Fish-i investigation: 08
Three vessels or one?
The complex network of vessel identity fraud is highlighted in this case with multiple vessels operating under a range of identities, only photographic evidence and AIS and VMS tracks were able to show that at least five vessels appear to be sharing two identities which could enable the operators to avoid licence fees, misreport catches and commit other fisheries crimes.
Key events
April 2014
The vessels were first brought to the attention of FISH-i Africa when automatic identification system (AIS) showed signals for the HUNG SHENG NO. 88 and CHI HSIANG NO. 7 departing Port Louis, bound for the Tanzanian exclusive economic zone (EEZ). There was no indication of CHI HSIANG NO. 7 being authorised to fish in any regional fisheries management organisation (RFMO) or other records. At this time it could not be ascertained which vessel was transmitting the signal.
June 2014
The HUNG SHENG NO. 88 and BINTANG SAMUDRA – 68 requested permission to tranship in Mombasa. AIS showed HUNG SHENG NO. 88 and CHI HSIANG NO. 7 approaching Mombasa – it was not known if CHI HSIANG NO. 7 was the same as BINTANG SAMUDRA – 68 or if there was a third vessel, although no vessel was transmitting as BINTANG SAMUDRA – 68. Kenya worked with the FISH-i Africa Technical Team to explore these vessels further and as no IUU fishing history was identified the and transhipment went ahead. The vessels had been fishing in the Tanzania EEZ, where they were licensed until July, and the fish was destined for Chi Hsiang Fishery Co. Ltd in Taiwan.Further research revealed that the BINTANG SAMUDRA – 68 was previously flagged to Taiwan and had been operating under different names.
August 2014
FISH-i continued to monitor these vessels and analysis of the AIS data for CHI HSIANG NO. 7 and VMS data for BINTANG SAMUDRA – 68, confirmed that these were in fact the same vessel. AIS tracks showed that vessels entered Port Louis in August 2014 and that AIS was not transmitting from late August. In October – CHI HSIANG NO. 7’s AIS was switched on and the vessel departed Port Louis in Mauritius.
December 2014
A longliner named KARYA WIJAYA 201 called to Port Louis for a few days early in December and later in the month a different longliner, also called to Port Louis using the name of KARYA WIJAYA 201. The vessel was carrying paperwork indicating that it was KARYA WIJAYA 201, but inspectors noticed differences in the design of the two vessels and noticed that the second vessel had been recently painted and did not display a call sign. It was also transmitting on AIS as CHI HSIANG NO. 7. The vessel departed Port Louis that night and Mauritius reported to FISH-i countries to look out for a vessel reporting on AIS as CHI HSIANG NO. 7 as it appeared to be using a fake identity.
December 2014
Photo analysis revealed that the vessel that called into Port Louis at the end of December showed strong similarities to the BINTANG SAMUDRA – 68 photographed in Mombasa in June 2014. When combined with AIS movements it seemed very likely that these are the same vessel as structural and cosmetic details matched. What was less clear was why the BINTANG SAMUDRA – 68 would want to assume the identity of KARYA WIJAYA 201 – possibly because in July 2014 the IOTC authorisation for BINTANG SAMUDRA – 68 would expire, while the KARYA WIJAYA 201 was authorised until May 2015.
April 2015
News sources in Indonesia report the deaths of five Indonesian fishermen on board fishing vessels BINTANG SAMUDRA – 68 and BINTANG SAMUDRA – 11 in waters off Senegal, indicating this cannot be the same BINTANG SAMUDRA – 68 that was operating under that name, and later as KARYA WIJAYA 201, in the WIO in June 2015 when it was tracked in the Malacca Straits in June. The real identity of the vessel operating in Senegalese waters has not yet been identified and it is not known which of these two vessels is the ‘real’ BINTANG SAMUDRA – 68, or indeed if either is as it is possible that both are operating under false identities.
There are indications that the second vessel involved in the Senegal case is also involved in identity fraud. BINTANG SAMUDRA – 11 is the name used by a vessel that was detained by South Africa in late 2013 and currently remains in Cape Town undergoing repairs. There are indications that the vessel detained by South Africa is not the ‘real’ BINTANG SAMUDRA – 11, as markings on the hull indicated that this vessel had previously been named HOOM XIANG 20.2. Whilst it is not clear exactly what identity this refers to, it appears to have been part of the Hoom Xiang fleet of vessels that were deflagged by Malaysia in late 2011.
How?
The evidence uncovered during FISH-i investigations demonstrates different methods or approaches that illegal operators use to either commit or cover-up their illegality and to avoid prosecution.
Vessel identity
At least five vessels were evidently using the identity of two fishing vessels. By painting over vessel identifiers such as names and call signs, operators can easily and cheaply switch identities in a short space of time, assuming the identity of a licensed and authorised vessel. A vessel transmitting on AIS as CHI HSIANG NO. 7 was physically painted with the name BINTANG SAMUDRA-68, while some months later, a vessel transmitting on AIS as CHI HSIANG NO. 7 was physically painted with the name KARYA WIJAYA 201, photographic analysis of the two vessels demonstrated that they were likely to be the same vessel.
Business practices
In trying to identify the owners, links to a bankrupt Indonesian company were made, but the current vessels owners could not be identified.
Document forgery (suspected)
Documents were presented to Mauritius in the name of KARYA WIJAYA-201, however it is not clear if these were forgeries, or copies of documents from the true KARYA WIJAYA-201. Forged documents are likely to have also been required to support the other name changes.
Flagging issues (suspected)
Indonesian and Taiwan flags were used by the vessels, but due to the identity issues it is suspected that these may have been false flags.
What did FISH-i Africa do?
- Took photographs of vessels and analysed them to establish identity.
- Tracked vessels and compared AIS with VMS information.
- Inspected vessels and shared inspection reports.
- Researched and monitored fishing vessels and company structures.
What worked?
- Well trained fisheries inspectors applying port State measures spotted differences in vessels using the same name.
- Accessible photographs of fishing vessels provided crucial evidence.
- AIS and VMS data allowed comparison of tracks from the suspect vessels.
- Regional cooperation between FISH-i members allowed information to be cross checked and verified.
What needs to change?
- Publicly available photographs will help to reduce the high level of vessel identity fraud seen in the Western Indian Ocean.
- Communication with flag States needs to be improved to help unearth the true identity and history of vessels and ensure that fishing vessels operate according to the rules when fishing in foreign waters.
- A mandatory global record of fishing vessels and available IMO numbers would make vessel identity fraud easier to identify.
- Improved processes for RFMO-listing of IUU fishing vessels will encourage better due diligence in licensing or registering of fishing vessels.
FISH-i Investigations
In working together on over forty investigations, FISH-i Africa has shed light on the scale and complexity of illegal activities in the fisheries sector and highlighted the challenges that coastal State enforcement officers face to act against the perpetrators. These illegal acts produce increased profit for those behind them, but they undermine the sustainability of the fisheries sector and reduce the nutritional, social and economic benefits derived from the regions’ blue economy.
FISH-i investigations demonstrate a range of complexity in illegalities – ranging from illegal fishing to fisheries related illegality to fisheries associated crime to lawlessness.
In this case evidence of illegal fishing and fisheries related illegalities were found.