London Shipping Law Centre · 14 October 2026
Enforcement againstshadow vessels
US civil forfeiture, a case study
The role of IMO
Standards.
Cooperation.
States exercise enforcement powers.
Convention on the International Maritime Organization · Article 1(a)
Machinery for cooperation
among governments
Highest practicable standards in maritime safety,
navigation and pollution prevention
Registration and enforcement remain with States.
Article 1(a) · summary of the mandate
The role of IMO
What IMO has done
A.1142(31)
Fraudulent registration and fraudulent registries
A.1192(33)
Illegal operations by the dark fleet or shadow fleet
LEG.1/Circ.19
Guidelines on the Registration of Ships
Information sharing
False registration and flag verification
Technical rules States can enforce
AIS & LRIT
Tracking obligations under SOLAS
Oil-tanker STS
Approved plan; generally 48-hour notice
for covered coastal transfers
Ship identity
Permanent IMO number marking
and Continuous Synopsis Record
Insurance
Certificates under applicable
liability conventions
Scope and exceptions matter: going dark or transferring cargo is not automatically a treaty breach.
A.1142(31) · A.1192(33) · LEG.1/Circ.19 · SOLAS · MARPOL Annex I, regs. 40–42
The legal framework
Nationality.
High-seas jurisdiction.
UNCLOS
Arts. 91–92 · nationality and flag-State jurisdiction
Art. 110 · right of visit
Nationality is granted by States; IMO’s registration guidance supports their work.
One instrument · one State
US civil
forfeiture
A case study of enforcement
The international-law gateway
Statelessness removes
exclusive flag-State
protection
The vessel is exposed to the jurisdiction
of an intercepting State.
UNCLOS, arts. 92 and 110 · substantive enforcement authority must come from national law.
The enforcement framework
International law
The gateway
Removes exclusive
flag-State protection
National law
The engine
Supplies the substantive
authority and remedy
The scope
Seven vessels. One courthouse.
One method.
District of Columbia
United States District Court
US civil forfeiture
I
How the US
asserts jurisdiction
Statelessness · domestic authority · geographical reach
First movement · statelessness
United States v. Marino-Garcia
679 F.2d 1373 (11th Cir. 1982)
United States v. Aybar-Ulloa
987 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2021) (en banc)
Drug-enforcement cases · Marino-Garcia: 1958 High Seas Convention · Aybar-Ulloa: UNCLOS as customary-law evidence
United States v. Marino-Garcia
“Floating sanctuaries
from authority”
Statutory prohibitions aboard stateless vessels
No separate US nexus required
679 F.2d 1373, 1382–83 (11th Cir. 1982) · a stateless-vessel drug prosecution
United States v. Aybar-Ulloa
How US jurisdiction becomes applicable
vessel
State’s jurisdiction
a US vessel
legislated for
the conduct
limits remain
Applicable treaty limitations
the underlying prohibition.
over the underlying offence
987 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2021) (en banc), majority pp. 9–17 · working synthesis of the reasoning
The domestic statutory authority
All assets, foreign or domestic, of persons or organizations engaged in planning or perpetrating a Federal crime of terrorism against the United States, its citizens or residents, or their property; also assets affording any person a source of influence over such an entity or organization.
The pleaded ground and its evidence
Statutory ground
§981(a)(1)(G)(i)
Alleged ownership or source of influence
connected to the IRGC / Qods Force
and the statutory terrorism requirement
Supporting evidence
Designations and the
practices described earlier
Used to support the alleged connection;
not independent forfeiture grounds
in these seven complaints
18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(G)(i) · complaints, ECF No. 1 in each of the seven actions · allegations, not merits findings
Geographical reach
RJR Nabisco, Inc. v.
European Community
579 U.S. 325 (2016)
Presumption against extraterritoriality
Congress must give a clear,
affirmative indication of foreign reach.
579 U.S. 325, 335–37 · first step of the extraterritoriality analysis
The statute’s geographical reach
“All assets, foreign or domestic”
18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(G) · property must still fall within the statutory ground
US civil forfeiture
II
How the
machine works
CAFRA · venue · proof · sealing and sale
The procedure
Civil Asset
Forfeiture Reform Act
2000
CAFRA
+ Supplemental Rule GStatutory safeguards
Claims · notice · proof · defences
The forfeiture ground must come from legislation.
CAFRA 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-185 · 18 U.S.C. §983 · Supplemental Rule G
The forum
Venue · 28 U.S.C.
§1355(b)(2)
Property located
in a foreign country
↓
Action may be brought in D.C.
Skipper: whether “a foreign country” includes
the high seas is disputed.
District of Columbia
Supplemental briefing ordered 5 October 2026.
28 U.S.C. §1355(b)(2) · Skipper, minute order, 5 October 2026 · other statutory venues remain available
The remedy
Civil forfeiture
Against the asset
In rem · United States v. the vessel
Civil standard of proof
Government’s burden: preponderance of the evidence
No criminal conviction required
The statutory taint on the asset must be established.
A claimant must appear
Assert an interest, establish standing and litigate.
Title relates back
If forfeiture is established: to the act giving rise to forfeiture.
Subject to innocent-owner protections.
No claimant, no contest. A forfeiture judgment is still required.
18 U.S.C. §§981(f), 983(c), (d) · Supplemental Rule G(4)–(5), (8) · Fed. R. Civ. P. 55
Two operational features
Two operational features
Under seal
Restricted access by court order
Interlocutory sale
The ship may be sold
while the case is pending.
Proceeds become the substitute res.
Supplemental Rule G(7)(b) · notice and court-approved sale procedures matter
US civil forfeiture
III
What the
dockets show
Seven proceedings · who appears · judicial scrutiny
Third movement · the supplied docket record
The seven dockets
Snapshot · 6 October 2026| Vessel | Claimed flag | Ownership claim | Creditor claim | Procedural position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bella 1 | Guyana | 2 Oct | — | Sale authorised; now challenged |
| Veronica | Guyana | 2 Oct | 5 Oct | Sale authorised; now challenged |
| Skipper | Guyana | 25 Mar | Yes | Jurisdiction, venue and sale contested |
| Phonix | Guyana | — | Yes | Vessel sale conditionally authorised |
| Tifani | Botswana | — | 30 Sep | Sale authorised; creditors claim |
| Skywave | Botswana | — | — | Sale motion held in abeyance |
| Lenore | Curaçao | — | — | Sale motions held in abeyance |
D.D.C. · complaints filed in 2026 · — = no such claim recorded in the supplied snapshot
Sale authorisation does not establish completed sale. Claims do not establish standing, entitlement or priority.
Closer scrutiny
of the procedure
Sealing · notice · sale applications · custody costs
Procedural supervision does not decide the forfeiture merits.
Phonix: 6 May · Skywave: 22 June / 3 September
Lenore: 3 / 25 September 2026
The claimant
may not be the owner
Terrorism-judgment creditors
Skipper · Phonix · Tifani · Veronica
Seeking recovery is not an established entitlement to the res.
Competing recovery claims can coexist with ownership claims.
Sources: the seven supplied PACER dockets retrieved 6 October 2026 · press S for case numbers and entries
The claimant
Summary
Contesting forfeiture
Procedure & interim relief
Substantive defences
Appear. Assert the interest. Meet the deadlines.
The res will not wait.
Thank you
Diego Ramirez
18 U.S.C. §983(d), (f), (g) · Supplemental Rule G(8) · availability depends on statutory conditions