Guess what's in Santo Domingo?

[AlaPlaya]

In reality, much is usually lost in translation and I find that if you want a more accurate version you often have to look at the Spanish language text. Later in the article it says "Yesterday, after 6:30 in the afternoon, a group of inspectors and soldiers identified with vests and caps from the General Directorate of Customs (DGA) entered the luxurious yacht ...". I suspect that the US has a deal with the DGA that they can do joint inspections. My point was that the DGA definitely has the right to enter, and if they allow the US inspectors to tag along, I think this would also be lawful.

The more interesting question would be whether the US has the power to seize the yacht in Dominican waters.

US doesn't have the jurisdiction to do that; you can only arrest a vessel in your own territorial waters.

 

[MariaRubia]

So if it is arrested by the Dominicans, one wonders where it will be stored and who will be allowed to babysit it whilst it is in storage. Hands up who wants a few months for free on a luxury yacht.

 

[aarhus]

US doesn't have the jurisdiction to do that; you can only arrest a vessel in your own territorial waters.

Maybe the Oligarch is hoping to protect his assets here and now house hunting on the east coast.

 

[william webster]

If it's not rented out - it needs to dock somewhere......

They don't just drive around waiting to be hired

 

[JD Jones]

So if it is arrested by the Dominicans, one wonders where it will be stored and who will be allowed to babysit it whilst it is in storage. Hands up who wants a few months for free on a luxury yacht.

I'm available.

 

[playacaribe2]

I'm available.

Not to worry. If it is seized or impounded, you cannot “arrest” a ship, it will likely remain in port with its crew on board.

Costs will be borne by the owner…..but therein lies the rub. Who is the “real” owner? And that could take some time to determine, if ever.

Accusations are being made, but they are just that……accusations.

You cannot just seize/impound property without some legal basis…..and as of yet none has been forthcoming.

The ship is flagged to the Caymans. The owner, a corporation, with ties to Malta and Panama, likely has further layers of secret offshore trusts embedded in its ownership structure.

It is extremely hard to untangle the”spaghetti.”


Respectfully,
Playacaribe2

 

[MariaRubia]

Not to worry. If it is seized or impounded, you cannot “arrest” a ship, it will likely remain in port with its crew on board.

Costs will be borne by the owner…..but therein lies the rub. Who is the “real” owner? And that could take some time to determine, if ever.

Accusations are being made, but they are just that……accusations.

You cannot just seize/impound property without some legal basis…..and as of yet none has been forthcoming.

The ship is flagged to the Caymans. The owner, a corporation, with ties to Malta and Panama, likely has further layers of secret offshore trusts embedded in its ownership structure.

It is extremely hard to untangle the”spaghetti.”


Respectfully,
Playacaribe2

In the UK, they are preventing planes from taking off and yachts from sailing which they suspect belong to Russian oligarchs. I guess they have a certain amount of time to subsequently investigate and prove this. Surely similar measures will be in place in DR?

Also, I think you can arrest a ship. It happened recently with the Crystal cruise ships:

A cruise ship had an arrest warrant waiting in Miami. So it took passengers to the Bahamas

A cruise ship heading to Miami changed course to the Bahamas Saturday after a US judge issued an arrest warrant for the ship due to unpaid fuel bills.

edition.cnn.com

 

[playacaribe2]

In the UK, they are preventing planes from taking off and yachts from sailing which they suspect belong to Russian oligarchs. I guess they have a certain amount of time to subsequently investigate and prove this. Surely similar measures will be in place in DR?

Also, I think you can arrest a ship. It happened recently with the Crystal cruise ships:

A cruise ship had an arrest warrant waiting in Miami. So it took passengers to the Bahamas

A cruise ship heading to Miami changed course to the Bahamas Saturday after a US judge issued an arrest warrant for the ship due to unpaid fuel bills.

edition.cnn.com

Under UNCLOS, an arrest is not an arrest in the literal sense of the word. A seizure/impoundment yes.

UNCLOS is the maritime law ships operate under. Another botched use of a term by the media...........nothing new.


Respectfully,
Playacaribe2

 

[JD Jones]

Under UNCLOS, an arrest is not an arrest in the literal sense of the word. A seizure/impoundment yes.

UNCLOS is the maritime law ships operate under. Another botched use of a term by the media...........nothing new.


Respectfully,
Playacaribe2

I always get a kick out of speakers being arrested.

 

[AlaPlaya]

Under UNCLOS, an arrest is not an arrest in the literal sense of the word. A seizure/impoundment yes.

UNCLOS is the maritime law ships operate under. Another botched use of a term by the media...........nothing new.


Respectfully,
Playacaribe2

Under maritime law (or admiralty law if you're American), the term arrest is correct. Maritime law is jurisdictional to each nation and UNCLOS really doesn't do much except establish how far out a country's territorial waters go. It does not govern the process of arresting a vessel.

 

[playacaribe2]

Under maritime law (or admiralty law if you're American), the term arrest is correct. Maritime law is jurisdictional to each nation and UNCLOS really doesn't do much except establish how far out a country's territorial waters go. It does not govern the process of arresting a vessel.

The case referenced, unrelated to the Flying Fox, was jurisdictionally in Florida, US.

You cannot technically issue an arrest warrant for a thing.

As the article goes on to clarify;

"On Thursday, a US judge issued an arrest warrant ahead of the ship's scheduled Saturday arrival in Miami, meaning the ship would be seized by a US Marshal and court-appointed custodian." Again, seizure/impoundment yes.............technical arrest...no.

Hard to give required US Miranda warning rights to an object after an "arrest."


Respectfully,
Playacaribe2

 

[AlaPlaya]

The case referenced, unrelated to the Flying Fox, was jurisdictionally in Florida, US.

You cannot technically issue an arrest warrant for a thing.

As the article goes on to clarify;

"On Thursday, a US judge issued an arrest warrant ahead of the ship's scheduled Saturday arrival in Miami, meaning the ship would be seized by a US Marshal and court-appointed custodian." Again, seizure/impoundment yes.............technical arrest...no.

Hard to give required US Miranda warning rights to an object after an "arrest."


Respectfully,
Playacaribe2

Yes, technically you can arrest a vessel. That is what it is, and has been, for the past couple of hundred years.

The arrest warrant is issued, by a court, then depending on the jurisdiction, a lawyer or bailiff must climb aboard, and arrest the vessel to prevent it leaving the territorial waters of the country where it is under arrest. In some jurisdictions, a company can pay a bond to cover the claim against its vessel to have it released while the court case proceeds. Legally, it is probably the most fascinating area of maritime law, and that's not even getting to sister-ship arrests.

But I'm really not sure how your comment about Miranda rights has anything to do with the arrest of a vessel.

 

[playacaribe2]

Yes, technically you can arrest a vessel. That is what it is, and has been, for the past couple of hundred years.

The arrest warrant is issued, by a court, then depending on the jurisdiction, a lawyer or bailiff must climb aboard, and arrest the vessel to prevent it leaving the territorial waters of the country where it is under arrest. In some jurisdictions, a company can pay a bond to cover the claim against its vessel to have it released while the court case proceeds. Legally, it is probably the most fascinating area of maritime law, and that's not even getting to sister-ship arrests.

But I'm really not sure how your comment about Miranda rights has anything to do with the arrest of a vessel.

It stems from this post # 27 from above...............unrelated to Flying Fox;

A cruise ship had an arrest warrant waiting in Miami. So it took passengers to the Bahamas

A cruise ship heading to Miami changed course to the Bahamas Saturday after a US judge issued an arrest warrant for the ship due to unpaid fuel bills.

edition.cnn.com

We will agree to disagree on the correct use of the term.

The subject of the post "Flying Fox" is scheduled to depart soon.......................absent an "arrest" lol.

Respectfully,
Playacaribe2

 

[bob saunders]

Seizing the yachts and property of Russia's oligarchs is probably illegal

hotair.com

 

[AlterEgo]

 

[reilleyp]

I put $500 down on a 493 foot Super Mega Yacht, but I never picked it up for this exact reason. Nothing but legal hassles and problems.

 

[JD Jones]

I put $500 down on a 493 foot Super Mega Yacht, but I never picked it up for this exact reason. Nothing but legal hassles and problems.

You know what they say, "It's better to have a friend with a boat than own one."

 

[william webster]

The UK has seized a ship.... how, is anybody's guess

 

[Sailor51]

I disagree.
Any money made from this yatch should go to local causes within this country. The Ukrainian government is just as corrupt as the Dominican government and to anyone who disagrees, just wait until all of the foreign aid/ donations start pouring in to "rebuild" once the smoke clears. The Russians will be the ones who complete most of the reconstruction not the Ukrainians.

It's spelled yacht by the way, and they're making plenty on dockage fees.

 

[Sailor51]

US doesn't have the jurisdiction to do that; you can only arrest a vessel in your own territorial waters.

Not true, any vessel may be detained and searched if 'suspect'. Then escorted to safe port for further investigation.