Capt. Pankaj Kapoor - Maritime Frauds

MARITIME FRAUDS
EXTRA MASTERS
Capt. Pankaj Kapoor

MARITIME FRAUDS
One of the most prominent incidents which reverberated in the Maritime industry was the
case of the vessel MT SALEM. She sailed from Piraeus on 30th November 1979 bound for
Mina Al Ahmadi, Kuwait to load approximately 194,000 MT of light crude for subsequent
discharge at Genoa. The vessel along with her cargo was insured with Lloyds of London.
She departed Mina Al Ahmadi on 10th December and headed south along the eastern
coast of Africa. Her intended voyage was to round the Cape and head north towards her
final discharge port.
On 27th of December, under a different name Lemashe, she entered the port of Durban
and discharged approximately 170,000 to 180,000 Mt of her cargo. She took sufficient
ballast so as to maintain her loaded draft on departing Durban on 2nd January 1980. On
17th January 1980 she was found in a condition of distress off the coast of Senegal once
again under the name of Salem. A British tanker by the name of British Trident rescued
the crew of the sinking vessel Salem.

MARITIME FRAUDS
Few days after sailing from Mina Al Ahmadi, the charterers had sold the cargo to Shell
Group for USD 56 million, a practice which is quite common. What amazed the world and
as reported by the rescuing vessel British Trident was that the crew had not only taken all
their belongings in suitcases but also had duty free goods along with sandwiches giving
indications of a pre-planned exercise. More striking was that a vessel which had an
ostensible cargo of nearly 200,000 MT along with bunkers and had gone down as an
aftermath of series of explosions and there was barely any trace of oil left on the surface.
On sinking of MT Salem, the Lloyds of London received an insurance claim of nearly USD
54 million. On investigations they found that the cargo had also been sold to a South
African company Sasol in Durban for USD 43 million.

MARITIME FRAUDS
 Fraud in commerce is as ancient as commerce itself, with examples going back to the
Roman world and even before.
 The International Maritime Bureau defined maritime fraud as: “An international trade
transaction which involves several parties – buyer, seller, shipowner, charterer, ship’s
master or crew, insurer, banker broker or agent. Maritime fraud occurs when one of these
parties succeeds, unjustly or illegally, in obtaining money or goods from another party to
whom, on the face of it, he has undertaken specific trade, transport and financial
obligations.”
Shipping is a global business, involving many players and different jurisdictions in any single
shipment of cargo. A simple and single shipment could involve a bunch of problems associated
with pitfalls where the unscrupulous seek to take advantage of those are not prepared. As the
players are very often based in multiple jurisdictions, and out of necessity deal with each other
at arm’s length and / or through Brokers and Financial Institutions, there is practically NIL
opportunity for physical checks.

MARITIME FRAUDS
(Types of Frauds)
TYPES OF FRAUDS
Fraud reveals itself in different shades and colours. Owing to its international nature, in the Maritime Industry, it is
like an umbrella term including different types of frauds. It stretches beyond the legal definitions. The following is an
overview of the kinds of fraud that may be experienced, but it is far from being an exhaustive list.
 DOCUMENTARY FRAUDS
 BLACKMAIL FRAUDS
 BUNKERING FRAUDS
 CYBER FRAUD
 FAKE JOB OR MLC FRAUDS
 BARRATRY

MARITIME FRAUDS
(Types of Frauds-Documentary Frauds)
DOCUMENTARY FRAUDS
These may be further subdivided under Charter Party Frauds, Bills of Ladings frauds & Marine
Insurance frauds, Letter of Credit Frauds.
 CHARTER PARTY FRAUDS
The inherent International nature of shipping makes it complex. Majority of times the
stakeholders are in different parts of the world and have never even met each other. A
shipowner may be located for instance in Singapore with the ship registered in Panama and
chartered by a person based in Switzerland with the charter party governed by the Laws of
England whilst the cargo is carried from Brazil to China. Matters become even more
complicated when the charter party permits sub-chartering of the ship and this introduces a
sub-charter who might be located in South Africa. Such complications are a perfect recipe for a
fraud.

MARITIME FRAUDS
CASE LAW: In one of the recent incidents a vessel was under a time charter and as per
permissions under the charter party was further sub chartered for a voyage. Under the sub
charter, it was the charterer who appeared as desponent owner. On collection of freight the
charterer immediately disappeared and failed to pay the charter hire to the shipowner. Helpless
shipowner whose Master had signed the Bill of Ladings was burdened with discharge of the
cargo without having any right of lien on the cargo.
 In yet another possible scenario, a shipowner would load cargo, issue Bill of Lading collect
freight and then declare himself insolvent. Owner of the cargo is left with disturbed cargo
delivery schedules and at times is compelled to approach courts. Courts might in turn
auction the vessel and the cargo to a new owner who has no liability of delivering the cargo.
 In order to ensure reasonable security against such frauds, it is always advisable to check
the antecedents of the opposite party. Also Law firms must be approached / consulted to
check upon the backgrounds of contracting partners

MARITIME FRAUDS
We have touched upon this in our Bill of Lading lectures where B/L is one of the
most important documents in International movement of goods.
The more important a document is ,the more attractive it is for criminals to
commit a fraud.
There have been various incidents of frauds connected with Bills of Ladings. We
discussed this during the “precautions to observe while signing Bills of ladings” .
A Master can be fooled by presenting him with Bills of Ladings which have
confusing information which the Master signs without even realising the legal
complications.

MARITIME FRAUDS
 BILLS OF LADINGS FRAUDS
One of a very recent incidents in 2018, in a shipment of sheepskins, the carrier issued
original Bills of Ladings for the cargo loaded on his ship. The freight forwarder in turn also
issued “House Bills” which had the appearance of original by mentioning “To the order…”
on the House Bill and stamping “Original” on them. By issuing house bills the shipper in-
fact introduced two sets of “Document of Title” in the market for the same goods.
Additionally, the shippers lifted credit against the House Bills issued by the Freight
Forwarders. When the shipper defaulted in his payments the finance company was left to
claim against the house bills but by then it was too late as the cargo had already been
discharged against the original Bills of ladings (Australian Capital Financial Management
v Freight Solutions (Vic) Pty Ltd).

MARITIME FRAUDS
Another practice which is prevalent in the world is creating fake Bills of Ladings. English courts
were recently faced with a case where the cargo was delivered against a fraudulent bill of
ladings. In Motis Exports Ltd. v Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 Aktieselskab and Aktieselskabet
Dampskipsselskabet Svendborg the facts of the case were that the plaintiffs had shipped
different consignments on Maersk Line ships from China/Hongkong to Cotonou/Abidjan. Goods
were carried under Maersk Line Bills of Ladings which consigned the goods by a remark “To
Order” and additionally contained a clause:
"5. CARRIER’S RESPONSIBILITY
….
3. Carriage to and from Countries other than the USA
….
(b) where the carriage called for commences at the port of loading and/or finishes at the port of
discharge, the Carrier shall have no liability whatsoever for any loss or damage to the goods
while in its actual or constructive possession before loading or after discharge over ship’s rail or
if applicable, on the ship’s ramp, however caused."

MARITIME FRAUDS
Purporting to be acting on behalf of the notifying party, certain parties
approached carriers’ agents and presented fake Bills of Ladings. Carriers agents
fooled by the fake bills of ladings issued delivery orders for the goods to be
released.
The plaintiffs in their plaint claimed wrongful delivery whereas the defendant
stated that as per the clause in Bill of Ladings they are not liable for the goods
once they cross the ships rail.
Faced with this situation courts ruled that the carrier, in this case, cannot hide
under the clause, as the paramount duty of the carrier is to deliver the goods to
the right consignee. The Court held further that only if the Bill of Lading had a
term implying defence from delivery against fraudulent Bill of Ladings could the
owner escape liability.

MARITIME FRAUDS
(BOLERO-Documentary Frauds)
All the players including Carriers, exporters, importers
involved in international trade are attempting to solve this
problem of fraud or unauthorised amendment of bills of
lading by introducing digital platforms.
A system called Bills of Ladings Electronic Registration
Organisation (BOLERO) has been introduced. It facilitates
use of E-Bills as part of a Blockchain and is available for
viewing to everyone in the chain thus eliminating possible
frauds in paper bills of ladings.

MARITIME FRAUDS
MARINE INSURANCE FRAUDS:
Termed infamously as the “MOST SPECTACULAR FRAUD” was the case of the
vessel BRILLANTE VIRTUOSO.
This ship was carrying fuel oil cargo from Ukraine to China and was drifting on
5th July 2011 off the coast of Yemen to embark a security team prior transiting
the Gulf of Aden in the times when the Somali piracy was at its peak. A small
boat with seven persons carrying Kalashnikovs approached the vessel and the
Captain thinking that they were the security team permitted them to board. On
boarding they turned upon the Master and crew, and apparently hijacked the
vessel.

MARITIME FRAUDS
The Master was taken to the bridge and the chief engineer to the engine control
room. Rest of the crew were rounded up in the day room. While the VDR audio
recording provided evidence that the armed men told the Master to sail towards
Somalia, in fact the ship headed towards Djibouti.
Couple of hours later the engine stopped and a fire broke out in the engine room. It
was claimed that the fire had started because of detonation of an explosive device
used by the pirates. The pirates subsequently were believed to have fled the ship
while the Master along with his crew had abandoned the vessel. Master and crew
were rescued by a passing vessel. Salvors known as Poseidon promptly arrived on
the scene which in fact drew a remark from the Judge that “their response was
rather impressively rapid”. The vessel which was extensively damaged had to be
scrapped later.

MARITIME FRAUDS
Vessel’s owner, Suez Fortune Investments Limited, and mortgagee bank, Piraeus
Bank AE, brought a claim on the ship’s war risks policy for a constructive total loss.
The insured value was $55m plus $22m for disbursements and increased value,
making a total claim of $77m.
After a series of claims and counterclaims between owners and insurance
companies and a rather prolonged trial the court declared that the whole incident
was pre-planned in order to claim a large insurance. Owners claim was rejected
and incident turned out to be one of the most prominent examples of Maritime
Fraud

MARITIME FRAUDS
Letter of credit fraud:
A report of the United Nations’ Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD,
2009) defines four types of LC frauds :
 the first is a falsification of documents by the beneficiary in order to obtain
the payment from the issuing bank when no cargo exists in practice.
 The second is when the goods delivered by the beneficiary do not comply with
the contract of sales in quantity and quality.
 The third is selling the same cargo to more than one person,
 the fourth is issuing a document of title (bill of lading) twice for the same
cargo

MARITIME FRAUDS
(Trojan Container Frauds)
Case Scenario: the “Trojan” Container
“Trojan” Container is the one that is believed to contain a certain specific cargo, yet
upon discharge it turns out that the contents are quite different. The types of incidents
may include:
1. Cargo of HMS scrap for recycling contained a large amount of mud
2. Cargo of rolls of fruits contained smuggled drugs
3. A box container having illegal immigrants
4. Various methods to hide drugs
5. Unwanted stuff packed , or other redundant material stuffed in container to give the
impression of [x] tons weight, but the real goods were never shipped (but were paid for)
These are just a few examples, but often the carrier is at risk of fines, criminal charges,
rejection of the cargo, detention, disposal and extra carriage costs.

MARITIME FRAUDS
(Trojan Container Frauds)
In an interesting case ,five containers believed to contain 3,300 bags of PVC granules were shipped on
board a vessel from Busan, Korea to Egypt in 2004. On arrival at Alexandria the containers were all
found to be empty. The receivers in Egypt filed a lawsuit against the carrier claiming compensation for
the non-delivery of the cargo. The matter went up to the Supreme Court.
The appeal in Supreme Court was based on the fact that the containers in question had not been
weighed at the loading port. In addition, on arrival at Alexandria the containers’ seals were found to be
intact without any sign of tampering.
Further, the following disclaimer appeared on the front side of the bill of lading:
“Above particulars furnished by shippers, but without responsibility of or representation by
carrier. ”Shipper’s load, stow, weight and count.”
The Supreme Court held that the above clauses in the bill of lading should have a conclusive effect on
the parties to the contract of carriage and if shippers wish to succeed with their claim they had to
provide evidence that the 3,300 bags of PVC granules were inside the containers at the time loading on
board the vessel. The shippers were unable to do.

MARITIME FRAUDS
(Types of Frauds-Bunkering Frauds)
BUNKERING FRAUDS
Industry is fraught with several bunkering frauds. They can be in various forms like
 Manipulating the Fuel Density & Weight Relationship
 Manipulating the Fuel Temperature & Volume Relationship
 The Cappuccino Bunkers
 Fuel Delivered with High Water Content
 Mixing Slops into Bunkers

MARITIME FRAUDS
 Tampering with Gauging Equipment.
Industry has been constantly attempting to combat
these frauds as bunkers constitute a major chunk of
shipowner’s expenses. Various P & I clubs have
repeatedly alerted their members against three
most probable bunker frauds.

MARITIME FRAUDS
Some of the most Common, disputes with Bunkering are related to
 quantity consumption by the vessel
 quantity of deliveries
 quality of deliveries
Actual Case Scenario: Supplier overstated quantity supplied
There have been incidents where disputes arose over the quantity supplied several days
after the supply was made. Such matters are difficult to resolve, as the passage of time
makes it more difficult to conclusively determine where fault may be found.
In particular it appears possible by the use of pumping air into bunkers as well as heating
them to increase their volume and create what has been called “the Cappuccino” effect.
Experienced Engineers are expected to closely monitor a fuel supply like constantly
checking for any visible of physical variations/temperature monitoring etc.

MARITIME FRAUDS
Bunkering frauds contd …………
P & I Clubs have constantly through various circulars advised their members that a
probable way out of this problem is to hire third party bunker surveyors and also to
constantly exhort their ships crew to be more alert during bunkering operations.

MARITIME FRAUDS
(Types of Frauds-Cyber Frauds)
Maersk considered as World’s 1st container line states that hackers can
easily take on GPS systems and cause a crash to a ship’s navigation
capabilities. With more than 90% of world trade being carried out by sea,
the stakes are high and are making ship owners extremely anxious.
It’s a confirmed fact that cybercriminals can hack any network in the world.
And Ships, which are so vulnerable are constantly exposed to interference
effecting their electronic navigation devices such as the Global Positioning
System/AIS/ECDIS.
In 2016 South Korea reported that a number of its of its fishing vessels had
to return to the port, as their GPS signals were jammed due to a cyber
attack initiated by a North Korean Cyber Army.
In 2014, US Coast Guard officials reportedly had a tough time dealing with a
cyber attack situation for couple of hours such as a prankster decided to jam
their GPS signals for not allowing him and his friends to go for an ocean ride.

MARITIME FRAUDS
June 27, 2017, was a perfectly sunny and peaceful summer afternoon in Copenhagen,
in the headquarters of A.P. Møller-Maersk , confused company staffers began to gather
in twos and threes, almost all of them carrying laptops. On their screens were
messages in red and black lettering. Few read “repairing file system on C:” with a
explicit warning not to turn off the computer. While some others read “oops, your
important files are encrypted” and demanded a payment of $300 worth of bitcoin to
decrypt them.
One of the IT employees was busy preparing a software update for Maersk’s nearly
80,000 employees when his computer spontaneously restarted. He later claimed that
he saw a wave of screens turning black. Black, black, black. Just Black black black
black black…..he P and his neighbors quickly discovered, that the PC’s were
irreversibly locked. Restarting only returned them to the same black screen.
At the same time , this attack was experienced by various organizations all over
Ukraine and even some hospitals in USA. This was as a result of introducing a malware
known as “NON-PETYA” into the system by a group of hijackers. Instead of heeding to
attackers demands Maersk took the decision to go public and announce that their
systems are under cyber attack.It took them nearly 10 days to restore their systems and
the company ended up spending close to 300 million dollars.

MARITIME FRAUDS
 2011 – IRISL services hacked causing damage to rates/loading schedules/delivery
schedules/location of boxes (some never traced).
 2011-2013 – Port of Antwerp – drug cartel – illicit drugs and contraband seized $365
million/firearms seized $1.5 million (led to MSC v. Glencore International AG [CA]).
 2012 – Australian customs and border protection hacked – inability to trace containers.
 2012 – 2014 – Danish port authority – email virus led to full shut down and ultimately infected
government systems.
 2014 - Semi Sub Gulf of Mexico destabilised – 19 days to make seaworthy and return to
operation. (Similar attacks to other rigs off Africa).
 2016 – 280 vessels forced to return to port following problems with navigation systems –
N.Korea?
 2017 – 20 ships in Black Sea AIS/GPS spoofed – 32km inland of actual position.
 2018 – COSCO hit by a cyber attack affecting the carriers ability to communicate with
vessels, customers and marine terminals.
Data Source: Hill Dickinson report on “Cyber Crime in the Shipping Industry”

MARITIME FRAUDS
GNSS Jamming and AIS spoofing (Global Navigation Satellite System)
 Jamming devices cost as little as $100
 AIS/GPS spoofing can be achieved with a $100 VHF set
 Estimated 250,000 cell towers in Russia are equipped with GNSS
jamming devices.
 GPS jamming trial – Flambrough Head – showed effect was to create
incorrect data on ECDIS, AIS and Radar – all systems !
Data Source: Hill Dickinson report on “Cyber Crime in the Shipping Industry”

MARITIME FRAUDS
In a very recent cases , an oil tanker ‘ A ’ arrived in Singapore on 26 June 2020 and
reported her position to VTIS East at 1400 hrs. But, the VTIS failed to locate the ship
on AIS. They served a notice to Master not to sail without the AIS repair. Owners
immediately arranged a technician who boarded the vessel at anchorage. He checked
and confirmed with the VTIS that all are in order. However, the AIS failure re-occurred
on 28th June during departure and a flag state dispensation had to be taken .
A new AIS was installed on arrival at next call Singapore on 4th July. The technician
verified with VTIS, and AIS was found satisfactory. On 5th July, the berthing Pilot
reported the same issue again, and the vessel’s sailing was postponed to facilitate
service engineer’s boarding at anchorage.
Owners again arranged service engineers to check the AIS. This time the attending
technicians found that three other vessels were using “A’s” MMSI number. This caused
interference and intermittent failure of AIS transmission from “A”.

MARITIME FRAUDS
Owners informed the MPA Singapore about this on 5th July. It was also reported
to IFC Singapore, IMB Kuala Lumpur, Singapore Marine Police and Intertanko.
Later the P & I club of the owners of “A” informed that one of the ship which was
using the same MMSI number was involved in illegal drug trafficking. This was not
only causing navigational risks in busy traffic areas, but also the reputation of the
Owners and Managers of “A” for the misleading identity.

MARITIME FRAUDS
(Types of Frauds-Fake jobs & MLC)
Another fraud which casts its draconian shadow over our industry are the unscrupulous manning
agents who take advantage of prospective seafarers from inland cities, where the gullible youth
are tempted with attractive wages. It’s a known fact that these heartless monsters disappear
after they have fleeced their innocent victim.
A story reported in DNA recently was when 23-year-old Mayur Patel signed up for a course with an
institute promising jobs in the Merchant Navy, he thought he was securing his future. After paying
Rs4 lakh as fees and wasting several months, Mayur realized that he was a victim of fraud.
With help of several other victims, the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) arrested one Manoj Dubey
for allegedly cheating 70 students to the tune of over Rs 7 crore.
According to the police, Dubey had formed a bogus company - Searock Institute of Education
Research and Development Private Limited - based in Andheri.
Patel said he first came to know of the institute when the ‘faculty members’ visited his college
in 2006. “They told us they have 500 ships and promised us jobs in the Merchant Navy with a
starting salary of Rs25,000,” said Patel.
On enquiring from DG office the students realized that no such institute is recognized by them.

MARITIME FRAUDS
In yet another incident a boy from Vadakara in Kozhikode, Kerala, has given Rs
four lakh to become a seaman. But his seafaring journey lasted just three months
when he was signed off from the cargo ship that he was working.
All his money is lost with and all his expectations too are gone. He is a victim of the
alleged racket that recruits people for merchant navy. As like him, there are
hundreds who lose their money to fake recruiters who promise lucrative jobs in
leading shipping companies.
Having lost money and with no job, some of the young people have landed up in
fishing vessels in Sri Lanka and Malaysia. Some have returned to their native
places and doing other jobs.
Though DG shipping has come down heavily on these scammers, the practice of
fooling gullible souls continues.

MARITIME FRAUDS
The rot is so deep-rooted that some of the certified RPSL companies are also involved
in this racket.
Recently ,in one instance, after certain underhand payment ,three seafarers were
promised to be sent on a particular vessel and on arrival Maldives they found
themselves being placed on another vessel. After nearly two months without any pay
they desperately tried to call their RPSL company who after some time refused
accepting any calls. Poor fellows some how managed to return back home after nearly
nine months of struggle and no pay.
In yet another incident, Indian seafarers joined a small vessel off Malta. Later the
vessel sailed and drifted few miles off the coast of Morocco and loaded some cargo (in
sealed boxes) while adrift. Vessel entered Mediterranean on her way to supposedly
Italy when she was boarded by Italian coast guard who found drugs packed in the
boxes. Vessel along with her crew were arrested and stayed behind bars for nearly 17
months.

MARITIME FRAUDS
(Types of Frauds-BARRATRY)
Barratry is defined as fraud or gross negligence of a ship's master or crew at the
expense of its owners or users.
Some of the examples of BARARATY frauds are
1. manipulating stores and victualling invoices by signing for unreceived goods
and sharing the loot with the supplier.
2. ship’s crew selling ship stores or cargo.
3. selling bunkers by signing for more and receiving less on their ships and
manipulating the shortage through cargo residues(diesel) on oil tankers.
4. agreeing to accept substandard machinery spares.
5. manipulating B/L figures

MARITIME FRAUDS
BARRATRY
1. Ship manning agents manipulating salaries of the ship crew.
2. Ship manning agents supplying uncertified crew on board for less salary, by
using fake certificates, CDC etc.
3. manipulating Oil record book figures to hide deficiency in ship machinery
and pumping residues overboard through portable hoses.
4. manipulating cargo figures on oil tankers and pumping residues(diesel) to
bunker tanks in liaison with ship owner, managers.
5. carrying contraband on board.

MARITIME FRAUDS
National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Republic of China et al
This case explains how barratry is applicable during periods of civil war. United States
sold 13 ships to the Republic of China in 1940’s which at that time was controlled by the
Nationalist Government. During the subsequent Chinese Civil war, communist Peoples
Republic of China took control of the country and the Nationalist Government was
forced to flee to Taiwan. When the Nationalis Government fled to Taiwan ,six of those
ships were in mainland ports and one was out at sea. The Nationalist Government
ordered them to proceed towards Taiwan. None of them did,rather they proceeded
towards mainland and hoisted the communist flag.
Even though the government's insurance policy excluded losses due to civil war,
insurrection or mutiny , it did however cover barratry. The court declared that all seven
of these ships were a case of barratry, not mutiny, as the captains ordered the ships to
raise the Communist flag.

MARITIME FRAUDS
In Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Freeport Holdings Ltd [2017] EWHC 3348.
The chief engineer of the vessel “Lady M” started a fire intentionally. The owners
of the cargo on board claimed against the owners of the Vessel for the breach of
contract(s) of carriage in the bills of lading. The contracts of carriage were subject
to the Hague-Visby Rules. The Owners denied liability claiming the chief engineer
acted barratrously, and relied upon Article IV Rules 2(b) and (q) of the Hague-Visby
Rules as the barratrous acts were without the “fault or privity” of the Owners:
“2. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising
or resulting from:
(b) Fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier.
(q) Any other cause arising without the actual fault or privity of the carrier, or
without the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier…”

MARITIME FRAUDS
Court ruled that the act can not be termed as Barratrous and it would be
sufficient to term it as a “Fraud”.
However under 2(q) court ruled that even though the Chief engineer had started
the fire without the knowledge of owners, the owners are responsible under
“vicarious liability”

Capt. Pankaj Kapoor - Maritime Frauds

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Capt. Pankaj Kapoor - Maritime Frauds

Similar to Capt. Pankaj Kapoor - Maritime Frauds (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Capt. Pankaj Kapoor - Maritime Frauds