A major chemical carrier and oil tanker owner operating in the United states decided to defend themselves in court from criminal charges for having hidden the occurrence of sea pollution by alleging exclusive fault of the crew, and that their corporate policy expressly forbids violating the environment. This approach in uncommon, as in such cases defense usually involves the negotiating of the multimillion-dollar fines.
The charge is that in 2006 the crew of a 15,000-ton chemical carrier twice discharged oily waste fluids into the sea and, on several other occasions, discharge oily water from the engine-room. In addition, the prosecution accused the Chief Engineer of submitting forged documents to the U.S. Coast Guard in an attempt to obstruct inspection by that authority.
At the court hearing, the Chief Engineer stated that he was aware that it was illegal to discharge of oily residue into the sea, and that he was at fault for not recording the fact in the Oil Log. The Chief also admitted to having requested that a crewmember under his command manufacture and install a section of tubing to bypass the oil/water separator, so as to offer the Coast Guard a false reading of the situation of the equipment.
Based on the foregoing, the Prosecutor charged the company with conspiracy, violation of MARPOL, forgery and obstruction of justice.
The fines for the above could reach millions of dollars, and are increased as a result of criminal conduct.
In their defense, the company informed that their crews sign a statement in which they undertake to inform the company of the occurrence of any environmental violation to which the company may be exposed, the engine-room crew not having complied with this obligation. In addition, the company informed that near the date of the violation, the company had paid for the vessel to discharge her residues at a terminal in Jamaica, there being a receipt evidencing the delivery of the residue. Investigations showed,
however, that soon after departing Jamaica the bypass tube in the oil/water separator was installed. The company stated that they do not tolerate any non-compliance with the law, and that they will prove in court that they undertook all reasonable efforts and actions possible to avoid the occurrence of such facts.
Off the record, the company understands that it is very easy for the U.S. authorities to indict a company with a vast asset base, as they can be certain that the fines will be paid. They also expressed their indignation in having to pay for accommodations and salaries of the ship’s crew since the ship was detained, nine months ago, notwithstanding their being the only ones at fault.
The foregoing lawsuit is only beginning, but can serve as a point for reflection by those who operate in Brazil, as these shipping companies may be charged for pollution caused by the exclusive fault of crewmembers. It is interesting discuss, from the viewpoint of Brazilian law, how such facts will considered in the administrative, judicial (civil and criminal) and labor spheres, and to ponder how the Environmental Agency Prosecutors will perform in Court.
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.
