We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
On May 7, 2018, the Fourth Circuit in United States v.
Oceanic Illsabe Limited affirmed the conviction and sentencing
of a vessel owner and operator for violations of the Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships (APPS).
Appellants, the owner and operator of the M/V OCEAN HOPE (a
Greek oceangoing cargo ship), were convicted of offenses related to
illegal discharges of large quantities of oily pollutants from the
vessel into the ocean. Appellants violated the APPS which was
created to comply with MARPOL. The Act provides that foreign ships
in the navigable waters of U.S. are subject to federal discharge
requirements, and the Coast Guard can assert jurisdiction outside
of the U.S. when a foreign ship fails to make complete and accurate
entries in the Ship's Oil Record Book, which must be updated
"without delay."
M/V OCEAN HOPE's Engine Department was principally
responsible for violating APPS, and also made false statements to
the Coast Guard, obstructed justice and tampered with witnesses.
The case involved pumping unprocessed bilge water into the ocean
and the use of a "magic pipe" – a hose between the
vessel's sludge pump and an illegal onboard discharge valve on
the storage tank, which ultimately draws the sludge into the ocean.
One of the Engine Department's crew videotaped and photographed
the "magic pipe" arrangement.
The MV OCEAN HOPE's owner and operator asserted that they
were not vicariously criminally liable for any of the violations
revealed by the Coast Guard, and that it was all the Engine
Department crewmembers' fault. They said that they had hired
qualified crew that could reasonably be relied upon and the
misconduct was unknown to owner and operator. However, the owner
and operator were convicted on nine counts. The appellate court
upheld the vicarious criminal liability noting that the Engine
Department crew met the standard that "the employee or agent
acted within the scope of the employment with the intent to benefit
the corporation." Those responsible were employed to carry out
pollution prevention for the ship but consistently ordered
subordinate crew to violate MARPOL and APPS along with various
other criminal statutes and regulations. Further the owner and
operator had knowledge of "multiple oddities" from weekly
updates of the Oil Record Book.
The Court also noted that as long as "the corporate agent
intends, at least in part, to benefit his employer, the entity can
be criminally liable even if the agent was also acting for his own
benefit." The Court found that this standard was met when, for
example, the supervisors of the Engine Department told the crew not
to tell the Coast Guard investigators about illegal discharge, and
in that way intended to prevent the Coast Guard from finding
deficiencies onboard the M/V OCEAN HOPE which may cause the vessel
to be detained or delayed.
This case underscored the serious nature of falsifying Oil
Record Books and illegal discharges into the ocean. It also
highlights the scope of the U.S.'s jurisdiction to protect the
waters and enforce U.S. law. The full decision can be found here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
During the Transportation Research Board's annual meeting in Washington, D.C., Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao announced the initiation of two long-awaited rulemakings related to the operation of small UAS:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the primary regulator of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, continues to be active ...
In Bunker Holdings Ltd. v. Yang Ming Liberia Corp., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified what it means to order necessaries "on the order of the owner of a person ...
