Best Case Name Ever
Monday, March 17th by Robert LoblawAsset forfeitures are known as “in rem” actions, meaning that the government is proceeding against a thing, not the owner of the thing. So the “defendant” in an asset forfeiture action is the thing being forfeited. This legal conceit always results in interesting case names, such as “U.S. v. $29,568.23 in U.S. Currency” or, say, “U.S. v. 1981 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz.” But today’s Ninth Circuit decisions bring a case name that takes the crown.
This asset forfeiture involves the King Diamond II, a boat operating out of Hawaii. The Hong Kong company Tai Loong Hong Marine Products (TLH) chartered the King Diamond II to meet up with various fishing boats on the high seas to pick up shark fins and then deliver them to Guatemala. The problem for the King Diamond II and TLH is that it is illegal to harvest shark fins. Indeed, under the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000, any shark fins found aboard a fishing vessel without a corresponding shark carcass are presumed to be the result of illegal harvesting. So when law enforcement boarded the King Diamond II off the coast of Guatemala and found 64, 695 pounds of shark fins with no corresponding carcasses, they detained the boat and seized the fins.
Which brings us to the name of today’s Decision of the Day:
U.S. v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins, 05-56294 (9th Cir., March 17, 2008)
Even better: the Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins win. The Ninth finds that TLH did not have adequate notice that its conduct violated the Shark Finning Prohibition Act. Although the district court found that the ship had aided and abetted shark finning violations by storing and transporting the contraband, the Ninth Circuit disagrees. The panel focuses carefully on the language of the statute and the implementing regulations, and concludes that liability attaches only to fishing vessels. Because the King Diamond II cannot fairly be described as a fishing vessel, there is no basis for finding that it or its chartering company violated the law. Accordingly, the government is not entitled to forfeit the 64,695 pounds of shark fins.
One question remains: what is TLH going to do with 32 tons of shark fins that are five and a half years past their prime?
March 17th, 2008 at 11:14 am
That’s hilarious
March 17th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Too funny!
March 17th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
[…] Robert Loblaw at Decision of the Day blogged about it, and he thinks its the Best Case Name Ever. So there you go. Posted in Legal […]
March 17th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
[…] read this entry on the Decision of the Day blog. You’ll thank me […]
March 18th, 2008 at 3:55 am
[…] http://www.enotes.com/blogs/… Asset forfeitures are known as “in rem” actions, meaning that the government is proceeding against a thing, not the owner of the thing. So the “defendant” in an asset forfeiture action is the thing being forfeited. This legal conceit always results in interesting case names, such as “U.S. v. $29,568.23 in U.S. Currency” or, say, “U.S. v. 1981 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz.” But today’s Ninth Circuit decisions bring a case name that takes the crown.This asset forfeiture involves the King Diamond II, a boat operating out of Hawaii. The Hong Kong company Tai Loong Hong Marine Products (TLH) chartered the King Diamond II to meet up with various fishing boats on the high seas to pick up shark fins and then deliver them to Guatemala. The problem for the King Diamond II and TLH is that it is illegal to harvest shark fins. Indeed, under the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000, any shark fins found aboard a fishing vessel without a corresponding shark carcass are presumed to be the result of illegal harvesting. So when law enforcement boarded the King Diamond II off the coast of Guatemala and found 64, 695 pounds of shark fins with no corresponding carcasses, they detained the boat and seized the fins. […]
March 18th, 2008 at 11:38 am
[…] forfeiture involving 32 tons of shark fins. […]
March 20th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
This case isn’t amusing at all–it’s sick.
Wholesale slaughter of species isn’t funny.
I get that the judge made a technically sound decision, but the impact of this decision on sharks and other vulnerable wildlife will be horrible.
And yeah, I also get that you were trying to be clever about the fins “winning” this case, but no, the “fins” didn’t win.
The sharks lost, the American people lost, and the US Govt. and its enforcement agencies lost.
Industrial de-finners who are deliberately skirting US laws and are criminally indifferent to anything but profit were the winners.
This decision should be condemned for its uber-reliance on technicalities instead of relying on the intent and the spirit of the law, and really shouldn’t be commented upon as some sort of mild “word play” amusement.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:16 am
In other news:
Shark Population Collapse Causing Other Species to Vanish
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262486,00.html