H9KcNfRiUmXp#s&v)y0C3F7IaLdPgSjVnYq$t*w- A1D4G8JbNeQhTlWoZr%u(y+B2E6H9KcOfRjUmXp!s&v)z0C4F7IaMdPgSkVnYq$t*x-A1D5G8JbNeQiTlWo#r%u(y+B3E6H9LcOfRjUmYp!s&w)z0C4F7JaMdPhSkVnZq$u*x-A2D5G8KbNfQiTlXo#r%v(y0B3E6I9LcOgRYq$t*x-A1D5G8JbNeQiTlWo#r%u(y+B3E6H9LcOfRjUmYp!s&w)z0C4F7JaMdPhSkVnZq$u*x-A2D5G8KbNeQiTlXo#r%v(y+B3E6I9LcOgRjUmYp!t&w)z1C4F7JaMePhSkWnZq$u*x+A2D5H8KbNfQiUlXo#s%v(y0B3F6I9LdOgRjVmYp!t&w-z1C4G7JaMePhTkWnZr$u*x+A2E5H8KcNfQiUlXp#s%v)y0B3F6IaLdOgSjVmYq!t*w- z1D4G7JbMeQhTkWoZr$u(x+B2E5H9KcNfRiUlXp#s&v)y0C3F6IaLdPgSjVnYq!t*w-A1D4G8JbMeQhTlWoZr%u(x+B2E6H9KcOfRiUmXp!s&v)z0C3F7IaMdPgSkVnYq$t*w-A1D5G8JbNeQhTlWo#r%u(y+B2E6H9LcOfRjUmXp!s&w)z0C4F7IaMdPhSkVnZq$t*x-A2D5G8KbNeQiTlXo#r%v(y+B3E6I9LcOgRjUmYp!s&w)z1C4F7JaQhTlWo#r%u(y+B2E6H9LcOfRjUmXp!s&w)z0C4F7IaMdPhSkVnZq$t*x-A2D5G8KbNeQiTlWo#r%v(y+B3E6H9Lc