1 Introduction
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IUU) is generally understood as a
fishing activity that does not play by the national or international conservation and
management rules.
1 In its development, IUU fishing has also been linked to a
number of crimes, such as slavery, corruption, and trafficking. In 2015, a big rescue
mission was carried out in Indonesia to save approximately two thousand trafficked
fishers from former Thai fishing vessels, which were operated by PT Pusaka Benjina
Resources [PT PBR]. PT PBR is an Indonesian registered company, which is jointly
owned by another Indonesian company, PT Buana Citra Artapersada, and a foreign
company, Strait Capital Enterprise Ltd.
2 Financial records also reveal that the Thaiowned Silver Sea Fishery Co is also associated with PT PBR.
3 Even though Silver
Sea Fishery Co has Thai ownership, it is registered in the British Virgin Islands.
4
Subsequent judicial proceedings confirmed that the captain and crews of PT PBR’s
vessels were recruited and employed by the Silver Sea Fishery Co.
5 Eventually, the
Indonesian Supreme Court held Silver Sea Fishery Co accountable for the human
trafficking on board of PT PBR’s vessels.
6 An extensive report by Chapsos and
Hamilton confirmed the inhumane working conditions of the fishing vessels and the
frequent changing of vessels’ flags between Thai and Indonesian flags.
7 It also
reported witness statements who claimed to spot Indonesian officials assisting the
crime and a large-scale document forgery involving Thai officials.
8
The Benjina case not only illustrates a link between IUU fishing and other crimes,
but it also highlights a web of corporate ownership capable of shielding the beneficial owners from prosecutions. Corporations with complex ownership structures
can easily conceal IUU activities, especially when multiple shareholders across
national borders own the company. Such corporations can provide financial
resources on a scale that would enable them to bear the costs of IUU fishing across
different fleets. The general opinions consider that low monetary penalties are the
reason why current measures fail to deter further IUU fishing.
9 However, it can be
argued that one of the reasons for an economic punishment to fail is because the flag
1 The complete definition of IUU fishing is set out in paragraph 3 of the International Plan of Action
to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing (hereinafter referred
as “IPOA-IUU”).
2 See Supreme Court Decision No. 105/Pid.Sus/2015/Pn.tul.(Perdagangan Orang) and Supreme
Court Decision No. 108/Pid.Sus/2015/Pn.tul.(Perdagangan Orang).
3 See Mendoza et al. (2016).
4 See IOM (2016).
5 See Supreme Court Decision No 105/Pid.Sus/2015/Pn.tul.(Perdagangan Orang) and Supreme
Court Decision NO. 108/Pid.Sus/2015/Pn.tul.(Perdagangan Orang).
6 Id.
7 Chapsos and Hamilton (2018), pp. 10, 12, 14.
8 Ibid.
9 Beke and Blomeyer (2014), p. 19.
122
D. Liliansa
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IUU) is generally understood as a
fishing activity that does not play by the national or international conservation and
management rules.
1 In its development, IUU fishing has also been linked to a
number of crimes, such as slavery, corruption, and trafficking. In 2015, a big rescue
mission was carried out in Indonesia to save approximately two thousand trafficked
fishers from former Thai fishing vessels, which were operated by PT Pusaka Benjina
Resources [PT PBR]. PT PBR is an Indonesian registered company, which is jointly
owned by another Indonesian company, PT Buana Citra Artapersada, and a foreign
company, Strait Capital Enterprise Ltd.
2 Financial records also reveal that the Thaiowned Silver Sea Fishery Co is also associated with PT PBR.
3 Even though Silver
Sea Fishery Co has Thai ownership, it is registered in the British Virgin Islands.
4
Subsequent judicial proceedings confirmed that the captain and crews of PT PBR’s
vessels were recruited and employed by the Silver Sea Fishery Co.
5 Eventually, the
Indonesian Supreme Court held Silver Sea Fishery Co accountable for the human
trafficking on board of PT PBR’s vessels.
6 An extensive report by Chapsos and
Hamilton confirmed the inhumane working conditions of the fishing vessels and the
frequent changing of vessels’ flags between Thai and Indonesian flags.
7 It also
reported witness statements who claimed to spot Indonesian officials assisting the
crime and a large-scale document forgery involving Thai officials.
8
The Benjina case not only illustrates a link between IUU fishing and other crimes,
but it also highlights a web of corporate ownership capable of shielding the beneficial owners from prosecutions. Corporations with complex ownership structures
can easily conceal IUU activities, especially when multiple shareholders across
national borders own the company. Such corporations can provide financial
resources on a scale that would enable them to bear the costs of IUU fishing across
different fleets. The general opinions consider that low monetary penalties are the
reason why current measures fail to deter further IUU fishing.
9 However, it can be
argued that one of the reasons for an economic punishment to fail is because the flag
1 The complete definition of IUU fishing is set out in paragraph 3 of the International Plan of Action
to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing (hereinafter referred
as “IPOA-IUU”).
2 See Supreme Court Decision No. 105/Pid.Sus/2015/Pn.tul.(Perdagangan Orang) and Supreme
Court Decision No. 108/Pid.Sus/2015/Pn.tul.(Perdagangan Orang).
3 See Mendoza et al. (2016).
4 See IOM (2016).
5 See Supreme Court Decision No 105/Pid.Sus/2015/Pn.tul.(Perdagangan Orang) and Supreme
Court Decision NO. 108/Pid.Sus/2015/Pn.tul.(Perdagangan Orang).
6 Id.
7 Chapsos and Hamilton (2018), pp. 10, 12, 14.
8 Ibid.
9 Beke and Blomeyer (2014), p. 19.
122
D. Liliansa