Should Masters carry the risk of shadow-fleet trades planned ashore?
The shadow fleet is usually discussed through old tankers, weak flags, AIS gaps, doubtful insurance, opaque ownership and sanctions enforcement.
But there is another question for working seafarers.
When a questionable trade is arranged ashore, how much of that risk should fall on the Master and crew onboard? A Master should answer for what he actually does on the ship: navigation, records, AIS conduct, VDR preservation, lawful orders, safety and pollution prevention.
But should he also carry the burden of ownership structures, cargo sale chains, flag shopping, banking routes, sanctions screening and chartering decisions kept beyond his view?
[quote=“Raghu_Sharma, post:1, topic:76261”]
When a questionable trade is arranged ashore, how much of that risk should fall on the Master and crew onboard? A Master should answer for what he actually does on the ship: navigation, records, AIS conduct, VDR preservation, lawful orders, safety and pollution prevention."
If the Master knows, or thinks, it is a “questionable trade”, is it then a
lawful order for him to require the crew to complete the trade? How many legal trades are completed in port compared to illegal trades?
Maybe this would be the place for a “put it in writeing” request.
