A Comparative Study On Legal Issues Related To Counterfeiting Of Bill

The problem of legal consequences and burden of risk of instrument forgery is a very peculiar one, which both relates to the basic theory of instrument law and has great significence in reality. Each country has different stipulations about it. And the legal system in China is far from complete, so it is necessary to make a study of it. This thesis does a preliminary exploration of this subject from the following four aspects:Part one is the summary of negotiable instrument forgery. This part is based on the elaboration of the concept and elements of construction. It puts forward several concepts apt to obscure with the negotiable instrument forgery:having no right to act as agent of behavior of the negotiable instrument, the negotiable instrument acting on one’s behalf, negotiable instrument signed and usurped, negotiable instrument adulterated.Part two tells the legal validity of negotiable instrument forgery. It points and compares regulations on legal validity of the negotiable instrument forgery in continent law and common law. By the study, we can get the conclusion that the regulations of the continent law and common law get an agreement in the forged issue cases. However, in the forged endorsement cases, there is the existence of significant differences between the two law systems. In the regulations of the continent law, the forged endorsement does not affect the continuity of endorsement. However, common law, the forged endorsement affects the continuity of endorsement because of forged signatures invalid, or is blank, interrupting the chain of endorsement.Part three tells risk assumption of negotiable instrument forgery. It introduces the risk assumption of forged issue and forged endorsement of the two law systems. Even exceptional principles in risk assumption. In the risk assumption of forged issue, the two law system of negotiable instruments basically get an agreement, but as to the risk assumption of forged endorsement, they stipulate differently. On the occasion of forged endorsement, the risk assumption is attributed to the forged person under the continent law system. Whereas the risk assumption is mainly attributed to the forger immediate subsequent one under the common law system.Part four is the regulation of negotiable instrument forgery in negotiable instrument in our country and legislation consummation. Chinese law did not issue the specific regulation on legal validity and risk assumption of negotiable instrument forgery, but it can be derived from the relevant regulation. There is many insufficiencies in it, specially the drawee undertakes the wrong payment risk responsibility stipulation too harden, the bearer of the forged endorsement after legal status to be in a dilemma.As a result, starting from the purpose of protecting the safety of dealing and enhancing the application of negotiable instruments. In profits from the advanced legislation of the two law systems of negotiable instruments and gave the perfect comment for the negotiable instrument forgery institution of our country.