MT799 vs MT760: Difference and When Each Is Used
MT799 and MT760 are not interchangeable. One is a free-format bank-to-bank message used to communicate information. The other is a structured guarantee message used to issue a bank guarantee or standby-style undertaking under SWIFT. If you treat an MT799 like an issued guarantee, you will get burned.
MT799 is a bank-to-bank narrative message often used for pre-advice, confirmation of intent, or clarification. MT760 is a structured SWIFT message used to issue a bank guarantee or standby-type undertaking. Different legal weight. Different bank controls. Different verification paths.
What Is an MT799?
MT799 is a free-format SWIFT message category used by banks to transmit text to another bank. It is commonly used to communicate non-standard information, including pre-advice statements, clarifications, or responses to queries.
Common MT799 Use Cases
- Pre-advice that a standby letter of credit or guarantee will be issued
- Bank-to-bank clarification on transaction structure and conditions
- Confirmation of readiness to issue subject to conditions precedent
- Responses to compliance or KYC-related bank questions
What MT799 Does Not Do
- It does not, by itself, issue a guarantee or standby
- It does not create an automatic payment obligation
- It does not replace underlying legal documentation
- It is not a proof of funds instrument
What Is an MT760?
MT760 is the SWIFT message format used to issue a bank guarantee or a standby-type undertaking through SWIFT. It carries structured fields that define parties, amount, expiry, claim conditions, governing rules, and other guarantee terms.
Common MT760 Use Cases
- Performance guarantees and advance payment guarantees
- Bid bonds and tender guarantees
- Financial guarantees where acceptable in the jurisdiction
- Standby-style undertakings when issued as a guarantee message
What MT760 Usually Implies
- An actual issuance event through the issuing bank
- A defined beneficiary and claim mechanics
- A bank-controlled issuance workflow and compliance screening
- Clear verification via SWIFT authentication and bank confirmation
MT799 vs MT760: Side-by-Side
| Topic |
MT799 |
MT760 |
| Message type
|
Free-format narrative bank message |
Structured guarantee issuance message |
| Primary purpose
|
Communicate information or pre-advice between banks |
Issue a guarantee or standby-type undertaking |
| Legal effect
|
Depends on wording, often informational or conditional |
Typically creates an enforceable bank undertaking, subject to terms |
| Verification
|
Verified as a SWIFT message, not as a guarantee issuance by default |
Verified as an issued guarantee message through SWIFT and bank confirmation |
| Used as “proof of funds”
|
Should not be treated as POF |
Not a POF, it is a guarantee instrument |
| Typical risk
|
Overreliance on vague claims or conditional language |
Bad drafting of claim conditions, expiry, governing rules, and jurisdiction |
What Banks Will Actually Confirm
A receiving bank can confirm whether a SWIFT message was received and authenticated, but that is not the same as confirming a binding obligation exists or that funds are available. The only safe approach is to match the message to the underlying instrument and then verify issuance through bank-to-bank communication.
Practical rule:
'Treat MT799 as a communication. Treat MT760 as an issuance message. In both cases, verify directly bank-to-bank and match the message terms to the signed contract.'
Common Misrepresentations to Watch For
In low-quality transactions, promoters try to sell an MT799 as if it were an issued guarantee, or they promise an MT760 “without underwriting” and ask for fees. A real issuing bank does not bypass compliance, does not issue to unnamed beneficiaries, and does not issue on fantasy timelines without documentation.
- “MT799 equals proof of funds”
is wrong. It is not a balance confirmation tool.
- “MT760 without collateral or underwriting”
is usually fiction.
- “We can send you a screenshot of SWIFT”
is meaningless. Authentication is bank-to-bank.
- “We do MT799 then you pay the rest”
is often used to extract staged fees.
How to Specify the Right Message in Your Contract
Do not write “send MT799/MT760” as a vague requirement. Define the instrument, the purpose, and the acceptance criteria, then let the issuing bank choose the correct SWIFT mechanics.
Better contractual wording:
'The Issuing Bank shall issue a bank guarantee in favor of the Beneficiary for USD [amount] with expiry on [date], subject to [URDG 758 or ISP98 as applicable], transmitted via authenticated bank-to-bank SWIFT. Any pre-advice may be sent by SWIFT message at the Issuing Bank’s discretion.'
FAQ: MT799 vs MT760
Is an MT799 a guarantee?
Not by default. MT799 is a messaging format. It can describe an intent to issue or communicate conditions, but it is not the same thing as an issued guarantee undertaking.
Can an MT799 be used as proof of funds?
No. Proof of funds is typically evidenced by bank statements, bank letters, or authenticated confirmations aligned to a specific purpose. MT799 is not designed as a balance confirmation instrument.
Does an MT760 mean the guarantee is real?
MT760 is commonly used for guarantee issuance through SWIFT, but the beneficiary still must verify the issuer, the terms, and the authenticity bank-to-bank. Drafting quality and jurisdiction matter.
Which one is used for a standby letter of credit?
Standby letters of credit are often issued as an SBLC instrument under ISP98 and commonly transmitted via SWIFT formats used for standbys. In some contexts, banks also issue standby-style undertakings as guarantee messages. The correct approach is to specify the instrument and rules, not to guess the message type.
What should I ask for to verify authenticity?
Ask for bank-to-bank confirmation from the receiving bank to the issuing bank using authenticated channels, and match the message content to signed transaction documents. Avoid screenshots and forwarded emails.
Disclaimer: This explainer is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. SWIFT message practices vary by bank, jurisdiction, and transaction type. Any guarantee or standby must be assessed under its governing rules and legal documentation, and verified through bank-to-bank authentication.